Interfaces 35

Human–Computer Interaction

Published by the British HCI Group ISSN: 1351-119X

Inter acesNo. 37 Spring 1998

Plus:HCI’98

the insidestory

John Waterworthproposesidleness

HANDS ACROSS THE SCREENstories of sinister scrollbars

FOREIGN INTERACTIONSat the University of Waikato

Interfaces 372

From the Chair

contents Preface

2 From the Chair

3 Editorial

4 HCI’98The inside story

5 Graphic Design Competition

6 Conference ReportMedicine meets VR: 6

10 Book Review

11 My Thesis

12 FeatureCase Study: Usability Healthchecks @Thames Water

14 ProfileJan Noyes

15 Diary

19 FeatureHands across the screen

23 FeatureForeign interactions

26 AnnouncementThe Usability Maturity Model

29 Test Scenario

31 Alternative RealitiesThe IDLE Project

32 HCI Executive Contact list

What’s in a name? It has seemedto me for some time now that“Human–Computer Interaction”is a pretty poor description ofwhat we do. In the public mind itequates with “legibility”, “screendesign” and “posture at theworkstation”. All these are worthyenough topics but leave out somuch else. How do you explainthat HCI researchers and practi-tioners are probably the best-qualified people to advise on theuse of electronic communicationlike email and video? How do youexplain that HCI researchers andpractitioners know a lot about jobdesign and organisational issues?How would you attract a sixth-former to a university courseespecially featuring HCI?

In the last issue of Interfaces Iset out the argument that HCI isnow a discipline in its own right.If you accept that argument thenyou must agree that a disciplinewith a totally inappropriate namehas a serious problem. So what arethe alternatives? Jack Carroll hassuggested “Psychology: thescience of design” on the basis thatwe are applying science to thedesign of all sorts of electronicsystems. Shortened to “DesignScience”, it might do for a univer-sity course, though for all I knowsomeone may have alreadybagged that one. I am not surewhat industry would make of it.How many companies wouldemploy “design scientists”, howmany consultants would advertisethemselves as such? TerryWinograd has suggested “interac-tion design” on the basis that wehelp people design human–humanand human–computer interaction.Perhaps “interaction designscience” (IDS) is what we do,though I suspect that a successfuldiscipline has to be described infewer than three words.

Interfaces 37 3

Editorial

Assuming that a group of uscould decide on a new name, thenext question is how we go aboutadopting it. Can we afford tochange our name when commerceis just beginning to realise whatwe can do for them? Or wouldthey learn much faster if we hadthe right name?

If you have opinions on thismatter, or other suggestions fornames, send them to me(A.Monk@psych.york.ac.uk) or,better still, write a letter forpublication in Interfaces.

Andrew MonkChair, British HCI Group

I’m writing this looking out over snow-capped hills in April, which makes me feelbetter about a “Spring” issue coming out in May. After all, it’s not just Interfacesthat seems confused about the seasons! The truth is that this issue has beendelayed a couple of months because of a lack of material – if we had gone to presson time you would have been reading a very slight volume indeed.

Interfaces is your magazine – an opportunity to tell the world what you areworking on, share your thoughts on matters of importance – or not – or seek outlike-minded souls for collaboration. It is not – and is not intended to be – a ref-ereed journal. Contributions are judged on their relevance and interest to membersand can include early results, ideas, lab. overviews, tutorial introductions, casestudies – or whatever else you think the rest of the group might be interested in.Please send all contributions to the Editor (or where indicated to the appropriateSeries sub-editor) well in advance of the deadline if possible. And maybe we’ll getthe Summer issue to you before September!

We are taking the theme of HCI and the Web for the next issue. It is left deliber-ately open and can include discussions of web applications, evaluation of webresources, social implications of the web, design issues or case studies, to name buta few possibilities. There have been a number of requests for this theme and weare expecting a good response, so please send your contributions in as soon aspossible. You don’t need to wait until the deadline. We look forward to hearingfrom you.

Janet FinlayEditor

The next Interfaces will be another of ourthemed issues focusing this time on HCIand the Web. The theme is deliberatelyopen – contributions may consider, forexample, web applications, evaluation ofweb resources, social implications of theweb, design issues or case studies, but thislist is not exhaustive.

If you wish to discuss a potential submissionplease contact the Editor as soon as possi-ble.

NEXT ISSUE RIGHT TO REPLY

Also from next issue we are introducing aregular feature to allow you have your say inresponse to issues raised in Interfaces or tocomment on any aspect of HCI that interestsyou. Submissions should be short andconcise (500 words or less) and, whereappropriate, should clearly indicate thearticle being responded to. Please send allcontributions to the Editor.

Dept. of Psychology, University of YorkYork, YO1 5DD, UKTel: +44 1904 433148Fax: +44 1904 433181Web: http://www.york.ac.uk/~am1/Email: AM1@york.ac.uk

Editorial

Deadline for the Summer issue is May 20th. Electronic versions are preferred: RTF, plain text or MS Word (5/6), viaelectronic mail or FTP (mail fiona@hiraeth.com for FTP address) or on Mac, PC disks; but copy will be accepted onpaperor fax.

Send to: Interfaces, c/o Janet Finlay, School of Computing and Mathematics, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate,Huddersfield HD1 3DHTel: +44(0) 1484 472913; Fax: +44 (0) 1484 421106; Email: j.e.finlay@hud.ac.uk

and copy email submissions to Fiona Dix, Interfaces production editor; Email: fiona@hiraeth.com

With thanks to: Commissioning editors: Stella Mills, Andrew Monk. Interfaces is lookingfor additional commissioning editors. Please contact the editor for details.To receive your own copy of Interfaces, join the British HCI Group by filling in the form onpage 18 and sending it to the address given.

Interfaces 374

HCI’98

This year’s HCI conferencewill soon be upon us, and theteam are putting together whatlooks like an exciting pro-gramme. We spoke to asource on the programmecommittee. To protect oursource we’ll just call himChris.

Interfaces: HCI’98 is less than 6months away, how are the prepa-rations going?

