Cited by 68Usability and User Interface DesignSpreadsheets and End-User ComputingPersonal Information Management and User Behavior

User customization of a word processor

Open access
Page, Stanley R., Johnsgard, Todd J., Albert, Uhl, Allen, C. Dennis·1996·Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems common ground - CHI '96

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to identify the customization changes users typically make to their word processor.Ninetytwo percent of the participants customized their software in some way.Participants who used the software most heavily also did the most customization (p < .05).Most of the customization was done to facilitate the participants' work practices.The most common changes involved providing easier access to custom or often-used functionality.Button Bars seemed to provide an easy and effective means for participants to customize access to the functionality they wanted.Few participants customized the visual appearance of the interface.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/238386.238541

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Page et al. used a very broad notion of customization; for example, changing the zoom setting in a dropdown button on the toolbar was considered a customization.

    “Closer examination of their work shows, however, that a very broad notion of customization was used; for example, changing the zoom setting in a dropdown button on the toolbar was considered a customization.”

    From A field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software (2007) · cites this paper as Page, Johnsgard, Albert, & Allen, 1996

  • 92% of participants in a large field study customized their word processor.

    “Page et al. found that 92% of participants in a large field study customized their word processor [Page, Johnsgard, Albert, & Allen, 1996].”

    From A field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software (2007) · cites this paper as Page, Johnsgard, Albert, & Allen, 1996

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Page, S. R., Johnsgard, T. J., Albert, U., & Allen, C. D.
Affiliations
  • Micro Focus (United States) (US)
  • Intel (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems common ground - CHI '96
Publisher
ACM Press
Published
1996
Pages
340-346
OpenAlex
W2066912131
Cited by
68
References
9
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.31
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 › Software › Spreadsheets and End-User Computing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
Keywords
software customization, word processing software, personalization, user interface design, work practices, usage frequency

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