HCI spans many disciplines and professions, including information science, applied psychology, computer science, informatics, software engineering and social science making it difficult for newcomers to get a good overview of the field and the available approaches.

The book’s rigorous ‘approach-and-framework’ response is to the challenge of retaining growth and diversification in HCI research by building up a general framework from approaches for Innovation, Art, Craft, Applied, Science and Engineering.

This general framework is compared with other HCI frameworks and theories for completeness and coherence, all within a historical perspective of dissemination success. Readers can use this as a model to design and assess their own research frameworks and theories against those reported in the literature.

He has served as manager at Shell Oil International in Africa and Vietnam and as senior scientist at the Medical Research Council Applied Psychology Unit (MRC/APU), Cambridge. His research includes three co-authored books, more than 200 publications, and numerous presentations, grants and consultancies.

He has received the Ergonomics Society (ES) Sir Frederick Bartlett medal, the International Ergonomics Association (IEA) Outstanding Educator’s Award, and recently received the Athena Swan Award, being identified as a hero of Computer Science by the University of York.

An avid cyclist, he has completed the Tour de France, Giro d’Italia and other major cycling tour routes elsewhere in Europe, Australia and Asia. He is also an expressive abstractionist painter. His ‘Framed Approaches’ from 1989 serves as the cover for this book. He is an unreconstructed existentialist.

‘In a dynamic field such as HCI / user experience studies, there is seldom time to stop and think about the wider research enterprise. John Long’s book will be an invaluable resource and stimulus to encourage researchers to think more deeply about what they are doing and how they are doing it.’

Philip Barnard, Honorary Member, MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge University

‘Written by one of the founders of British HCI, this book is a call to action for a more rigorous, unified and cumulative discipline. In doing this, John Long equips the next generation of HCI researchers with the conceptual tools they will need to ensure the future of the field is in good hands.’

Abigail Sellen, Microsoft Research

‘This insightful book presents a General Framework to discuss and assess specific HCI research frameworks. This unavoidable debate is necessary to enable the HCI research community to progress and develop into a mature discipline. This fundamental book is written in a very concise and fair manner. I strongly recommend reading this book and learning from one of the best.’

Matthias Rauterberg, Eindhoven University of Technology

4. Innovation Approach and Framework for HCI Research
5. Art Approach and Framework for HCI Research
6. Craft Approach and Framework for HCI Research
7. Applied Approach and Framework for HCI Research
8. Science Approach and Framework for HCI Research
9. Engineering Approach and Framework for HCI Research
10. General Approach and General Framework for HCI Research
11. Validating General Approach and General Framework for HCI Research
12. Assessing General Framework against Other HCI Frameworks
13. Assessing General Framework against HCI Theories
14. Methodological Component for General Framework
15. Case-studies for General Framework
16. Approaches and Frameworks for HCI Research – Lessons Learned and Lessons Remaining.