Chris: Yes, September 1st to 4thare the dates. The preparation? . . .well everything is running likeclockwork, I’m completely on topof all the organisation – and it’s noproblem combining it with myteaching and research commit-ments.

Interfaces: You’re making this up,aren’t you?

Chris: Uhhh, yes, but things arecoming together and we’ve got agreat programme lined up.

Interfaces: The call talked aboutthe ‘cultural industries’ in Shef-field. Will that context make adifference to this year’s confer-ence?

Chris: Yes it will. We’ve got KarenMahoney as a keynote speaker.Karen’s keen to promote cross-fertilisation between academicHCI and the work of designstudios. Her company providesconsultancy on ‘branding’ ofelectronic products. She’s beeninvolved in designing ‘electronicidentities’ for companies like theBBC, BT, and Diageo (that’s thenew company formed whenGuinness merged with GrandMet). It’s a very different slant onthe design problem and it shouldget people thinking. We’ve got asite visit to ‘The Workstation’ tomeet people working in the mediacompanies based there, and I hopewe’ll have a lot of delegates fromthis type of local company. Itshould lead to some lively discus-sion.

Interfaces: Who are your otherkeynote speakers?

Chris: We’ve got GaryFitzpatrick. He’s been involvedin a major European projectdeveloping multi-media publicinformation kiosks. More famil-iar names to Interfaces readerswill be Joelle Coutaz, JonathanGrudin and Phil Barnard. Wethink we’ve struck a balancebetween many different aspectsof HCI.

Interfaces: Are there any innova-tions in the conference formatthis year?

Chris: Well, we want to keep the‘industry day’/‘research day(s)’format that’s been so successfulin recent HCIs. We are consider-ing a new format for some paperpresentations in ‘research sym-posia’. We want to get theaudience more involved indebating the relationshipsbetween the papers presented.We want to spark off debate andsend people home with somenew research questions. Oh, andwe’re arranging a computergames exhibition where del-egates can analyse the details ofcomplex multimodal, real-timeinteraction – or you could justplay games!

Interfaces: What about thepapers, can you give us a sneakpreview?

Chris: Well, I can tell you it’sgoing to be good. We got an

excellent submission rate, so weshould be able to construct a reallyinteresting technical programme,but I’ve still got a pile of reviewson my desk to work through.

Interfaces: We’re only here for thebeer, what have you got to offer?

Chris: Well you know me – Party,Party, Party. We’ve got eventsevery night, a barbecue on Tues-day that’s to cope with peoplearriving at different times. There’sa ceilidh on Wednesday. Thevenue is Kelham Island IndustrialMuseum – comes complete with ahuge working steam engine, and achance to see artisans practisingtraditional Sheffield craft skillslike cutlery making. For theconference dinner we’re reallygoing upmarket. We’re droppingin on the Duke & Duchess ofDevonshires’ place at ChatsworthHouse. They haven’t registered forthe conference yet, but presum-ably they don’t need to worryabout the early registration saving.

Interfaces: I can’t miss that, howdo I register?

Chris: You register early (cos it’scheaper), and you can get theform by:

visiting http://www.shu.ac.uk/hci98

emailing hci98@shu.ac.uk

or phoning +44 (0)114 225 533

Preparing for HCI’98Interfaces gets the inside story

Interfaces 37 5

SUBMISSION DEADLINE

30 September, 1998Submissions (on 3.5" disk or by email attachment) andqueries to Simon Buckingham Shum, address below.

The winner will be decided by the HCI Group’sExecutive, whose decision is final.Dr Simon Buckingham ShumKnowledge Media InstituteThe Open UniversityMilton Keynes MK7 6AA, U.K.Email: S.Buckingham.Shum@open.ac.ukWWW: http://kmi.open.ac.uk/sbsTel: 01908 655723 Fax: 01908 653169

GRAPHIC DESIGN COMPETITIONDesign the British HCI Group’s new logo for Print and Web

Calling all Graphic/Interaction Designers(especially students) . . .

The British HCI Group is looking for a new logo to express itsidentity. This is your chance to prove your skills, and add a majoritem to your portfolio.

The Prize . . .Your design will be used on the Group’s website <http://www.bcs.org.uk/hci/>, all printedpublicity (e.g. posters, newspaper adverts), stationery (letterhead), and publicationssuch as Interfaces magazine, the proceedings of the annual HCI Conference (publishedby Springer-Verlag), and all the conference merchandising (bag, T-shirt, etc).

You will be acknowledged as the designer on the website.

Finally, you will receive a copy of the HCI textbook:HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION (Second Edition)Alan Dix • Janet Finlay • Gregory Abowd • Russell Beale (Prentice Hall, 1998)(See <http://www.hiraeth.com/books/hci/> for details). . . plus accompanying mouse mat!

The Brief . . .CONTENT

You can revamp our existing logo, or create somethingcompletely new. We have no preference.The only constraints are that our URL and name mustbe included:

www.bcs.org.uk/hciBritish HCI Group (optionally followed by“British Computer Society” or “BCS”)

BACKGROUNDThe HCI Group is the largest organisation for HCIprofessionals in Europe. The issues that concern itsmembers fundamentally concern the relationship ofpeople to technology in all its forms in society. Furtherdetails on the Group’s website.The HCI Group’s logo is often used in conjunction withthe British Computer Society’s crest of arms: http://www.bcs.org.uk

MEDIAThe design must look good both on the web and inprint. We therefore expect you to submit a web formatversion (GIF or JPEG) and a printable version (e.g.EPS).

