The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Are We All in the Same "Bloat"?
Open accessAbstract
Bloat", a term that has existed in the technical community for many years, has recently received attention in the popular press. The term has a negative connotation implying that human, or system performance is diminished in some way when "bloat" exists. Yet "bloat" is seldom clearly defined and is often a catch-all phrase to suggest that software is filled with unnecessary features. However, to date there are no studies that explore how users actually experience complex functionality-filled software applications and most importantly, the extent to which they experience them in similar/different ways. The significance of understanding users' experience is in the implications this understanding has for design. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, we carried out a study to gain a better understanding of the experiences of 53 members of the general population who use a popular word processor, Microsoft Word, Office 97. As a result we are able to further specify the term "bloat", distinguishing an objective and subjective dimension. It is the discovery of the subjective dimension that opens the design space and raises new challenges for interface designers. There is certainly more to "bloat" than meets the eye.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Most users only use a small fraction of the available functions.
“most users only use a small fraction of the available functions [8, 11]”
From A comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus (2004) · cites this paper as [11]
Personality differences with respect to feature-rich software were considered; 10 feature-keen and 10 feature-shy participants were included as assessed by an instrument developed by McGrenere and Moore.
“Personality differences with respect to feature-rich software were considered. We included 10 feature-keen participants and 10 feature-shy as assessed by an instrument developed by McGrenere and Moore [J. McGrenere & Moore, 2000].”
From A field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software (2007) · cites this paper as J. McGrenere & Moore, 2000
Users want the ability to discover new functions.
“Users want the ability to discover new functions.”
From A field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software (2007) · cites this paper as J. McGrenere & Moore, 2000
Users typically use very few features.
“Not only do users typically use very few features [Linton et al., 2000; J. McGrenere & Moore, 2000]”
From A field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software (2007) · cites this paper as J. McGrenere & Moore, 2000
The conceptual design was proposed by McGrenere and Moore based on a study of 53 members of the general population who used MSWord 97.
“The conceptual design was proposed by McGrenere and Moore [J. McGrenere & Moore, 2000] based on a study of 53 members of the general population who used MSWord 97.”
From A field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software (2007) · cites this paper as J. McGrenere & Moore, 2000
McGrenere and Moore found that while many users were having a negative experience with the feature-richness of the software, the majority of users would not choose a word processor that gave them only the functions that they are currently using.
“They found that while many users were having a negative experience with the feature-richness of the software, the majority of users would not choose a word processor that gave them only the functions that they are currently using.”
From A field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software (2007) · cites this paper as J. McGrenere & Moore, 2000
The existence of individual differences with respect to software features is an idea that has been proposed in the literature but has undergone minimal evaluation.
“The existence of individual differences with respect to software features is an idea that has been proposed in the literature [Kaufman & Weed, 1998; J. McGrenere & Moore, 2000] but has undergone minimal evaluation.”
From A field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software (2007) · cites this paper as J. McGrenere & Moore, 2000
Some feature-rich applications not only offer many options and features but also require high level of understanding and knowledge about computers and/or a specific domain.
“Some of these applications not only offer many options and features but also require high level of understanding and knowledge about computers and/or a specific domain [46].”
From Older Adults' Collaborative Learning Dynamics When Exploring Feature-Rich Software (2024) · cites this paper as [46]
Prior research has focused mostly on collaboration while learning IT/ICT applications and videogames.
“prior research has focused mostly on collaboration while learning IT/ICT applications and videogames [4,13,35,48,58,71]”
From Older Adults' Collaborative Learning Dynamics When Exploring Feature-Rich Software (2024) · cites this paper as [48]
Feature-rich software applications have interfaces with many options provided through deep menu structures and complex dialog boxes.
“Feature-rich software applications have interfaces with many options provided through deep menu structures and complex dialog boxes [46].”
From Older Adults' Collaborative Learning Dynamics When Exploring Feature-Rich Software (2024) · cites this paper as [46]
Prior research on improving software learning has not typically considered older adults as target users.
“There is much research on how to improve the software learning experience for users [8,10,29,42,46,68], but this prior work has not typically considered older adults as target users.”
From Older Adults' Collaborative Learning Dynamics When Exploring Feature-Rich Software (2024) · cites this paper as [46]
Studies on collaborative learning in IT/ICT and videogames reported positive outcomes.
“These studies reported positive outcomes of collaborative learning”
From Older Adults' Collaborative Learning Dynamics When Exploring Feature-Rich Software (2024) · cites this paper as [48]
Feature-rich software provides many options through complex structures and is typically associated with a difficult learning process.
“Feature-rich software provides many options through complex structures and is typically associated with a difficult learning process [42,46].”
From Older Adults' Collaborative Learning Dynamics When Exploring Feature-Rich Software (2024) · cites this paper as [46]
Citations
Cites
Blocking Learner Error States in a Training-Wheels System
Carroll, J. M., & Carrithers, C. (1984) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/001872088402600402 · Cited by 132
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus
Findlater, L., & McGrenere, J. (2004) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/985692.985704 · Cited by 316
Self-citationAn evaluation of a multiple interface design solution for bloated software
McGrenere, J., Baecker, R. M., & Booth, K. S. (2002) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/503376.503406 · Cited by 169
Self-citationA field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software
McGrenere, J., Baecker, R. M., & Booth, K. S. (2007) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/1229855.1229858 · Cited by 52
Self-citationMahmud, S., Alvina, J., Chilana, P. K., Bunt, A., & McGrenere, J. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376414 · Cited by 34
Self-citationInvestigating the feasibility of extracting tool demonstrations from in-situ video content
Lafreniere, B., Grossman, T., Matejka, J., & Fitzmaurice, G. (2014) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2556288.2557142 · Cited by 16
Older Adults' Collaborative Learning Dynamics When Exploring Feature-Rich Software
Baghestani, A., Latulipe, C., & Bunt, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637378 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- McGrenere, J., & Moore, G.
- ORCID
- McGrenere, Joanna
- Venue
- Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society
- Publisher
- Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society
- Published
- 2000
- Pages
- 187-196
- OpenAlex
- W1530786894
- Cited by
- 84
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 2.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Graphics Interface
- Proceedings
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
- Keywords
- software bloat, Microsoft Word, word processing software, user experience, software complexity, interface design
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