Chapter 2. Approaches to HCI Research

2.1 Approach

2.2 Approaches to HCI Research

2.3 Current Approaches to HCI Research

2.4 Research Practice Assignment

2.5 Chapter Endnotes

Chapter 3. Frameworks for HCI Research

3.1 Framework

3.2 Framework for HCI

3.3 Framework for a Discipline

3.4 Core Framework for a Discipline of HCI including HCI Research

3.5 Lower-Level Framework for a Discipline of HCI including HCI Research

3.6 HCI Discipline and HCI Research Illustration

3.7 Research Practice Assignment

3.8 Chapter Endnotes

Chapter 4. Innovation Approach and Framework for HCI Research

4.1 Innovation Approach to HCI Research

4.2 Example of an Innovation Approach to HCI Research

4.3 Innovation Framework for HCI Research

4.3.1 Core Framework for HCI including HCI Research

4.3.2 Specific Innovation Framework for HCI Research

4.3.3 Innovation Design Research Exemplar

4.3.4 Lower-Level Innovation Framework

4.3.4.1 Innovation Application

4.3.4.2 Innovation Interactive System

4.3.4.3 Innovation Interactive System Performance.

4.3.5 Example Application of an Innovation Framework to an Innovation Approach to HCI Research

4.4 Research Practice Assignment

4.4.1 General

4.4.2 Research Design Scenarios

 Chapter 5. Art Approach and Framework for HCI Research

5.1 Art Approach to HCI Research

5.2 Example of an Art Approach to HCI Research

5.3 Art Framework for HCI Research

5.3.1 Core Framework for HCI including HCI Research

5.3.2 Specific Art Framework for HCI Research

5.3.3 Art Design Research Exemplar

5.3.4 Lower-Level Art Framework

5.3.4.1 Art Application

5.3.4.2 Art Interactive System

5.3.4.3 Art Interactive System Performance.

5.3.5 Example Application of an Art Framework to an Art Approach to HCI Research

5.4 Research Practice Assignment

5.4.1 General

5.4.2 Research Design Scenarios

 Chapter 6. Craft Approach and Framework for HCI Research

6.1 Craft Approach to HCI Research

6.2 Example of a Craft Approach to HCI Research

6.3 Craft Framework for HCI Research

6.3.1 Core Framework for HCI including HCI Research

6.3.2 Specific Craft Framework for HCI Research

6.3.3 Craft Design Research Exemplar

6.3.4 Lower-Level Craft Framework

6.3.4.1 Craft Application

6.3.4.2 Craft Interactive System

6.3.4.3 Craft Interactive System Performance.

6.3.5 Example Application of a Craft Framework to a Craft Approach to HCI Research

6.4 Research Practice Assignment

6.4.1 General

6.4.2 Research Design Scenarios

 Chapter 7. Applied Approach and Framework for HCI Research

7.1 Applied Approach to HCI Research

7.2 Example of an Applied Approach to HCI Research

7.3 Applied Framework for HCI Research

7.3.1 Core Framework for HCI including HCI Research

7.3.2 Specific Applied Framework for HCI Research

7.3.3 Applied Framework Design Research Exemplar

7.3.4 Lower-Level Applied Framework

7.3.4.1 Applied Application

7.3.4.2 Applied Interactive System

7.3.4.3 Applied Interactive System Performance.

7.3.5 Example Application of an Applied Framework to an Applied Approach to HCI Research

7.4 Research Practice Assignment

7.4.1 General

7.4.2 Research Design Scenarios

Chapter 8. Science Approach and Framework for HCI Research

8.1 Science Approach to HCI Research

8.2 Example of a Science Approach to HCI Research

8.3 Science Framework for HCI Research

8.3.1 Core Framework for HCI including HCI Research

8.3.2 Specific Science Framework for HCI Research

8.3.3 Science Framework Design Research Exemplar

8.3.4 Lower-Level Science Framework

8.3.4.1 Science Application

8.3.4.2 Science Interactive System

8.3.4.3 Science Interactive System Performance.

8.3.5 Example Application of a Science Framework to a Science Approach to HCI Research

8.4 Research Practice Assignment

8.4.1 General

8.4.2 Research Design Scenarios

Chapter 9. Engineering Approach and Framework for HCI Research

9.1 Engineering Approach to HCI Research

9.2 Example of an Engineering Approach to HCI Research

9.3 Engineering Framework for HCI Research

9.3.1 Core Framework for HCI including HCI Research

9.3.2 Specific Engineering Framework for HCI Research

9.3.3 Engineering Framework Design Research Exemplar

9.3.4 Lower-Level Engineering Framework

9.3.4.1 Engineering Application

9.3.4.2 Engineering Interactive System

9.3.4.3 Engineering Interactive System Performance.

9.3.5 Example Application of an Engineering Framework to an Engineering Approach to HCI Research

9.4 Research Practice Assignment

9.4.1 General

9.4.2 Research Design Scenarios

 Chapter 10. General Approach and General Framework for HCI Research

10.1 General Approach to HCI Research

10.2 General Framework for HCI Research

10.2.1 Core Framework for HCI including HCI Research

10.2.2 General Framework for HCI Research

10.2.3 General Framework Design Research Exemplar for HCI Research

10.2.4 Lower-Level General Framework for HCI Research

10.2.4.1 Application

10.2.4.2 Interactive System

10.2.4.3 Interactive System Performance.

10.3 Generic Framework Critiques

10.4 Research Practice Assignment

10.4.1 General

10.4.2 Research Design Scenario

10.5 Chapter Endnotes

 Chapter 11. Validating General Approach and General Framework for HCI Research

11.1 Validation

11.2 Validation of HCI Knowledge Acquired by HCI Research

11.3 Validation of HCI Knowledge Acquired by HCI Research Approaches

11.4 Validation of HCI Knowledge Supported by General Framework for HCI Research

11.5 Research Practice Assignment

11.5.1 General

11.5.2 Research Design Scenarios

11.6 Chapter Endnotes

 Chapter 12. Assessing General Framework against Other HCI Frameworks

12.1 General

12.2 General Framework Assessment

12.3 Assessment of General Framework for HCI Research against other Frameworks

12.3.1 Morton, Barnard, Hammond and Long (1979) Interacting with the Computer: a Framework.

12.3.2 Card, Moran and Newell (1983) The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction.

12.3.3 Shneiderman (1983) Direct Manipulation: a Step beyond Programming Languages.

12.3.4 Long (1987) Cognitive Ergonomics and Human-Computer Interaction

12.3.5 Long and Dowell (1989) Conceptions for the Discipline of HCI: Craft, Applied Science, and Engineering.

Dowell and Long (1989) Towards a Conception for an Engineering Discipline of Human Factors.

12.3.6 Barnard (1991) Bridging between Basic Theories and the Artefacts of Human-Computer Interaction.

12.3.7 Kuutti (1996) Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research.

12.3.8 Olson and Olson (2000) Distance Matters.

12.3.9 Rauterberg (2006) HCI as an Engineering Discipline: To Be or not To Be?

12.3.10 Carroll, Kellogg and Rosson (1991) The Task-Artefact Cycle.

Carroll (2010) Conceptualising a Possible Discipline of Human-Computer Interaction.

12.4 Dissemination of HCI Frameworks for Research

12.4.1 Dissemination General

12.4.2 Dissemination of HCI Frameworks for Research

12.4.3 Dissemination Success

12.4.4 Factors Contributing to the Dissemination Success of Individual HCI Frameworks for Research

12.4.4.1 Well-Disseminated HCI Frameworks for Research

12.4.4.2 Less Well-Disseminated HCI Frameworks for Research

12.4.5 Dissemination Success and the General Framework

12.5 Summary and Conclusions

12.6 Research Practice Assignment

12.6.1 General

12.6.2 Research Design Scenarios

12.7 Chapter Endnotes

Chapter 13. Assessing General Framework against HCI Theories

13.1 General

13.2 General Framework Assessment

13.3 Assessment of General Framework for HCI Research against HCI Theories

13.3.1 Extended Cognitive Theories

13.3.1.1 External Cognition Theory

13.3.1.2 Distributed Cognition Theory

13.3.1.3 Ecological Cognition Theory

13.3.2 Social Theories

13.3.2.1 Situated Action Theory

13.3.2.2 CSCW Theory

13.3.3 Miscellaneous Theories

13.3.3.1 Ethnography Theory

13.3.3.2 Grounded Theory

13.3.3.3 Design Theory

13.3.3.4 Human Values Theory

13.3.3.5 Technology as Experience Theory

13.3.3.6 Critical Theory

13.3.3.7 In-the-Wild Theory

13.4 Summary and Conclusions

13.5 Research Practice Assignment

13.5.1 General

13.5.2 Research Design Scenarios

13.6 Chapter Endnotes

 Chapter 14. Methodological Component for General Framework

14.1 Methodological Framework Requirement

14.2 Meeting Methodological Framework Requirement

14.2.1 User-Centred Design Methods

14.2.2 Structured Analysis and Design Methods

14.2.3 Research Structured Analysis and Design Methods

14.3 Research Practice Assignment

14.3.1 General

14.3.2 Research Design Scenarios

14.4 Chapter Endnotes

 Chapter 15. Case-studies for General Framework

15.1 Case-study Requirement

15.2 Meeting Case-study Requirement

15.2.1 Acquisition Case-studies

15.2.1.1 Framework Acquisition Case-studies

15.2.1.2 Knowledge Acquisition Case-studies

15.2.2 Validation Case-studies

15.2.2.1 Framework Validation Case-studies

15.2.2.2 Knowledge Validation Case-studies

15.3 Research Practice Assignment

15.3.1 General

15.3.2 Research Design Scenario

15.4 Chapter Endnotes

 Chapter 16. Approaches and Frameworks for HCI Research – Lessons Learned and Remaining

16.1 Lessons Learned and Lessons Remaining

16.2 Approaches and Frameworks for HCI Research

16.3 Approaches to HCI Research

16.4 Frameworks for HCI Research

16.5 Specific Frameworks for HCI Research

16.6 General Approach and General Framework for HCI Research

16.7 Validating General Approach and General Framework for HCI Research

16.8 Assessing General Framework against Other HCI Frameworks

16.9 Assessing General Framework against HCI Theories

16.10 Methodological Component for General Framework

16.11 Case-studies for General Framework

16.12 Conclusion

16.13 Research Practice Assignment

16.14 Chapter Endnotes

1.1 Why HCI?

HCI, as a description of the field of human-computer interaction, is more established and general than alternative descriptors. For this reason, it is retained here. HCI continues to be in a permanent state of change. As a result, no description of the field is excluded. HCI is interpreted inclusively and is considered to comprise – ease of use/usability, applied psychology, engineering, human-centred design, cognitive engineering, interaction design, user experience (UX) design, technocratic art, graphic design, digital interaction, along with others. [1]

Given the growth and diversity of new computing technology, however, HCI is understood as human-computing technology interaction, rather than just human-computer interaction. The latter term is more associated with personal computing. The term HCI, however, has been retained, as having greater currency in the HCI research literature at this time. This is in contrast to others, such as UX design and digital interaction design, morefavoured by the practitioner community.