We would like the following versions:

Print media:• Ideally, an arbitrarily scalable 300dpi EPS file. All

fonts, etc., should be included in the file if you can.• Colour, and black and white/grey versions (we often

can’t use colour) – printed colours to match those ofthe web logo

• An A4 headed paper design for official correspond-ence. This should include the BCS crest of arms

(which will be supplied to the winner – in the mean-time, use the GIF from the BCS website), and shouldpresent the following information:

British Human–Computer Interaction GroupA Specialist Group of the British Computer SocietyBritish Computer Society, 1 Sanford Street,Swindon, SN1 1HJ, U.K. www.bcs.org.uk/hciEmail: hci@bcs.org.uk Tel: 01793 417417Fax: 01793 480270

Web media:• 72dpi GIF or JPEG file – if you use colour, a black

and white/grey version is not needed• it’s up to you how big you make the main logo (bear-

ing in mind download speed)• no animated logos please• you can produce a small icon version as well if you

wish• no Java, JavaScript or plug-ins to be required – just

straight graphics + text

Interfaces 376

Conference Report

Medicine meets VR: 6San Diego, January 1998

This, the sixth conference in the series on Medicine MeetsVR, was very well attended, with an estimated 1,000 partici-pants, from the US and Canada, Europe (Germany had anoticeable presence), and Asia (Japan, South Korea, HongKong, Singapore). This was a “high visibility” conference atwhich most of the key players were to be seen, presentingupdates of their work.

The conference was a mixture of exhibition show andtechnical paper sessions. The quality of the technical presen-tations varied greatly, from interesting new technologies tointroductory presentations such as “Applications of volu-metric rendering in clinical practices”. In general, I felt thatthere were far too many presentations: some 135, over fourdays. One had to switch madly between parallel sessions toget to hear papers that were arbitrarily classified under“technology” or “education”. Paper acceptance is based onabstracts only, which explains the diversity to some extent,although there also seems to be a philosophy of breadth,rather than depth, in selecting contributions.

The first day was The Richard Satava Show. Col. Satava,MD, formerly with DARPA and now at Yale Medical School,is in charge of granting money to many projects on medicalVR and is therefore at the centre of the community. Hismotto is “I have the vision, you guys realise it”. He had twosessions to update the assembly on the progress of hisgrants: one about DARPA projects and the other about anew wave of funding from Yale-NASA (mostly the sameprojects that got funding from DARPA now getting thefunding from Yale-NASA). They included:

• a “smart” T-shirt that senses the path of thebullet that hit its wearer, monitors his conditionand location, etc., so that rescue teams candecide if he’s worth rescuing, and be prepared,and combat units can knock out the locationfrom which he was attacked;

• various personal monitoring devices, includinga wearable system for astronauts;

• a Limb Trauma simulator using the PHANToM(by MusculoGraphics, in Boston);

• a stretcher with monitoring systems; and

• an enhanced dexterity robot called ParaDex.

In general, for the paper sessions, the presentations were toomany to describe all in detail, were allocated only 15minutes and – surprisingly – no questions were allowed.

Scientific And Clinical/Tools For MinimallyInvasive TherapiesThere were many endoscopic simulators, for the knee,shoulder, colon, abdomen … And all had some forcefeedback that wasn’t convincing as real tissue (from whatdoctors said) but apparently helped in training (from whatthe engineers said).

Tactile tissue simulation was one of the key phrases.Everybody is trying to figure out how to do it, but I didn’tsee (feel) any convincing implementation. Force feedback is

the latest craze, but the sensitivity to model subtle grada-tions just isn’t there yet. An interesting alternative is to usesound as feedback.

Also, many atlases of the whole human body (and one ofa frog) were presented. Most used the Visible Human, butthere were others (the Japanese) that had their own datasets.

One interesting point that was raised by the team at SRIis that the key problem in training surgeons is not how toconvey the locomotive skills needed to manipulate anendoscope or to cut using a scalpel, but how to understandpatient anatomy. Training the hands how to use an endo-scope takes a week or so, but learning how to interpret apatient’s anatomy takes years. I agree with this assessment,and I think that’s where rich interaction capabilities com-bined with real-time volumetric rendering of multimodaldata are crucial.Highlights of the presentationsSRI, of Stanford, have tested their telepresence system withlive animals using a 200 metre link. Their results are pub-lished in the Journal of Vascular Surgery. Dr. John Hill ofSRI presented their first attempts to move towards compu-ter-generated graphics training simulators using theirtelepresence system. They use a set-up similar to the ISSVirtual Workbench, but with their own interaction devices.They are working on simulating suture of tissue and vesselsusing an Onyx and 2D texture maps.

Ramin Shahidi, Stanford University Medical Center, isworking on SGI-based volume rendering neurosurgery andcraniofacial applications. Their graphics didn’t include morethan one volume at a time. His presentation was an over-view of the use of volume rendering vs. surface rendering,and he didn’t include the papers in the proceedings.

NASA-Ames and Stanford University have created theNational Biocomputation Center: Dr Muriel Ross wasannouncing this centre as a resource for collaboration withacademics and industry, to promote medical VR. NASA-Ames have an Immersion Workbench (aka ResponsiveWorkbench, aka Immersadesk), and their own visualisationsoftware, and are working on craniofacial “virtual” surgery.It appears that they use polygon meshes for their visual-isation.

Henry Fuchs presented work in progress at UNC thatuses depth range finders to reconstruct a surface map of theintestines to then guide an endoscope for colonoscopy. Allthis was added to their augmented reality system, andcomprises an interestingly novel approach.

HT Medical presented their VR Simulation of AbdominalTrauma Surgery. They use the PHANToM and some “wet”graphics to remove a kidney. They simulate the “steps”taken by the surgeon. First the surgeon cuts the skin, whichthen opens, revealing the intestines. A wet graphics effect isused, but this looks more like “cling film” wrapping overeverything. The intestines moved quite unconvincingly, inan animation that was slightly under the control of the user(it didn’t appear like inverse kinematics were attaching theend-point of the intestines to the user’s tool). The kidney

Interfaces 37 7Continued overleaf…

Conference Report

John Waterworth

was removed by simply “reaching into it” and moving itout. I couldn’t quite see the point of such a simulation,frankly, unless trainee doctors don’t realise that it’s a goodidea to cut into the abdomen before trying to remove akidney.

On the other hand, I was very impressed by a paper fromWegner and Karron of Computer Aided Surgery Inc., whichdescribed the use of auditory feedback to guide blind biopsyneedle placement. Their audio feedback system generates anerror signal in 3D space with respect to a planned needletrajectory. This error signal and the preoperative plan areused to motivate a position sonification algorithm whichgenerates appropriate sounds to guide the operator inneedle placement. To put it simply, harmonics versusdissonances are used to convey position informationaccurately along 6–8 dimensions. A nice example of asynaesthetic medium – using one modality (sound) whereone would normally expect another (touch and/or vision).Their approach has wide applicability.

