Cited by 14Usability and User Interface DesignErgonomics and Human FactorsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Capturing the Context of Use to Inform System Design

Evenson, Shelley, Muller, Michael, Roth, Emilie M.·2008·Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making

Abstract

New system design often focuses on opportunities afforded by technology without careful analysis of the needs of the people and work involved. A strong consensus has been found across diverse design traditions regarding the need for in-depth analysis of the context of use to inform system design. Analysis of context of use encompasses identifying and characterizing the range of situations that can arise, the demands they impose, and the motivations and activities of the people involved. This paper presents three case studies in which context of use analysis was a key part of successful system design. The three case studies represent work-centered design, emerging from cognitive engineering and cognitive systems engineering; interaction design, emerging from industrial and communication design; and participatory design, emerging from the Scandinavian labor movement. The case studies highlight commonalities in experience and core tenets across traditions. They argue for the importance of incorporating context of use analyses as part of the systems engineering process and illustrate a variety of approaches for context of use analysis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1518/155534308x377072

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • The proposed solution, endorsed by the World Health Organization and International Standards Organization, is to use UCD, bringing the end user and content experts together with UX designers to co-design an mHealth app.

    “The proposed solution, endorsed by the World Health Organization, [22] and International Standards Organization [42], is to use UCD, bringing the end user and content experts together with UX designers to co-design an mHealth app [23,43,44].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Evenson, S., Muller, M., & Roth, E. M.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • IBM (United States) (US)
  • Roth Cognitive Engineering
Corresponding author
Roth, Emilie M.
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making
Published
2008-09
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
181-203
ISSN
1555-3434 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2007565561
Cited by
14
References
53
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 3
FWCI
2.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Ergonomics and Human Factors
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
system design, cognitive systems engineering, interaction design, participatory design, systems engineering process, human factors, design traditions, case studies

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