1.2 State of HCI

Since its inception in the late ’70s, HCI has grown and diversified extensively and continues to do so. This growth and diversification constitutes a challenge for HCI research. A roughly historical perspective suggests the following development of human, interaction and computing technology scopes. The human scope has increased to include – more abilities, ages, social classes, communities, societies and cross national communication groups. The interaction scope has increased to include – keying, pointing/clicking, drawing, speaking, touching, gesturing, smelling, electro-mediated communicating, tasting, whole body moving and electrode-conducted thinking. The computing technology scope has increased to include – portability, distributed social media communicability, artificial intelligence, autonomous devices, implantability, inter-connectivity, robots, wearability, mobile and ubiquitous digital technology. Together they constitute the increase in the scope and diversification of HCI and the challenge for HCI research. [2]

1.3 State of HCI Research

It is assumed here, that HCI research of whatever kind acquires and validates HCI knowledge as designknowledge. Or at least as knowledge, associated with, derived from or potentially applicable to design. Different assumptions would require different proposals to those made here. Some alternative and additional assumptions, however, are reflected in the differences between the specific frameworks proposed (see 4-9.3). However, while retaining these differences, the specific frameworks are all based on a common core framework. In this way, the general overall assumption is made compatible with different underlying assumptions. This compatibility is essential for researchers to build on and to validate each other’s work. Such compatibility is almost entirely absent from current HCI research. It has been absent historically from its beginning. This is the case both for its frameworks (see 12.3) and for its theories (see 13.3).

HCI research has responded to the increase in the scope and diversification of HCI with growth and diversification of its own. Following the HCI literature, the latter can be considered to take two forms – fields and theories. This increase in growth and diversification of HCI research constitutes an on-going challenge.

First, is the growth and diversification of the fields of HCI. For example, Rogers (2012) distinguishes – 7 academic disciplines, 5 design practices and 7 interdisciplinary overlapping fields. This constitutes 19 fields of HCI in all.

Second, is the growth and diversification of types of HCI theory. For example, Rogers (2012) distinguishes – 3 classical, 9 modern and 5 contemporary types of theory. This constitutes 17 types of HCI theory in all. [3]

1.4 Challenges for HCI Research

The growth and diversification of HCI research has led, in the absence of consensus among researchers about both, to two outcomes. First, to a failure to build on and to validate each other’s work. Second, to a fragmentation of both HCI fields and theories. The challenge for HCI research, then, is to address the growth and diversification of HCI and of the associated research, while decreasing the fragmentation of fields and theories. The latter requires researchers to build on and to validate each other’s work and so to increase consensus. The result would be to increase HCI discipline progress.

A number of authors, while celebrating the growth and diversification of HCI and its community, have analysed and documented the lack of HCI discipline progress (Long and Dowell, 1989; Newman, 1994; Rogers, 2012). For example, Newman claims that only 30 percent of HCI research reports enhancements in modelling techniques, solutions, and design tools. This is against 90 percent for the discipline of engineering more generally. The remainder of HCI research describes radical solutions, not derived from incremental solutions of the same problem. Also included are experience and/or heuristics, gained from studies of radical solutions. Radical solutions and experience and/or heuristics characterise the ‘design-an-application-for-a-good-user-experience’ line of HCI design practice research, identified earlier. Analysis of more recent research, reported in the literature or presented at conferences, such as CHI (Computer-Human Interaction), indicate the situation as being unchanged, since Newman’s findings. If anything, the percentage of radical solutions and experience and/or heuristics continues to increase (Dix, 2010; Long, 2010).

1.5 Aims of Research Textbook

The aim of the research textbook is to propose a way of meeting the challenge to HCI research, outlined in theprevious section. The proposal consists of identifying and grouping common approaches to HCI research, reported in the literature. On the basis of an existing HCI conception, a core framework for HCI, including HCI research, is proposed. The latter is particularised to create a specific framework for HCI research for each approach identified. The specific frameworks are then generalised to create a General Framework for HCI research. The latter is assessed against other HCI frameworks and HCI theories.

The book illustrates and then shows researchers in some detail how their own approaches may be identified andnew approaches created. The application of the frameworks to the approaches is intended to support the explicit specification of both. This application, in turn, better supports researchers building on and validating each other’s work. The aim is to increase discipline progress, as required by Newman (1995) – see earlier. Progress here includes the acquisition of HCI discipline knowledge and the practices, which it supports. Also included is the validation of both by research. Following Kuhn (1970), discipline progress is to be contrasted with community progress. The latter refers to the cultural/social activities of the researchers, such as attending workshops and conferences, informal communications and the formation of interest groups in the manner of the CHI and other conferences.

1.6 HCI Research Approaches and Frameworks

Here, approaches and frameworks are defined as having the same scope – that of HCI research. However,frameworks are more rigorously specified. They are more complete, coherent and fit-for-purpose with respect to HCI research, than approaches. Included here are HCI research approaches, classified as – innovation, art, craft, applied, science and engineering. Each type of approach has an associated HCI research framework (see 4-9.3). Other types of HCI approach and framework could be created as required. The creation would follow the same process proposed here, as supported by the textbook’s research practice assignments, presented at the end of each chapter (see 15.3).

The frameworks, to be applied to the approaches, have a common basis in a conception for HCI, originally proposed respectively for the HCI discipline (Long and Dowell, 1989) and for the HCI design problem (Dowell and Long, 1989). Detailed reference to, and the importance of the relations between, this conception and the General Framework, proposed here are made throughout the book.

Conclusion

The chapter introduces HCI and HCI research in general. It describes both their current states and challenges, asthey relate to the textbook and its aims. The concepts of approach and framework are outlined, together with their relations. The outline provides the necessary basis for the separate and respective address of approaches and frameworks in the following two chapters.

1.7 Research Practice Assignment

– Describe in writing the state of your research in terms of the state of HCI research, as presented in 1.3. If you have no research of your own at this time, select a suitable publication from the HCI literature.

– List the challenges to your (or other’s) research. How do they compare with the challenges, presented in 1.4?

– Evaluate how well your (or other’s) research meets your research challenges and those presented in 1.4?

– Identify what changes to your (or other’s) research might better meet your research challenges.

-Do you think the concept of challenge is useful in this assignment? If so, give your reasons. If not, suggest andjustify an alternative concept motivating your (or other’s) research.

Hints and Tips

Difficult to get started?

– Try reading the chapter again, while at the same time thinking about how to describe your own research. Note similarities and differences between the two lines of thought, as you go along.