Myron Kreuger is President of Artificial Reality Corpora-tion and a claimant to the title of inventor of VR. He coinedthe term “Artificial Reality” (AR) in the early 1980s but,sadly for him, it didn’t catch on – which is perhaps a pity.Here he was describing ARC’s work on adding smells toVR. The system he described was a training system fordealing with emergencies, where smells of, for example,petrol, or the contents of the lower intestine, can providevaluable information in a hazardous situation. However,this work seems premature. Smells are messy – they involvemolecules, not bits – and so tend to linger after they havebeen turned off.Highlights of the exhibitionHT Medical demonstrated CathSim, a simulator that trainsnursing students to perform vascular catheterisations. Theybuilt a special force feedback device and some simplegraphics to provide visual feedback. It was quite good toguide the needle, but had little (no?) feedback once insidethe skin. This seemed like “technological overkill” since theprocedure is easily learned without VR and is not exactlyhazardous.

They also demonstrated a Flexible Bronchoscopy simu-lator developed with a partnership of pulmonologists andpharmacology experts at Merck & Co. (based on the VisibleHuman Project). They have a way to track the flexible tip ofthe endoscope (“a secret”, I was told when I asked) and theygenerate nice 2D texture-mapped graphics of the interiorthroat using an SRI Impact.Fraunhofer had two demonstrations from their Providenceoffice:

1. TeleInVivo, demonstrating a PC software volumerenderer (a few seconds per rendering for smallwindows areas) attached to an ultrasoundprobe.

2. Interventional Ultrasound: a guiding system forbiopsy needle insertion using an ultrasoundtracking system (not much of an implementation

at the moment), so it’s the old idea of usingultrasound to guide a biopsy needle. Theyoverlay the ultrasound view with the biopsyneedle path, something that UNC demonstratedat SIGGRAPH, but without the expensive headgear.

Matthias Wapler, of the IPA branch in Stuttgart, described arobot for precise endoscopy and neurosurgical navigation.They have not yet developed planning software for theirsystem.Immersion Corp.: The people of Loral were at the Immer-sion booth, presenting a training system using the Immer-sion Corp.’s force feedback device. The application lets thesurgeon guide an endoscope through the nose of a patient.The simulation was “helpful” to surgeons, although it israther crude and doesn’t feel like the real thing.Prosolvia: A very tall Swede from Prosolvia (Swedish VRcompany) demonstrated a Virtual Arthroscopy of theshoulder, developed with University Hospital of Linkoping.They used the Immersion Corp. force feedback system, andtheir own Oxygen software base.SensAble Technologies: Four demonstrations were shownat their booth:

1. The Ophthalmic surgical simulator. This projectcombines N-Vision US$25,000 stereo display(binoculars with 1280x1024 resolution; there is acheaper version for VGA graphics at US$15,000)with the PHANToM, and a nice simulation ofthe feel of an eye. The computer platform isIntergraph. Since the PHANToM doesn’tprovide torque feedback, I didn’t really appreci-ate the usefulness of the feedback system whilecutting around the cornea. Poking the eye wasmore fun.

2. MusculoGraphics surgery simulation solutions.Their Limb Trauma simulator didn’t have forcefeedback, so the PHANToM was used as a 3Dpointer. The simulation consisted in picking upa bullet and stopping bleeding of a blood vessel.I thought the system was unrealistic andcompletely pointless.

3. Their IV catheter insertion system had forcefeedback, and was quite convincing.

4. Spine Biopsy Simulator, by the GeorgetownUniversity Medical School, for educational use.The aim is to mimic an actual spine biopsyprocedure and improve overall learning bystudents. Unfortunately, their demo wasn’tworking.

Virtual Presence: This UK company presented two goodtools.

1. VolWin, a volume rendering package (US$700)on the PC that is based on the Voxar API. Theperformance was really good, running on aplain PC. A 256x256x256 volume was rendered

Interfaces 378 ...continued from page 7

Conference Report

Medicine meets VR: 6

at some 5–6 fps, with some aliasing effects, butbasically usable quality.

2. A package that tests the surgeon’s performanceusing the Immersion Corp. laparoscopy device.No fancy graphics, the idea being to measureperformance in hitting targets. Excellent simpleidea for laparoscopy training.

Gold Standard Multimedia: They have produced a CD-ROM with a segmentation of the Visible Male. The packagevolume renders the views and structures chosen. On PC.Sense8 medical customers are the National Centre forBiocomputation (NASA, Stanford U), Rutgers U, Center forNeuro-Science, and Iowa School of Dentistry.

A knee simulator was presented. Unfortunately, it brokeearly in the conference and before I could use it.Vista Medical Technologies: Good head-mounted displayto substitute for the microscope. Not head tracked, but itallows the surgeon to look through the microscope andoutside. It also allows Picture-in-Picture, so that an endo-scope can be used to supplement the microscope.Lake Acoustics: There was a nice demonstration of 3Dsonification from Lake, who were also involved in the 3Dsound feedback for biopsy needle placement describedbriefly above (paper by Wegner and Karron). Using their kit,it is very simple to place sounds in a three-dimensionallandscape surrounding the body to the front (as with normalstereo) and to the back (as with cinema surround sound) butusing only headphones.

VR And Mental HealthThere were several very interesting papers presented in thissession, and a few peculiar ones. Unfortunately, few wereincluded in the printed proceedings. It was clear that this isone of the medical areas where VR can most immediatelyand successfully be applied today. Topics included treat-ment of phobias, psychological assessment, and cognitiverehabilitation.

The session also provided an opportunity for the launchof the new “CyberPsychology and Behavior” journal, thefirst volume of which includes a useful summary of the useof VR as a therapeutic tool.

