The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Triggers and barriers to customizing software
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Many users do not take advantage of customization features [Mackay, 1991], likely because of complexity inherent in customization.”
From A field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software (2007) · cites this paper as Mackay, 1991
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.”
From A field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software (2007) · cites this paper as Mackay, 1991
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
User-tailorable systems: pressing the issues with buttons
MacLean, A., Carter, K., Lövstrand, L., & Moran, T. (1990) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/97243.97271 · Cited by 401
Twinkling lights and nested loops: distributed problem solving and spreadsheet development
Nardi, B. A., & Miller, J. R. (1991) · International Journal of Man-Machine Studies · doi:10.1016/0020-7373(91)90040-e · Cited by 263
Patterns of sharing customizable software
Mackay, W. E. (1990) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/99332.99356 · Cited by 251
Self-citationResearch techniques in human engineering
Chapanis, A. (1959) · Cited by 138
Users and customizable software : a co-adaptive phenomenon
Mackay, W. E. (1990) · Cited by 133
Self-citationAn ethnographic study of distributed problem solving in spreadsheet development
Nardi, B. A., & Miller, J. R. (1990) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/99332.99355 · Cited by 118
Adaptability and Tailorability in NoteCards
Trigg, R. H., Moran, T. P., & Halasz, F. G. (1987) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-70304-0.50117-5 · Cited by 85
Project Athena as a Next Generation Educational Computing System
Champine, G. A., Lerman, S., & Saltzer, J. H. (1989) · Informatik-Fachberichte · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-75177-6_3 · Cited by 4
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Information revelation and privacy in online social networks
Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005) · Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society · doi:10.1145/1102199.1102214 · Cited by 2,028
Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis
MacLean, A., Young, R. M., Bellotti, V. M. E., & Moran, T. (1991) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0603&4_2 · Cited by 796
User Modeling in Human–Computer Interaction
Fischer, G. (2001) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1023/a:1011145532042 · Cited by 766
An architecture for privacy-sensitive ubiquitous computing
Hong, J., & Landay, J. A. (2004) · International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services · doi:10.1145/990064.990087 · Cited by 599
The Taste for Privacy: An Analysis of College Student Privacy Settings in an Online Social Network
Lewis, K., Kaufman, J. A., & Christakis, N. A. (2008) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01432.x · Cited by 628
Metadata
- Authors
- Mackay, W. E.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mackay, Wendy E.
- ORCID
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
