Evaluation of a Computerized Aid for Creating Human Behavioral Representations of Human-Computer Interaction

By Williams, Kent E.; Voigt, Jeffrey R. | Human Factors, Summer 2004 | Go to article overview

Evaluation of a Computerized Aid for Creating Human Behavioral Representations of Human-Computer Interaction


Williams, Kent E., Voigt, Jeffrey R., Human Factors


INTRODUCTION

In 1983, Card, Moran, and Newell developed the goals, operators, methods, and selection rules (GOMS) methodology for modeling human computer tasks. A GOMS model has four components: The goal is the state to be achieved, or end state. Goals may include subgoals. Operators are low-level actions, which make up tasks. Methods are a set or series of operators used to accomplish a specific goal. Selection rules are sets of discriminating conditions used to choose between different methods of achieving a particular goal. The GOMS methodology is essentially a process of hierarchical task decomposition in which all the operators needed to accomplish a goal are specified. These operators form a method. If more than one method of achieving the goal exists, then a selection rule is specified to determine the appropriate method, depending on the conditions of the environment at the time of task execution. These high-level operators are further decomposed as subgoals, which are then broken down into lower-level operators. When all operators have been broken down to their lowest level (e.g., they cannot be broken down any more), the process stops.

These lowest-level operators can be subsequently classified under three subsystems: the motor subsystem, the perceptual subsystem, and the cognitive subsystem. Although it is theoretically possible to model all human tasks employing these three subsystem operations, execution times for many motor tasks are not available; also, there are an infinite number of knowledge-level tasks and other creative cognitive operations related to performance for which a sequence of operations is unknown. For the case of human-computer tasks, however, empirical evidence exists regarding the time required to execute each of these primitive subsystem operators, making it possible to accurately predict the time it takes to execute any human-computer task once the sequence of operators has been defined.

Although the GOMS modeling technique has proven extremely successful in developing accurate cognitive task models, instruction and training in the details of applying this modeling technique are required. Instruction or training is typically provided in college-level courses in human-computer interaction or in CHI tutorials or workshops. Most expert operators of computer systems interfaces, however, lack the skill necessary to develop these GOMS and natural language GOMS (NGOMSL) models, as prescribed by Kieras (1997). Consequently, a research effort was conducted to build an automated tool to assist domain experts (unfamiliar with GOMS and NGOMSL analysis techniques) in developing cognitive models of human-computer interactions. Williams (2000) developed such an automated tool, the cognitive analysis tool for human-computer interaction (CAT-HCI). A number of tools have developed for eliciting and structuring knowledge within the framework of a GOMS analysis, such as GLEAN3 (Kieras, Wood, Abotel, & Hornof, 1995) and quick and dirty GOMS (QGOMS; Beard, Smith, & Denelsbeck, 1996). These tools, however, have not been evaluated with respect to the accuracy and consistency with which different individuals, skilled in a task domain but unskilled in GOMS analysis, can create such models.

One study (Baumeister, John, & Byrne, 2000) reported a comparison among QGOMS, CAT-HCI, and GLEAN5 relative to building GOMS models. These researchers, however, were skilled in this form of analysis and performed their evaluation primarily focusing on the usability of each tool. A comparison of accuracy was made among the three tools, an automatically generated model, and a hand-done (manual) version of a GOMS keystroke-level model (KLM) on the one task employed for the comparison. The comparisons of execution times among the models generated by the different tools were not validated by empirical observation. The same holds with the present research. The present work, however, builds on this earlier evaluation of tools by providing a more detailed investigation of one of the tools (CAT-HCI) evaluated by Baumeister et al. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Evaluation of a Computerized Aid for Creating Human Behavioral Representations of Human-Computer Interaction
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.