Brenda Wiederhold presented a good paper on using VRto go beyond the standard “imaginal” training of phobicpatients. The advantages of VR are, first, that fear can beeffectively activated (which is necessary to bring aboutchange) but can be controlled (too much fear reinforces thephobia) and, second, physiological measures can be used tocontrol the display. One simple measure of anxiety, firstused by Jung, is a drop in skin resistance.

Similar work on claustrophobia and fear of heights wasdescribed by Bulligen of the University of Basle. Anotherpaper on acrophobia (fear of heights) by Huang et al. of theUniversity of Michigan described comparisons of real andvirtual environments for emotional desensitisation, andquestioned the need for a high level of realism. Using theCAVE environment, they compared the same views in VR

and in reality. See their Web page for views [http://www.umich.edu/~psychvr].

A rather pleasant system from Japan, the “BedsideWellness” system by Ohsuga et al., allows bedriddenpatients to take a virtual forest walk while lying on theirbacks in bed. An array of three video screens presents theunfolding view of the forest as the patient gently steps ontwo foot pedals. There is also 3D sound of birds, streamsand wind in the trees. A slot below the central screendelivers a gentle breeze scented with pine to the “walking”patient.

Rizzo, of the University of Southern California, is usingVR to give increased ecological validity to standard testsapplied to Alzheimer’s Disease patients, such as the mentalrotation task (where the patient has to decide if a secondfigure is a rotated version of an earlier figure, or is differentin shape). This Immersadesk application seemed liketechnological overkill to me. However, a fuller paper byRizzo et al., in the CyberPsychology and Behavior journal,lists several advantages of VR for cognitive and functionalassessment and rehabilitation applications:

1. ecologically valid and dynamic testing and trainingscenarios, difficult to present by other means

2. total control and consistency of administration

3. hierarchical and repetitive stimulus challenges thatcan be readily varied in complexity, depending onlevel of performance

4. provision of cueing stimuli or visualisation tactics tohelp successful performance in an errorless learn-ing paradigm

5. immediate feedback of performance

6. ability to pause for discussion or instruction

7. option of self-guided exploration and independenttesting and training

8. modification of sensory presentations and responserequirements based on user’s impairments

9. complete performance recording

10. more naturalistic and intuitive performance recordfor review and analysis by the user

11. safe environment, although realistic

12. ability to introduce game-like aspects to en-hance motivation for learning

13. low-cost functional training environments

Also on the topic of psychological assessment, LauraMedozzi et al., from Milan, described what seemed to behigh-quality work to compare traditional tests with VR-based testing. The case of a patient suffering frontal lobedysfunction several years after a stroke was used to makethe point that traditional tests often fail to reveal deficits thatcan be identified with VR. This is thought to be due to thenonverbal and immersive realism of VR, compared to thepresence of a human examiner, in traditional testing, whoinadvertently provided surrogate control over higher order

Interfaces 37 9

John Waterworth

faculties – largely through verbal exchanges. The samegroup, in collaboration with workers under David Rose atthe University of East London, described the use of VR toaid cognitive rehabilitation.

Joan McComas of the University of Ottawa described aVR system for developing spatial skills in children. She hadcarried out a four-condition study where choice of locationto move to was either passive or active, as was navigation tothat location. The four were then: passenger (passivechoice/passive movement) navigator (active choice/passivemovement), driver (active choice/active movement) andnavigated driver (passive choice/active movement). Thetask was to find things hidden at locations, but withoutgoing to the same location twice. Measures were percent ofcorrect choices and visit of first error. It occurred to me thatI could use this sort of approach in studies of exploration in3D information landscapes. A paper by Weniger also strucka chord by comparing spatial learning (maze navigation)with exercise of the executive function (the maze withpictograms) and with the use of orientation skills (naviga-tion of landscapes).

Giuseppe Riva, from the Applied Technology for Psy-chology Lab at the Instituto Auxologico Italiano in Verbaniaalso discussed the use of VR for psychological assessment –particularly the development of the Body Image VirtualReality Scale. Patients chose which virtual body they thinkmatches their own, and which they would prefer to haveinstead. The difference gives a measure of body imagedistortions.

An interesting snippet from a paper by another Italian,Dario Alpini, is that normal people, when asked to rotate onthe spot, will usually chose a clockwise rotation, unlikeabnormals. I wondered whether this holds true in thesouthern hemisphere or if, as with bath water going downthe drain, the direction there is reversed. His paper wasconcerned with such differences between normals andothers, in real and virtual environments,

Mark Riva, of The Flow Network, evangelised on the joysof flowing, derived from the work in art aesthetics byCsikszentmihalyi (who is President of the company). Flowmeans optimal experience, flow means maximising your selfin autotelic fashion. Flow is A GOOD THING, in fact, thebest. Sign up now and never have to think again.

In a somewhat similar vein, Rogers, of the MythseekerInstitute, described a very complicated system loosely basedon Jung’s ideas of archetypes and their role in myths andhuman psychology. The idea is to use the system (patentspending) to create your own myth to give your life meaning,overcoming the common problem of people unconsciouslychoosing a myth that is not right for them. Myth choosingincluded such things as how to experience time, what visualtextures are encountered, and so on, in some ways soundinglike a way of adjusting the computer environment depend-ing on the individual’s personality type.

Greene and Heeter, of the Michigan State UniversityCommunication Technology Lab, described CD-ROMs thatcontain VR-like stories of cancer sufferers, particularly in

relation to coping with pain. Details can be found at [http://www.commtechlab.msu.edu/products/]. An interestingpaper by Hunter reported the finding that VR can be veryeffective in helping burn-recovery patients cope with thepain of treatment. Patients in the VR condition reportedsignificant pain reduction and less time spent thinkingabout pain.

Pope described the use of a VR system called “Viscereal”to provide physiological feedback. Users could control theflow of blood to their hands, and hence could warm or coolthem at will. It has also been found to be effective in permit-ting conscious control of bowel activity, easing clinicallyharmless but distressing conditions such as Irritable BowelSyndrome.

