The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis
Abstract
Design Space Analysis is an approach to representing design rationale. It uses a semiformal notation, called QOC (Questions, Options, and Criteria), to represent the design space around an artifact. The main constituents of QOC are Questions identifying key design issues, Options providing possible answers to the Questions, and Criteria for assessing and comparing the Options. Design Space Analysis also takes account of justifications for the design (and possible alternative designs) that reflect considerations such as consistency, models and analogies, and relevant data and theory. A Design Space Analysis does not produce a record of the design process but is instead a coproduct of design and has to be constructed alongside the artifact itself. Our work is motivated by the notion that a Design Space Analysis will repay the investment in its creation by supporting both the original process of design and subsequent work on redesign and reuse by (a) providing an explicit representation to aid reasoning about the design and about the consequences of changes to it and (b) serving as a vehicle for communication, for example, among members of the design team or among the original designers and later maintainers of a system. Our work to date emphasises the nature of the QOC representation over processes for creating it, so these claims serve as goals rather than objectives we have achieved. This article describes the elements of Design Space Analysis and illustrates them by reference to analyses of existing designs and to studies of the concepts and arguments used by designers during design discussions.
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.
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
The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement.
Fitts, P. M. (1954) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0055392 · Cited by 6,466
Triggers and barriers to customizing software
Mackay, W. E. (1991) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems Reaching through technology - CHI '91 · doi:10.1145/108844.108867 · Cited by 364
Cited by
(1993) · Cited by 9,879
Decision making in software architecture
van Vliet, H., & Tang, A. (2016) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2016.01.017 · Cited by 79
An argument for design space reflection
Dove, G., Hansen, N. B., & Halskov, K. (2016) · Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/2971485.2971528 · Cited by 46
Design space cards: using a card deck to navigate the design space of interactive play
Lomas, J. D., Karac, M., & Gielen, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3474654 · Cited by 20
Automatic enforcement of constraints in real-time collaborative architectural decision making
Gaubatz, P., Lytra, I., & Zdun, U. (2015) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2015.01.056 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- MacLean, A., Young, R., Bellotti, V., & Moran, T.
- Venue
- Human-Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1991-09-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 201-250
- ISSN
- 0737-0024 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2060903226
- Cited by
- 794
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 47.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15327051hci0603&4_2
- The paper
- MacLean, A., Young, R., Bellotti, V., & Moran, T. (1991). Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis. Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0603%264_2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.