– Describe your research in its own terms, before attempting to apply those of 1.3.

Difficult to complete?

– Familiarise yourself with the major challenges to HCI research, identified in the HCI research literature, before attempting to address those in 1.4.

– Consider pseudonyms of challenge, before considering its utility and suggesting alternatives.

Test [4]

– List the titles of 1.1 to 1.4 explicitly, for example, in writing. Complete the sections very briefly from memory and in your own words.

– Propose a new and improved set of titles for 1.1 to 1.4.

– Complete the new 1.1 to 1.4 in your own words.

– Read and reflect on the chapter endnotes (see 1.8). Express your agreement/disagreement with them.

– Suggest improvements to the chapter endnotes with which you disagree.

1.8 Chapter Endnotes [5] [1] Extended descriptions of these changes in information technology, constituting the growth and diversity of new computing technology, can be found in Harper, Rodden, Rogers and Sellen (2008). As stated, the chapter introduces HCI and HCI research in general. It describes their current states and challenges within a roughly historical perspective, as they relate to the textbook and its aims. Other general descriptors of the field include – cognitive ergonomics, software engineering and interface design. Other domain specific descriptors include – architectural informatics, medical applications, digital archives and library information technology. Cockton (2014) is a useful additional source for information on this point together with Rogers (2012).

[2] A more complete description of the scope and diversification of the state of HCI can be found in Harper et al. (2008) and Rogers, Sharp, and Preece (2011).

[3] Following Rogers (2012), these 19 fields comprise – Academic Disciplines – ergonomics, psychology/cognitive science, design, informatics, engineering, computer science/ software engineering and social sciences.

– Design Practices – graphic design, product design, artist design, industrial design and film industry.

– Interdisciplinary Overlapping Fields – ubiquitous computing, human factors, cognitive engineering, human-computer interaction, cognitive ergonomics, computer-supported co-operative work and information systems.

[4] The Test encourages researchers to commit the approaches and frameworks to memory. Such internalisation facilitates their subsequent application.

[5] Endnotes are preferred to footnotes, so as not to distract researchers trying to apply an approach or aframework. Also, to understand a particular piece of text. Chapter endnotes are preferred to book endnotes. The former are quicker to consult for researchers seeking to apply the approaches and frameworks presented.

Bacon, C. and Fitzgerald, B. (2001) A Systematic Framework for the Field of Information Systems. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 32, (2): 46- 67.

Balaam, M., Comber, R., Jenkins, E., Sutton, S. and Garbett, A. (2015) FeedFinder: a Location-Mapping Mobile Application for Breastfeeding Women. In Proceedings CHI ’15, 33^rd Annual ACM, 1709-1718. Republic of Korea: ACM.

Bannon, L. and Bødker, S. (1991) Encountering Artefacts in Use. In Carroll, J. (Ed) Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface, 27: 253. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Bardzell, J. (2009) Interaction Criticism and Aesthetics. Proc. CHI’09, ACM, 2357–2366. 

Bardzell, J., Bolter, J. and Lowgren, J. (2010) Interaction Criticism: Three Readings of an Interaction Design and What They Get Us. Interactions, 14. 

Barnard, P. (1991) Bridging between Basic Theories and the Artifacts of Human-Computer Interaction in Designing Interaction, Carroll, J. (Ed). UK: Cambridge University Press.

Barnard, P. and May, J. (1999) Representing Cognitive Activity in Complex Tasks. Human-Computer Interaction, 14: 93–158. 

Barnard, P., Hammond, N., Morton, J., Long, J. and Clark, I.A.  (1981) Consistency and Compatibility in Human-Computer Dialogue.  International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 15: 87-134.

Barnard, P., May, D., Duke, D. and Duce, D. (2000) Systems, Interactions and Macrotheory. ACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 7, (2): 222-262.

Bentley, R., Hughes J., Randall, D., Rodden, T., Sawyer, P., Sommerville, I. and Shapiro, D. (1992) Ethnographically-informed Systems Design for Air Traffic Control. Proc. of CSCW ’92, ACM, 123–129. 

Blandford, A. (2013) Engineering Works: What is (and is not) ‘Engineering’ for Interactive Computer Systems. In EICS 2013 – Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems.

Brewster, S., Cawsey, A. and Cockton, G. (Eds) Proceedings INTERACT 99 (2), 25-26, Edinburgh, UK. Swindon. UK: British Computer Society.

Browne, D. (1994) STUDIO: STructured User-interface Design for Interaction Optimisation.  International: Prentice Hall. 

Buckingham Shum S. and Hammond, N. (1994) Delivering HCI Modelling to Designers: A Framework and Case Study of Cognitive Modelling. Interacting with Computers, 6 (3): 311-341.

Buckley, P. (1989) Expressing Research Findings to Have a Practical Influence on Design. In Long, J. and Whitefield, A.  (Eds) Cognitive Ergonomics and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Card, S., Moran, T. and Newell, A. (1983) The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

Carroll, J. (1995) Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development. USA: Wiley.

Carroll, J. (2003) Introduction: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science of Human-Computer Interaction. In Carroll, J. (Ed) HCI Models, Theories and Frameworks. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Carroll, J. (2010) Conceptualizing a Possible Discipline of Human-Computer Interaction. Interacting with Computers, 22 (1): 3-12.

Carroll, J., Kellog, W. and Rosson, M. (1991) The Task-Artifact Cycle in Designing Interaction. In Designing Interaction Carroll, J. (Ed) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cockton, G. (2006) Designing Worth is Worth Designing. Proc. NORDCHI, ACM, 165–174. 

Cockton, G. (2014) A Critical, Creative UX Community: CRUF. Journal of Usability Studies, 10 (1): 1-16.

Cummaford, S. (2000) Validating Effective Design Knowledge for Re-use: HCI Engineering Design Principles. In CHI ’00 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems.  New York, NY: ACM Press.

Cummaford, S. and Long, J. (1998) Towards a Conception of HCI Engineering Design Principles. In Proceedings of Ninth European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE9), Limerick, Ireland.

 Cummaford, S, and Long, J. (1999) Costs Matrix: Systematic Comparisons of Competing Design Solutions. In Proc. INTERACT 99, Volume II, Edinburgh UK, 30 Aug-3 Sept 1999. Brewster, S., Cawsey, A. and Cockton, G. (Eds) Vol. II, 25-26.  Swindon, UK: British Computer Society.

Debenard, S. and Crevits, I. (2000) Projet Amanda – Note Intermediaire, 1.2 CENA/N12v1/. 

Denley, I. and Long, J. (2001) Multi-Disciplinary Practice in Requirements Engineering: Problems and Criteria for Support. In Blandford, A., Vanderdonkt, J. and Gray, P. (Eds) People and Computers XV – Interaction without Frontiers. Joint proceedings of HCI 2001 and IHM 2001. London: Springer Verlag.

