1 / 20

HCI Research in MIS

HCI Research in MIS. Dennis Galletta University of Pittsburgh AMCIS 2002 Dallas. Foreward: Dallas, We Have a Problem!. Some might think that interfaces have finally been “fixed.” Truth is, even current systems are problematic

sovann
Download Presentation

HCI Research in MIS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HCI Research in MIS Dennis Galletta University of Pittsburgh AMCIS 2002 Dallas

  2. Foreward:Dallas, We Have a Problem! • Some might think that interfaces have finally been “fixed.” • Truth is, even current systems are problematic • What kind of system, for use by the general public would puzzle a PhD (me) and two employees of the firm?

  3. Dart Fares • Fare types/ zones: • Local/1 • Premium/2 • Reduced/all • Goal clear

  4. Dart Screen • New types and different zones: • full/all • full/1 • reduced/all • Where is • “premium 2?”

  5. 1. Positioning • In common with other fields: • Usually individual level of analysis • Usually experiments • Often address user attitudes, behavior, performance • Training is often a key area • Sometimes develop the interfaces and sometimes evaluate or compare them

  6. Positioning • Different from other fields • We seldom (never?) develop hardware • We seldom (never?) develop the operating environment • We less often build an interface • We have more pressure to show organizational impact • We have less pressure (and $) from vendors • We often focus on decision making • Interestingly: Our research community has greater expectations for theoretical justification and large samples

  7. Positioning-Illustrations • Fairly typical example of what you’d see at an HCI conference (from ACM-CHI) • A business-related example from the Research Channel • Shneiderman’s chapters reveal OUR bias

  8. System design issues Guidelines and tools for development Managing the design process Testing, reviewing, surveying tools Software tools for building an interface Devices and software interfaces Direct Manipulation Menu, form, dialog design Command languages Devices (keyboards, mice, etc.) “us” “them” * * * * * * * * * * * Shneiderman’s HCI

  9. Shneiderman’s HCI • Research-intensive topics • Response time/display rate • Presentation styles (positive, understandable, nonanthropomorphic, clear display design) • Documentation (manuals, help, tutorials) • Multiple-Window Strategies • CSCW • Search and Visualization • Hypermedia and the Web • Societal Issues

  10. Interesting paradox • Some of the most well-known HCI studies: • Publishable in an MIS journal? • probably • But not heavily referenced!

  11. GOMS (Card et al 83) • (Goals Operators Methods Selection rules) • Extensively (!) used by HCI researchers • Much less commonly used by MIS researchers • A family of models that permits modeling of Goals and prediction of a user’s path toward the goals • Most heavily used model is the Keystroke Model

  12. Screen vs paper (Gould et al.) • IBM researchers tried to discover why people read more quickly and effectively on paper versus screen • No overriding theoretical model or basis; just kept guessing what factor was responsible • Finally discovered one

  13. 2. My applications • Primarily interested in user abilities (& fit) • Cognitive Fit influences: • training psych course I took at Minnesota (‘it depends’) • PhD seminar question given to us by Gary Dickson • a Herb Simon CMU seminar Iris and I attended • More recently examined spreadsheet detection ability • Most recently investigated fit between varying web site characteristics (speed trades off against depth and familiarity)

  14. Applications • More successful: • Had theoretical justification • Had results • Had implications • For researchers • For practitioners

  15. Applications • Less successful: • Thesis study: system failed • CSCW study: no results • Stress study: few results

  16. As an AE/Reviewer • Commonly, failed studies: • Could mislead the reader/field • Control was lacking • Confounding effects were contained • Substantial, generalizable sample was not tapped • Measures were not appropriate • Contained difficulties in scope: • Address a truly miniscule issue • Don’t do what they say they will do in the introduction • Were poorly written: • Don’t justify or set a context • Lack important disclosure • Don’t communicate

  17. 3. Journals and Editors • Is an HCI study hard to publish? • I did a quick review • Answer: It Depends • MISQ: 12-15% • ISR: 22-25%

  18. ISR

  19. MIS Quarterly

  20. 4. Future • Bright. • HCI is a strong area of MIS • Web developers abound • More people are using systems • More people fact ever-more terrible systems • Opportunities • Usability as a driver of system development • Arrangement and categorization • User training is alive and healthy

More Related