The Woodburys, a husband and wife team from thePuerto Rican Institute of Psychiatry, mused on moderncosmology and the origins of our three dimensionality. Theygave the conference a useful reminder that the 3D world isin our heads, not in the world “out there”. Pathologicalpsychological states – especially various psychoses – andaltered states of consciousness produced by certain halluci-nogenic drugs, make this clear as the world around theexperiencer, and his sense of his body and its place in thatworld, fall apart in typical psychotic panic states. FollowingPribram, the Woodburys view the 3D world we know sowell as a holographic projection, formed in the brainaccording to principles established through evolution asaiding survival. While recognising that this world is anillusion, psychiatrists work to restore it in patients whoseworld has literally collapsed.

The author of a mystifying paper from Italy, GabrieleOptale, suggested that while impotence and prematureejaculation are topics which fascinate women, they terrifymen. The latter seems plausible, at least. An animation withunbelievably poor graphics addressed these problems, but itwas not clear why watching a bizarre story of choppingthrough foliage, broken swords, and magic restorativepotions would help.

Although not mentioned by presenters, one of theaudience, Rita Addison, talked about the use of VR tocommunicate the reality of mental deficits to other, normal,people. Rita has visited the VRLab in Umea and is wellknown for her “Detour: Brain Deconstruction Ahead” whichreproduces for others her visual problems since a caraccident a few years ago. See [http://www.babelweb.org/virtualistes/galerie/detoura.htm]. She was also theonly person at the conference to use the word “synaes-thesia”.

John WaterworthDepartment of InformaticsUmeå UniversityS-901 87 SwedenEmail: jwworth@informatik.umu.se

Conference Report

Interfaces 3710

Book Review

Safety critical systems have traditionally been written aboutfrom a design viewpoint and references to human factorsissues are not easy to locate. Consequently, this book is awelcome addition to the literature in that it appears to fill aneed for a text devoted solely to aspects of user involve-ment. However, a first glance reveals that the text gives atraditional approach to human factors of safety criticalsystems in that Part 1 is devoted to human reliability andcauses of human error and has three chapters (authored byFelix Redmill, Deborah Lucas and Carlo Cacciabue respec-tively). Part 2 deals with human–computer interaction(HCI) with five of the twelve chapters covering an introduc-tion (Chapter 4, authored by Graham Storrs), specificationwith a brief summary of risk analysis, fault tree analysis andhazard analysis (Chapter 5, authored by Jeremy Clare),interface design (Chapter 6, authored by Jane Rajan) andtraining and operator support (Chapter 7, authored byAndrew Shepherd). The final chapter (authored byJonathan Berman) in this section details issues in abnormalsituations. Part 3 has four chapters covering socio-technicalconsiderations (Chapter 9, authored by Ron Westrum), suchas learning from incidents at work (Chapter 10, authored byFlorus Koornneef and Andrew Hale), procedural violations(Chapter 11, authored by Steve Mason) and safety cases(Chapter 12, authored by David Collier). A brief biographyof the authors and an index completes the book. Referencesare given at the end of each chapter.

Readers of Interfaces will no doubt be particularlyinterested in the section on HCI and it is unfortunate thatmore care has not been given to chapter titles. For example,Chapter 4, ‘Introduction to HCI in safety-critical systems’discusses the shortfall of user-centred design in traditionalanalysis and design methodologies such as SSADM (Struc-tured Systems Analysis and Design Methodology) andYourdon but uses only Norman’s Model (Norman, 1986) asan example of user-centred development. Equally, the ideaof usability metrics is dismissed since ‘current humanperformance is almost never known in sufficient detail foranyone to be able to do more than guess at what the re-quired performance should be’. One can take issue here asareas of safety-critical systems such as those used in aircraftcockpits and on marine vessels usually are used by certifi-cated personnel so that the user possesses a basic minimumlevel of knowledge and experience. For example, fishingskippers in charge of vessels over 16.5 metres registeredlength in the UK will have an electronic navigation systemscertificate covering operational skills (Olsen, 1998).

Chapter 6, on interface design, authored by Jane Rajan,covers many topics from the system’s characteristics toprinciples of screen design but no reference is given to suchprinciples derived by the Governments of both the UK andUS, e.g. F1166 (1988), MoD (1996). Such works relatedirectly to critical systems and give useful and specific

information. Perhaps this is the ‘problem’ with this book –it tries to cover too much and consequently becomes rathersuperficial at times, although the editors accept this bystating that the coverage is ‘broad’. Another quibble is thatreferences are often rather old, for example, Chapter 7, ontraining and operator support, has its most recent referencefrom 1994 and this is typified throughout the book althoughthere is the occasional later reference, for example inChapter 1. However, in that the aim of the book is to be ofvalue to ‘practitioners … in safety engineering, softwareengineering, and management’, the book is successful.However, HCI experts in safety-critical systems will findlittle new in this book.ReferencesF1166, 1988, Standard Practice for Human Engineering Design for Marine Systems,

Equipment and Facilities, ASTM Committee F-25 on Shipbuilding,Philadelphia: Naval Publications and Forms Center.

MoD, 1996, Interim Defence Standard 00-25 Human Factors for Designers ofEquipment (Part 13 - Human Computer Interaction), Glasgow: Ministry ofDefence.

Norman, D A, 1986, ‘Cognitive Engineering’, in Norman, D A and Draper, SW, eds, 1986, User-centred System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Olsen, 1998, Olsen’s Fisherman’s Nautical Almanack, Scarborough: Dennis Printand Publishing.

Human Factors in Safety Critical SystemsFelix Redmill & Jane Rajan

Redmill, Felix and Rajan, Jane, editors, 1997, HumanFactors in Safety Critical Systems, Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann, 354 + x pages, ISBN: 0-7506-2715-8, £55approx.

Stella MillsCheltenham & Gloucester College of Higher EducationTel: +44(0) 1242 543231Email: smills@chelt.ac.uk

Wanted – articles on Software Support for HCI. TheSoftware Support series gives leading practitioners andresearchers the opportunity to discuss how userinterface software tools, along with supporting methodsand techniques, can aid in the production of goodhuman-computer interfaces. Possible topics include:

User interface specification, design and constructiontools

Specification and design methods to support theiruse

Tools which aid in interface evaluation and testing

Case studies on such tools and their success (or not,as the case may be!)