De Souza, C., Barbosa, S. and Prates, R. (2001) A Semiotic Engineering Approach to HCI, in Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 01: 55-56 ACM Press. 

Dinu, V. and Nadkarni, P. (2007) Guidelines for the Effective Use of Entity-Attribute-Value Modeling for Biomedical Databases. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76(11–12): 769–779.

Dix, A. (2010) Human-Computer Interactions: a Stable Discipline, a Nascent Science and the Growth of the Long Tail. Interacting with Computers, 22(1): 13-27.

Dowell, J. (1998) Formulating the Cognitive Design Problem of Air Traffic Management. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 49 (5): 743-766.

Dowell J. and Long J. (1989) Towards a Conception for an Engineering Discipline of Human Factors. Ergonomics, 32 (11): 1513-1535.

Dowell, J. and Long, J. (1998) Target Paper: Conception of the Cognitive Engineering Design Problem. Ergonomics, 41, (2): 126-139. 

Edmonds, E. (2018) The Art of Interaction: What HCI Can Learn from Interactive Art. UK: Morgan & Claypool.

Engestrøm, Y. (1990) Learning, Working and Imagining: Twelve Studies in Activity Theory. Helsinki : Orienta- Konsulti. 

Gibson, J.J. (1966) The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. 

Gibson, J. (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. 

Gilligan, P. and Long, J. (1984) Videotex Technology: an Overview with Special Reference to Transaction Processing as an Interactive Service.  Behaviour and Information Technology, 3: 41-71.

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) Discovery of Grounded Theory. London: Aldine. 

Gonzalez, V. (2006) The Nature of Managing Multiple Activities in the Workplace. Doctoral Dissertation in Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine.

Gregoriades, A. and Sutcliffe, A. (2005) Scenario-based Assessments of Nonfunctional Requirements, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(5): 392-409. 

Harper, R., Rodden, T., Rogers, Y. and Sellen, A. (2008) Being Human – Human-computer Interaction in the Year 2020. Cambridge, UK: Microsoft Research Ltd.

Harris, J. and Henderson, A. (1999) A Better Mythology for System Design. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 99, ACM Press, 88-95. 

Heath, C. and Luff, P. (1991) Collaborative Activity and Technological Design: Task Coordination in London Underground Control Rooms. In Proc. of the Second European Conference on Computer- Supported Cooperative Work, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 65–80. 

Hill, B. (2010) Diagnosing Co-ordination Problems in the Emergency Management Response to Disasters. Interacting with Computers, 22(1): 43-55.

Hill, B. and Long, J. (1996) A Preliminary Model of the Planning and Control of the Combined Response to Disaster. In Proceedings of ECCE 8, Granada, Spain, 57-62.

Hill, B., Long, J., Smith, W. and Whitefield, A. (1993) Planning for Multiple Task Work – an Analysis of a Medical Reception Worksystem. In Proceedings of INTERCHI’93, Amsterdam. 

Hill, B., Long, J., Smith, W. and Whitefield, A. (1995) A Model of Medical Reception – The Planning and Control of Multiple Task Work. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9 (S1): S81-S114.

Hutchins, E. (1995) Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

John, B. and Gray, W. (1995) CPM-GOMS: an Analysis Method for Tasks with Parallel Activities. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI’95, ACM.

Kirsh, D. (2001) The Context of Work. HCI 6(2): 306–322. 

Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuutti, K. (1996) Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research. In Nardi, B. (Ed) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, 17-44. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Lambie, T. and Long, J. (2002) Engineering CSCW. In Blay-Fonarino, M., Pinna-Derry, A., Schmidt, K. and Zarate, P. (Eds), Co-operative Systems Design: a Challenge of the Mobility Age. Amsterdam, Berlin, Oxford, Tokyo, Washington: IOS Press.

Larkin, J. and Simon, H. (1987) Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words. Cognitive Science 11: 65–99. 

Leontiev, A. (1978) Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Leontiev, A.N. (1989) The Problem of Activity in the History of Soviet Psychology. Soviet Psychology 27(1): 22–39. 

Life, A. (2018) User Centred Design. UK: CIEHF.

Lim K. and Long, J. (1994) The MUSE Method for Usability Engineering. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Long, J. (1987) Cognitive Ergonomics and Human Computer Interaction.  In Psychology at Work, Warr, P. (Ed).  England: Penguin.

Long, J. (1989) Cognitive Ergonomics and Human-Computer Interaction: an Introduction.  In Cognitive Ergonomics and Human-Computer Interaction, Long, J. and Whitefield, A. (Eds)  Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Long, J. (1997) Research and the Design of Human-Computer Interactions or ‘What Happened to Validation?’  In Proceedings of HCI’97, Bristol, 223-243.

Long, J. (2002) HCI is more than the Usability of WEB Pages: a Domain Approach. In Amadeo, G. (Ed)

Proceedings of Third USIHC/Fourth Ergodesign Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Long, J. (2010) Some Celebratory Reflections on a Celebratory HCI Festschrift, Interacting with Computers, 22 (1): 68-71.

Long, J. and Brostoff, S. (2002) Validating Design Knowledge in the Home: a Successful Case-study of Dementia Care. In Reed, D., Baxter, G. and Blythe, M. (Eds) EACE ’12. France: European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics.

Long, J. and Buckley, P. (1984) Transaction Processing using Videotex or: Shopping on PRESTEL.  In Proceedings of Interact ’84: First IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Shackel B. (Ed)  London: IEE.

Long, J. and Dowell, J. (1989) Conceptions of the Discipline of HCI: Craft, Applied Science and Engineering. In Sutcliffe, A. and Macaulay, L. (Eds), People and Computers V. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Long, J. and Hill, B. (2005) Validating Diagnostic Design Knowledge for Air Traffic Management: a Case-study. In Marmaras, N., Kontogiannis, T. and Nathanael, D. (Eds) EACE ’05. Greece: European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics.

Long, J. and Monk, A. Applying an Engineering Framework to Telemedical Research: a Successful

Case-study. In Khalid, H. and Helander, M. (Eds) Proceedings of 7th  International

Conference on Working with Computers, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Long, J. and Monk, A. (2002) Applying a Cognitive Engineering Framework to Research: a Successful Case-Study? In McCabe, P. (Ed) Contemporary Ergonomics. London: Taylor and Francis. 

Long, J. and Stork, A. (1994) A Specific Planning and Control Design Problem in the Home: Rationale and a Case Study.  In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Home-Oriented Informatics, Telematics and Automation, Amager, Denmark.

Long, J. and Timmer, P.  (2000) Design Problems for Research: What We Can Learn from ATM-like Micro-worlds. In Proceedings of Travail Humain Workshop, Bretigny, France.

Long, J. and Timmer, P. (2001) Design Problems for Cognitive Ergonomics Research: What We can Learn from ATM-like Microworlds.Le Travail Humain, 64 (3): 197-222.

