Cited by 364Usability and User Interface DesignSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesOpen Source Software Innovations

Triggers and barriers to customizing software

Open access
Mackay, Wendy E.·1991·Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems Reaching through technology - CHI '91

Abstract

One of the properties of a user interface is that it both guides and constrains the patterns of interaction between the user and the software application.Application software is increasingly designed to be "customizable" by the end user, providing specific mechanisms by which users may specify individual preferences about the software and how they will interact with it over multiple sessions.Users may thus encode and preserve their preferred patterns of use.These customizations, together with choices about which applications to use, make up the unique "softswue environment" for each individual.While it is theoretically possible for each user to carefully evaluate and optimize each possible customization option, this study suggests that most people do not.In facfi since time spent customizing is time spent not working, many people do not take advantage of the customization features at all.I studied the customization behaviorof51 users of a Unix software environment, over a period of four months.This paper describes the process by which users decide to customize and examines the factors that irdluence when and how users make those decisions.These findings have implications for both the design of software and the integration of new software into an organization.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/108844.108867

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Users are reluctant to customize unless forced to do so.

    “the literature suggests that users are reluctant to customize unless forced to do so [9]”

    From A comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus (2004) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Abstract (page unavailable) says many people do not use customization features, supporting the reluctance described. But the Triggers and Barriers section lists voluntary reasons to customize, including curiosity and a desire to increase productivity, so the paper does not support the qualification that users customize only when forced. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous work had suggested that users do not customize because the mechanisms are difficult to use.

    “Previous work had suggested that users do not customize because the mechanisms are difficult to use [9].”

    From A comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus (2004) · cites this paper as [9]

    The ‘Triggers and Barriers to Customization’ section reports that lack of knowledge about how to make desired customizations was a barrier for 33% of participants. It does not say that difficult-to-use mechanisms were the reason users did not customize; lack of time was the most commonly cited barrier. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Many users do not take advantage of customization features, likely because of complexity inherent in customization.

    “Many users do not take advantage of customization features [Mackay, 1991], likely because of complexity inherent in customization.”
  • Unlike previous work by Mackay, which showed that users customize very little, the majority of our participants did personalize and they did so according to their function usage.

    “Unlike previous work by Mackay [Mackay, 1991], which showed that users customize very little, the majority of our participants did personalize and they did so according to their function usage.”
  • Actual customization is minimal because of time, difficulty, and lack of interest.

    “Mackay found that actual customization is minimal because of time, difficulty, and lack of interest [9].”

    From A comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus (2004) · cites this paper as [9]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 9 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mackay, W. E.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Mackay, Wendy E.
Venue
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems Reaching through technology - CHI '91
Publisher
ACM Press
Published
1991
Pages
153-160
OpenAlex
W1993302775
Cited by
364
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 24
FWCI
1.87
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
Keywords
software customization, user preferences, user interface design, user interaction patterns

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review