Intelligent and adaptive front-ends

Visual Programming

Programming by example and demonstrationsystems

This list is not exhaustive: any article that fits under theheading ‘Software Support for HCI’ will be consideredfor publication. Please send submissions to: DaveClarke; email: Dave@visualize.demon.co.uk (or on diskc/o Interfaces, address on back cover). Articles shouldbe sent in RTF, MS Word or straight ASCII format.Length should not exceed 3000 words. Figures andreferences may be included where appropriate.

Interfaces 37 11

My Thesis

My ThesisName and address of researcher:Caroline GaleDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of YorkHeslington, York YO1 5DDTel: +44 1904 433169Email: c.gale@psych.york.ac.uk

Title of ThesisThe effects of Gaze Awareness on communication invideo-mediated manipulation tasks

Supervisor, department and institutionAndrew Monk, Department of Psychology, University ofYork, Heslington, York YO1 5DD

What my thesis is about‘Gaze awareness’ is knowing someone else’s focus of visualattention. This might be expected to be an importantcommunication resource as an aid to grounding in conversa-tion that video technology should support.

How I got into thisAfter a ‘false start’ looking at deindividuation in e-mail, Iread a paper by Ishii and Kobayashi describing their shareddrawing system ‘Clearboard’, which introduces the conceptof gaze awareness. Although the authors claim thatClearboard supports gaze awareness and that gaze aware-ness will be an important future design goal, neither concepthas ever been empirically examined.

My contribution to HCI researchMy overall hypothesis is that knowing where someone elseis looking can make conversation more efficient. For exam-ple, in telemedicine, a nurse-practitioner might request asecond opinion about a diagnosis from a remote hospital-based doctor over a video link. In this case, gaze awarenesscould be used to quickly detect misunderstandings. Forexample, if the doctor referred to the patient’s right kneeand saw that the nurse-practitioner looked at the left knee,he would be aware that the instruction had been misunder-stood. However, before recommending that video technol-ogy should be configured to permit gaze awareness, twothings have to be established. Firstly, how accurately peopleare able to tell where someone else is looking, and secondly,assuming that this is possible, whether or not they actuallyuse this information when communicating with one another.Investigating the answers to these two questions has beenthe main focus of my research.

My first three experiments measured how accuratelypeople are able to estimate another’s gaze focus, both face toface and in video-mediated conditions. These were essen-tially psychophysical; the only HCI-related element was thevideo mediation. Working in pairs, a ‘gazer’ gazed at anumber of points on a flat target placed on a table in front ofthem. An ‘estimator’, sitting either directly opposite thegazer or viewing them remotely over a video link, guessedat which point the gazer was gazing. Results showed that

the estimators were extremely accurate in their guesses, andthat video mediation has no negative effect on this. Bothfindings were replicated across all three experiments.

My fourth and fifth experiments address the secondquestion of whether or not availability of gaze awarenessaffects communication. Both of these involve pairs ofparticipants completing a shared task in a variety of videoconfigurations, some of which allow gaze awareness. Thetask devised for Experiment 4 was a manipulation taskcalled the ‘Circuit Board Task’. One participant, the ‘Re-pairer’, sat in front of a flat (paper) circuit board with 17‘terminals’ separately labelled. The other participant, the‘Expert’, had a list of pairs of terminals for the repairer to‘test’. The Expert’s task was to describe, from the image ofthe circuit board that they could see on a TV monitor, thelocation of each particular pair of terminals. The Repairer’stask was to test these. Each conversation was recorded, andtranscriptions made. From these transcriptions, a dialogueanalysis (‘Conversational Games Analysis’) was carried outon each conversation. In addition, other measures of taskperformance and communication process (e.g. number ofturns, number of words used) were examined. Althoughresults were somewhat disappointing, this was attributed tothe fact that only the Expert had gaze awareness available.Experiment 5 was therefore a modification and refinementof Experiment 4, with one video configuration making gazeawareness potentially available to both participants. Avideotunnel was constructed to achieve this and to allowparticipants eye contact, and the gaze target was changedfrom a flat, paper ‘circuit board’ to a clear, vertical line-drawing. The same techniques were used for analysis, andat present the data is partially analysed. Preliminary resultsare very encouraging and it seems likely that differences incommunication depending on availability of gaze awarenesswill be shown.

What I want to do nextNothing to do with gaze awareness, ever, as long as I live.(Only joking.) I’m currently writing up my thesis andapplying for research positions in universities and commer-cial laboratories.

Caroline Gale

These short articles are now a regular feature in Interfaces. Theidea is to offer a platform to Ph.D. students who have justsubmitted their theses, or who are about to do so. The articlesare intended to be short narrative explanations of what thethesis is about, rather than formal summaries. They will allowother research students and researchers working in similarareas to make contact with the author; who knows, they mayeven lead to offers of employment.If you would like to contribute to this series, please contactAndrew Monk (01904 433148; AM1@york.ac.uk) for instruc-tions.

Interfaces 3712

Feature

F.I.GROUP PLC is a UK-based supplier of computer soft-ware services to major organisations whose businessesdepend on information technology. It is a market leader inthe expanding standalone applications management market.

As part of F.I.GROUP’s strategic outsourcing partnershipwith Thames Water, FI has provided a range of servicesincluding Usability Healthchecks.

IntroductionThe goal of the FI Usability Team is to enhance the perform-ance of business processes by ensuring that design solutionscapitalise on user strengths and minimise the effects of userweaknesses.

A Usability Healthcheck is a targeted field analysis of abusiness system or process in context, often taking only oneday to identify significant problems with existing process/system or likely problems for integration of new systems.

While system developers, psychologists, ergonomists andHCI specialists would agree that the context in which userscarry out their tasks is important, they may not agree on thebest method for collecting, interpreting and integrating thisknowledge into the business world.

Currently the workshop method is very popular, where asmall group of analysts and empowered users, aided by afacilitator, seek to creatively solve business needs. While theworkshop method has many advantages it does tend tooverlook some of the important contextual issues affectingbusiness performance which cannot be taken out of thework context and into the meeting room.