Long, J. and Whitefield, A. (1989) (Eds) Cognitive Ergonomics and Human-Computer Interaction.  Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Long, J., Hammond, N., Barnard, P., Morton, J. and Clark, I. (1980) New Technology in the Work-place: a Method for Identifying underlying Variables.  In Proceedings of Symposium on Analysis and Health Evaluation of the Workplace, Portoroz, Yugoslavia.

Long, J., Hammond, N., Barnard, P., Morton J. and Clark, I. (1982) Introducing the Interactive Computer at Work: the User’s Views.  Behaviour and Information Technology, 2: 39-106.

Lowgren. J. and Stolterman, E. (2004) Thoughtful Interaction Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Mancini, C., van der Linden, J. and Bryan, A. (2012) Exploring Interspecies Sensemaking: Dog Tracking Semiotics and Multispecies Ethnography, UbiComp. Pittsburgh, USA: ACM.

McCarthy, J. and Wright, P. (2004) Technology as Experience. USA: MIT Press.

McGrath, J. (1991) Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP): A Theory of Groups, Small Group Research 22(2): 147–174. 

Middlemass, J., Stork, A and Long, J. (1999) Successful Case Study and Partial Validation of MUSE, a Structured Method for Usability Engineering.  In Sasse, M. and Johnson, C. (Eds) Proc. INTERACT 99, Edinburgh UK (I): 399-407.  Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Middlemass, J. and Long, J. (2005) A General Model of Human Factors Structured Analysis and Design Methods.

In Bust, P. and McCabe, P. (Eds) Contemporary Ergonomics, 361-365. London: Taylor and Francis.

Morton, J., Barnard, P., Hammond, N. and Long, J. (1979) Interacting with the Computer: a Framework. In Boutmy, E. and Danthine, A., (Eds), Teleinformatics ’79. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Nardi, B. (1996) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction (Ed) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Nardi, B. (2002) Coda and Response to Christine Halverson. CSCW: 269–275.

Nardi, B. and Kapetelinin, V. (2012) Activity Theory in HCI: Fundamentals and Reflections.  San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool.

Newman W. (1984) A Preliminary Analysis of the Products of HCI Research, Using Proforma Abstracts. In Adelson, B., Dumas, S. and Olson, J. (Eds) Proceedings of CHI’84, 278-284.

Ng, K. (2002) Toward a Theoretical Framework for Understanding the Relationship between Situated Action and Planned Action Models of Behavior in Information Retrieval Contexts: Contributions from Phenomenology, Information Processing and Management, 38: 613-626.

Nielsen, J. (1993) Usability Engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman.

Norman, D. (1983) Design Principles for Human-Computer Interfaces. In Smith, R., Pew, R. and Janda, A. (Eds) Proceedings of CHI 83,Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference. Boston, Massachusetts: United States ACM.

Norman, D. (1986) Cognitive Engineering. In Draper, S. and Norman, D. (Eds) User Centred System Design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Norman, D. (2010) The Transmedia Design Challenge: Technology That Is Pleasurable and Satisfying. Interactions, 17, (1): 12-15.

Obrist, M., Tuch, A. and Hornbaek, K. (2014) Opportunities for Odor: Experiences with Smell and Implications for Technology. In CHI 2014 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Toronto, Canada: ACM.

Olson, J. and Olson, G. (1990) The Growth of Cognitive Modelling since GOMS. Human-Computer Interactions, 5: 221-265.

Olson, J. and Olson,G. (2000) Distance Matters, Human-Computer Interaction, 15: 139-178.

Polson, P. (1987) A Quantitative Theory of Human-Computer Interaction. In Carroll, J. (Ed), Interfacing Thought: Cognitive Aspects of Human-Computer interaction. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Rauterberg, M. (2006) HCI as an Engineering Discipline: To Be or Not To Be!? African Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 2 (4): 163-184.

Redmond-Pyle, D. and Moore, A. (1995) Graphical User Interface Design and Evaluation (GUIDE): A Practical Process.  International: Prentice Hall. 

Rogers, Y. (2012) HCI Theory – Classical, Modern, and Contemporary. UK: Morgan and Claypool.

Rogers, Y., Sharp, H. and Preece, J. (2011) Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd. Edition. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Rozanski, E. and Haake, A. (2003) The Many Facets of HCI. In Proceeding of the 4th Conference on Information Technology Education, ACM Press, 180-185.

Salisbury, J. (2014) Videogame Engagement as a Process of Seeking Cultural Value. Unpublished PhD Thesis.

Salter, I. (2010) Applying the Conception of HCI Engineering to the Design of Economic Systems. Interacting with Computers, 22 (1): 68-71.

Santos, P., Kiris, E. and Coyle, C. (1997) Designing as the World Turns. In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems DIS 97, ACM Press, 315-321.

Scaife, M. and Rogers, Y. (1996) External Cognition: How do Graphical Representations Work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45: 185–213. 

Sharp, H., Rogers, Y. and Preece, J. (2007) Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, 2^nd. Edition. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Shneiderman, B. (1983) Direct Manipulation: A Step beyond Programming Languages. IEEE Computer 16(8): 57–69. 

Shneiderman, B. (1998) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human- Computer Interaction, 3rd Edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Shneiderman, B. (2010) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human- Computer Interaction, 5th Edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 

Stork, A. (1999) Towards Engineering Principles for Human-Computer Interaction (Domestic Energy Planning Control). Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of London.

Stork, A. and Long, J. (1994) A Specific Planning and Control Design Problem in the Home: Rationale and a Case-Study.  In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Home-Oriented Informatics, Telematics and Automation. Denmark: Amager.

Stork, A., Middlemass, J.  and Long, J. (1995) Applying a Structured Method for Usability Engineering to Domestic Energy Management User Requirements: a Successful Case-Study. In Proceedings of HCI, Huddersfield. 367-385.

Stork, A., Long, J. and Lambie, T. (1999) Is Cognitive Engineering the Way Forward for HCI?  In Proc. INTERACT 99, Volume II, Brewster, S., Cawsey, A. and Cockton, G. (Eds), Edinburgh UK, p.141.  Swindon, UK: British Computer Society.

Suchman, L. (1987) Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Sutcliffe, A. and Blandford A. (2010) Guest Editors’ Introduction. Interacting with Computers, 22 (1): 1-2.

Sutcliffe, A. and Minocha, S. (1998) Scenario-based Analysis of Non-Functional Requirements. In: Dubois, E., Opdahl, A.  and Pohl, K. (Eds) Requirements Engineering. Foundation for Software Quality, Proceedings 4th International Workshop, REFSQ 1998, Pisa, Italy.

Teo, L. and John, B. (2008) CogTool-Explorer: Towards a Tool for Predicting User Interaction. In Proc. of CHI EA’08, ACM, 2793–2798. 

Timmer P. (1999). Expression of Operator Planning Horizons: a Cognitive Approach. Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of London.

