Cited by 82Usability and User Interface DesignData Visualization and AnalyticsVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

The Strategic Use of Complex Computer Systems

Bhavnani, Suresh K., John, Bonnie E.·2000·Human–Computer Interaction

Abstract

Several studies show that despite experience, many users with basic command knowledge do not progress to an efficient use of complex computer applications. These studies suggest that knowledge of tasks and knowledge of tools are insufficient to lead users to become efficient. To address this problem, we argue that users also need to learn strategies in the intermediate layers of knowledge lying between tasks and tools. These strategies are (a) efficient because they exploit specific powers of computers, (b) difficult to acquire because they are suggested by neither tasks nor tools, and (c) general in nature having wide applicability. The above characteristics are first demonstrated in the context of aggregation strategies that exploit the iterative power of computers. A cognitive analysis of a real-world task reveals that even though such aggregation strategies can have large effects on task time, errors, and on the quality of the final product, they are not often used by even experienced users. We identify other strategies beyond aggregation that can be efficient and useful across computer applications and show how they were used to develop a new approach to training with promising results. We conclude by suggesting that a systematic analysis of strategies in the intermediate layers of knowledge can lead not only to more effective ways to design training but also to more principled approaches to design systems. These advances should lead users to make more efficient use of c…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327051hci1523_3

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • In computer-aided design, long-term users often employ inefficient strategies for completing tasks.

    “field studies demonstrated that long-term users often employ inefficient strategies for completing tasks [Bhavnani and John 2000]”

    From Supporting Novice to Expert Transitions in User Interfaces (2015) · cites this paper as Bhavnani and John 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bhavnani, S. K., & John, B. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Human–Computer Interaction
Published
2000-09
Volume
15
Issue
2-3
Pages
107-137
ISSN
  • 0737-0024 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7051
OpenAlex
W1971690354
Cited by
82
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
  • Cumulative Index of Computer Aided Architectural Design (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
user strategies, aggregation methods, iterative computation, user training, training program design, user efficiency

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