Timmer, P. and Long, J. (2002) Expressing the Effectiveness of Planning Horizons. Le Travail Humain, 65 (2): 103-126. 

Vanderheiden, G. (2008) Ubiquitous Accessibility, Common Technology Core, and Micro Assistive Technology. ACM Transactions in Accessible Computing 1 (2), 10: 1–7. 

Vicente, K. and Rasmussen, J. (1990) The Ecology of Man-Machine Systems II: Mediating ‘Direct Perception’ in Complex Work Domains. Ecological Psychology, 2: 207–249. 

Vygotsky, L. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Watts, L. and Monk, A. (1997), Telemedical Consultation: Task Characteristics, in Proc. CHI ’97, Atlanta, Georgia. ACM Press, pp.534-535. 

Watts, L. and Monk, A. (1998), Reasoning about Tasks, Activity and Technology to Support Collaboration. Ergonomics, 41 (11): 1583-1606. 

Watts, L. and Monk, A. (1999). Telemedicine: What Happens in Teleconsultation. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 15 (1): 220-235.

Wild, P. (2010) Longing for Service: Bringing the UCL Conception towards Services Research. Interacting with Computers, 22 (1): 28-42.

Winograd (1997) From Computing Machinery to Interaction Design. In Denning, P. and Metcalfe, R. (Eds) Beyond Calculation: The Next Fifty Years of Computing, 149-162. Germany: Springer-Verlag. 

Woods, D. (1995) Toward a Theoretical Base for Representation Design in the Computer Medium: Ecological Perception and Aiding Cognition. In Flach, J., Hancock, P., Carid, J. and Vicente, K. (Eds) Global Perspective on the Ecology of Human-Machine Systems, 157–188.

Wright, P., Fields, R. and Harrison, M. (2000) Analysing Human-Computer Interaction as Distributed Cognition: the Resources Model. Human Computer Interaction, 51 (1): 1–41. 

, 83, 85, 89, 90 framework, 85 interactive system, 88 lower-level framework, 83, 85, 90, 91 one-to-many mapping, 86 performance, 94 specific framework, 83, 90 specific problem, 89 specific solution, 89 art application, 52 approach, 44, 46 core framework, 47 design cycle, 50 design research cycle, 48 design research exemplar, 48 framework, 47 interactive system, 52, 53 lower-level framework, 51 one-to-many mapping, 47 performance, 46, 55 specific framework, 47 specific problem, 48 specific solution, 48 arts, types of, 44 Artset, 48 avatar, 50, 52–55 bottom-up strategy, 9, 217, 232 brainstorming, 25, 216 breastfeeding, 65–66, 70–76, 166–167, 201, 224, 271 case studies, 239 acquisition/validation, 240 criteria, 239, 241 definition/complexity/observability, 240 framework acquisition, 240 framework validation, 240, 244 framework/knowledge, 240 general framework, 241, 242 knowledge acquisition, 242 knowledge validation, 243, 247 requirement, 239 types, 239 CHI (computer–human interaction), 3, 4, 28, 87, 106, 147 codified knowledge, 123, 143 coding – open/axial/selective, 217 conception, 3–4, 13, 16–17, 19, 157, 194, 242–243, 246, 248, 257 concepts, definitional, 47, 67, 86, 105, 126, 146 extended definitional, 47, 67, 86, 105, 126, 146 main, 47, 67, 86, 105, 126, 146 core framework, 145, 171, 209, 242 See also under applied, art, craft, engineering, innovation, science 278 discipline of HCI, 145 core HCI research Framework discipline, 146 general problem, 146 knowledge, 146 particular scope, 146 practices, 146 research, 146 craft application, 71 approach, 64, 65, 66 best practice, 64, 66 core framework, 67 design cycle, 69 design research cycle, 68 design research exemplar, 68 interactive system, 68, 70 lower-level framework, 71 one-to-many mapping, 67 performance, 68, 71, 74 specific framework, 66, 67, 70 criteria, 159 concept of conceptualisation, 158 concept of generalisation, 158 concept of operationalisation, 158 concept of test, 158 criteria of coherence, 159 criteria of completeness, 159 frameworks, 161 General Framework, 161 within-framework-between-knowledge, 162 CSCW (computer-supported cooperative work), 215–216, 221–222, 228 See also under HCI theories design for performance, 124 guidelines, 102, 123 models, 123 paradigm, 186 design practice, 229 case studies, 84 criteria, 65 experience, 66 methods, 70 process, 88 research cycle, 87 uptake, 84 incremental/radical solutions, 3 interactive system, 70, 148 user requirements, 65–66, 69–71, 88–89, 107–108, 148 satisfaction, 84 user-centred design, 65, 218 engagement, 65, 66 verification/validation, 125 design practices, 10 design principles, 123, 125, 246 digital paintings/theatricals, 44, 45 disciplinary matrix, 68, 87, 106 dog-tracking, 84, 89 dog-tracking technology, 84–85, 89–90, 95 economic systems, 68, 106 email, 33, 64, 65 EMCRS (Emergency Management Combined Response System), 19, 243 engineering application, 133 approach, 124 core framework, 68 design cycle, 108 design research cycle, 109 design research exemplar, 123 interactive system, 113 lower-level framework, 123 one-to-many mapping, 126 specific approach, 123 specific framework, 123, 126 specific problem, 126 specific solution, 126 errors, 94, 114, 123, 124, 177 e-shopping, 29–30, 33–35, 64–65, 123–124, 170 experience, 65, 124 expert advice, 65, 84, 90 FeedFinder mobile application, 65–66 General Framework, 16, 145, 147, 153, 169, 172, 208, 210, 218, 221, 228, 230, 239 assessment, 170, 209 case study, 147 classification, 169 coherence, 170 common, 146 completeness, 171 concepts, 183 Index 279 design research cycle, 147 design research exemplar, 146, 171 discipline, 146 dissemination, 169, 171 fitness for purpose, 170 for HCI research, 145, 148 formality, 170 general design research cycle, 148 general knowledge, 147 general practices, 147 general problem, 146 general research, 147 lower-level framework, 146, 150, 171 particular scope, 146 relations, 170 specific problem, 149 specific solution, 149 validation, 161, 221 GOMS (goals, operators, methods, selection rules), 175, 176, 188, 193, 205, 274 GUI (graphical user interface), 24, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 234 GUIDE (Graphical User Interface Design and Evaluation), 234 HCI (human–computer interaction), 1 challenge for, 4 community progress, 4 computing technology scope, 2 conception, 3–4, 13, 16–17, 19, 157, 180, 234–235, 242–246, 248 consensus, 3, 186–187, 199, 242 descriptors, 1, 6, 152, 156, 174, 176, 184, 198, 251 discipline progress, 3, 4 fields/theories, 2 fragmentation of, 3 growth/diversification, 2, 3–6, 268 human scope, 2 interaction scope, 2 state of, 2, 4 theories, 2, 3 See also under HCI theories HCI as applied psychology, 1 cognitive engineering, 1, 6, 12 cognitive ergonomics, 6, 12, 179 digital interaction, 1 ease of use/usability, 1, 124, 137–138, 232 engineering, 1, 6, 12, 48, 103, 123, 190, 232 graphic design, 1, 10, 12 human-centred design, 1 human–computing technology interaction, 1 interaction design, 1, 219 technical art, 1 user experience (UX) design, 1, 3, 17, 219, 232, 268 HCI community, 153, 218 HCI frameworks, 2, 9 Barnard (1991), 181 Card et al. (1983), 174 Carroll (2010), 189 Carroll et al. (1991), 188 Dowell and Long (1989), 196 Kuutti (1996), 183 Long (1987), 178 Long and Dowell (1989), 180 Morton et al. (1979), 172 Olson and Olson (2000), 185 Rauterberg (2006), 186 Shneiderman (1983), 176 HCI Core research framework discipline, 17 general problem, 17 illustration, 18 knowledge, 18 lower-level framework, 18 particular scope, 17 practices, 18 research, 17 HCI research frameworks applied, 10, 83–101 approach, 4, 8, 9, 10 art, 10, 44–63 challenge for, 2, 3, 4 compatibility/practicality/complexity, 10 core framework, 2, 3, 16, 17 craft, 10, 64–82 engineering, 10, 123–144 everyday language, 8 frameworks, 4, 13–22 General Framework, 4, 145–151 generification, 10, 199, 222 research planning, 6, 10, 12 specific framework, 2, 4, 16, 146 state of, 2, 4 technical language, 8 HCI theories, 9, 211–220 assessment, 209, 221 coherence, 14–15, 18, 154, 158–159, 170, 176, 178, 180, 184, 186, 187, 197–199, 208–211, 213, 217–218, 221–222, 233, 242, 248, 259–261, 266–267 computer-supported cooperative work, 215 critical, 219 design, 218 distributed cognition, 212 ecological cognition, 213 ethnography, 217 extended cognitive, 211 external cognition, 211 grounded theory, 217 human values, 218 in-the-wild, 220 miscellaneous, 217 situated action, 214 social, 214 technology as experience, 219 heuristics, 3, 18, 65, 68–69, 76, 84, 87–88, 90, 95, 101, 218 human performance, 35, 55, 74, 94, 114, 136, 152 icon-based interactions, 84, 103 indexical semiotics, 85, 89, 95 innovation application, 32, 33 approach, 23, 24, 26, 36 as novel, 37 case study, 28 core framework, 26 design research cycle, 28 design research exemplar, 28 framework, 26, 36 general problem, 27 interactive system, 33 lower-level framework, 31 one-to-many mapping, 27 particular scope, 27 performance, 35 smell technology, 29, 30, 37 specific framework, 26, 37 specific problem, 30 specific solution, 30 interdisciplinary overlapping fields, 3, 6, 10, 12, 45, 255–256, 269 internet banking, 64, 65, 87, 124, 188 interspecies semiotics, 84–85, 94–95 in-the-wild evaluation, 65, 66, 70 KLM (keystroke-level model), 175 lessons learned, 263–264 acquisition/conceptualisation, 259 approach, 255 approaches and frameworks, 255 case studies, 261 framework, 256 framework comparisons, 260 general approach and general framework, 258 specific framework, 257 substantive component, 261 theory comparisons, 260 lessons remaining, 264–267 approach, 256 approaches and frameworks, 255 case studies/validation, 262 framework, 256 general approach and general framework, 258 methodological component, 261 specific framework, 257 systematic assessments, 260 validation, 259 lower-level framework, 18, 21–23, 31–33, 51–53, 64, 71–72, 83, 90, 92, 110, 112, 123, 132–134, 145–146, 152, 154, 157, 171, 184, 196, 206–207, 219–220 application, 150 attribute states, 151 attributes, 151 objects, 151 performance, 152 methodological component, 227, 231 general model, 234 research structured analysis and design methods, 234 structured analysis and design methods, 232 user-centred design methods, 231 MHP (model human processor), 174–176, 193 mobile technologies, 2, 65–72, 74–76, 134, 166–167, 201, 224 multimedia, 44, 45 MUSE (Method for Usability Engineering), 233–235, 238, 247–248 MUSE/C (MUSE containers), 247–248 MUSE/R (MUSE for research), 235 novel technologies, 27 paradigm, 68, 87, 106 public health goals, 65, 75 Index 281 recall/recognition memory, 83–84, 92–93, 111–115 science academic discipline, 115 application, 111, 112 approach, 102, 103, 104, 115 core framework, 104, 105 deep theory, 103, 108, 115, 116 design cycle, 107 design research cycle, 106 design research exemplar, 102, 104, 106 engineering design tools, 103, 104, 115, 116 framework, 102, 104, 115 illustration, 108 interacting cognitive subsystems, 104 interactive system, 107, 109, 111 lower-level framework, 102, 104, 110, 112 one-to-many mapping, 105 performance, 111, 114 specific framework, 104, 105, 116 specific problem, 109 specific solution, 109 system of interactors, 103, 116 understanding, 103 validation, 116 scientific disciplines, 102 shared exemplars, 68, 87, 106 smell, 2, 25–26, 31, 33–37, 219 STUDIO (STructured User-interface Design for Interaction Optimisation), 233 task-artefact cycle, 15, 190, 191, 240 teleconferencing, 108, 112 TLM (task-level model), 175 TOPH (theory of the operator planning horizon), 243, 248 trial and error, 89, 96, 149 validation, 4, 10, 29–31, 48–51, 57–63, 70, 82, 89–90, 96, 103, 107–109, 122–125, 128, 131, 138, 144, 147–149 all-or-none, 160 approaches, 160 between-framework-within-knowledge, 162 case-studies, 161 video games, 56 Webster’s Dictionary, 8, 9 WHO (World Health Organization), 65 Wikipedia, 8, 9 Xerox, 24 Xerox Parc, 24

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia 314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India 79 Anson Road, #06–04/06, Singapore 079906 Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108719070 DOI: 10.1017/9781108754972 © John Long 2021 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2021 Printed in the United Kingdom by TJ Books Limited, Padstow Cornwall A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Long, John (John B.), author. Title: Approaches and frameworks for HCI research / John Long, University College London. Description: First edition. | Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY : Cambridge University Press, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020036010 (print) | LCCN 2020036011 (ebook) | ISBN 9781108719070 (paperback) | ISBN 9781108754972 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Human-computer interaction – Research. Classification: LCC QA76.9.H85 L67 2021 (print) | LCC QA76.9.H85 (ebook) | DDC 004.01/9–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020036010 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020036011 ISBN 978-1-108-71907-0 Paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.