To provide a balance, we employ a UsabilityHealthcheck. These Healthchecks have been successfullyapplied across Thames Water including the CustomerInformation System, Job Management System and MeterReading System. This Case Study reports their use in theThames Water Laboratories.

Business ChallengeThames Water is the largest water company in the UK,serving seven million direct water supply customers, andover 11 million sewerage customers.

The Thames Water Laboratories, known as the WaterQuality Centre, provide scientific analysis services for thebusiness. The testing turnover is phenomenal, with over300,000 samples and two million tests per annum. A rangeof software systems are used to support these activities,with around 200 users in total.

The systems are classic mainframe ‘green screen’ systemsand the Business Systems Division of Thames Water werekeen to find out how these systems could be improvedwithin the current constraints of the mainframe ‘greenscreen’ environment.

ApproachOur Usability Healthchecks normally follow the followingsteps:

Step 1 Initial briefing from project sponsor – oftenfrom the IT department. Covers the scope ofthe systems under study, their context, userbase and characteristics of system perform-ance.

Step 2 Identify key tasks to review and key users toobserve and interview. A good selection ofuser types and roles is required to give acomprehensive overview. For many systems3–6 interviews should provide an initialsurvey view and this can normally be com-pleted in one day, especially if two usabilityanalysts are available.

Step 3 Arrange visits and coordinate interviews.

Step 4 Visit day – see Figure 1 for the contents of theHealthcheck toolkit. The exact formulation ofa day’s visit varies depending on the requiredoutputs, e.g. process review, job design, erroridentification, comparative assessment, etc.Most visits combine observation with inter-views.

We have found that it can be very fruitful tointerview a couple of users who work insimilar roles together. This helps them toreflect upon their activities and provide uswith a richer set of data and insights.

Figure 1 Healthcheck Toolkit

Step 5 Rapid summary report and feedback toproject sponsor. This can include RiskAnalysis – using our in-house assessment

Case Study: Usability Healthchecks@ Thames Water

| Organisational Context

– Management Structure

– Communication Structure

– Group Working

– Outline Key Process Flows

– Organisational Aims

| Attitudes to Information Technology

| Ergonomic Checklist

| Operator Modifications

| Allocation of Function

| Job Design

| Human Computer Interaction

– Memory

– Errors

– Interoperability

– Workflow

| Critical Incident Analysis

Interfaces 37 13

Feature

Alan Arnfeld & Brian BuckF.I.GROUP PLC

When should Healthchecks be used?Healthchecks are designed to be used regularly in two typesof environment:

1. For existing in-service systems, and after anymajor changes to systems and process.Healthchecks should be conducted on a yearlybasis.

2. For new developments, whether Bespoke orPackage Selection – Healthchecks are an essen-tial part of the process and should be used assoon as the project is initiated.

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate where the Healthcheck fits into thelifecycles of traditional WATERFALL and RAD methodolo-gies.

against eight Human Factors risks enables theprioritisation of the many issues discovered.

Step 6 Review further analysis and design advicerequirements.

Step 7 Project performance review.

ResultsThe laboratory has a range of systems and Usability wereinvited to carry out a Healthcheck on LIFE (LaboratoryInformation For the Environment) and QUARTS (QualityAnalytical Results Transfer System).

The LIFE and QUARTS visits were so successful, identi-fying 22 issues which were both broad and wide-ranging,that Usability were also invited to carry out furtherHealthchecks for other laboratory systems: SoCKS (Sewer-age Operational Contracts System) and TAPS (ThamesAdvanced Prescheduling System).

Figure 2 illustrates a typical issue that might be identifiedduring a Healthcheck. In this case, workflow is underanalysis.

If users want to move on from recording a complaint tocompleting the associated workorder, they must go out tothe main menu and then select the menu items necessaryto navigate to the next screen. This is clumsy and wastefulof resources. It means that users do not carry out tasks ina meaningful manner, but work through all the complaintsas a batch and then all the work orders as a batch.This fragments the task/business process making it lessmeaningful to the user, more time consuming and moreprone to errors.

Figure 2 A workflow issue identified inSoCKS

Concept,Feasibility, Proj.Defn.

Analysis

Design

Build

Testing,Acceptance

Implementation

Review

Design risk analysis, Usability Targets, Healthcheck

Training Needs Analysis, Task Analysis

Inital Style Guide, User Interface design,evaluation, expert review

Benchmarking, Usability evaluation

Completed Style guides

Review, Healthcheck

PackageSelectionMethod

Usability Services

Figure 3 Healthcheck in Waterfall lifecycle

•Design risk analysis

•Training Needs Analysis,Task Analysis

•Benchmarking, Usability evaluation

•Completed Style guides

•Review, Healthcheck

Project Initiation

Joint Requirements Planning

Analysis (&JRP)

Implementation

Prototype, Build & Test

Customer Evaluation

Design

Review

iterative

•Healthcheck, Usability Targets

•Evaluation, expert review

PackageSelectionMethod

RAD Usability Services

Figure 4 Healthcheck in RAD lifecycle

Alan Arnfeld & Brian Buckare now independent consultantsand can be reached at:

User Centred LimitedPO Box 4226, Goring, Reading, RG8 0XX, UKEmail: alan.arnfeld@usercentred.co.ukTel: +44 (0) 1491 875765Fax: +44 (0) 1491 875338.

Interfaces 3714

Profile

What is your idea of happiness?An ergonomically designed bed.

What is your greatest fear?Undergoing psychological testsand not knowing why.

With which historical figure doyou most identify?The old woman who lived in theshoe . . . . . . .

Which living person do you mostadmire?Mo Mowlam.

What is the trait you most de-plore in yourself?Saying ‘yes’.

What is the trait you most de-plore in others?Lack of attention to detail.

What vehicles do you own?1950s red Raleigh bike, blueCitroen, white Serena with lots ofseats to spread the children out.

What is your greatest extrava-gance?Pre-washed carrots and other veg.

What makes you feel most de-pressed?Unwashed carrots and other veg.

What objects do you always carrywith you?The kids.

What do you most dislike aboutyour appearance?Short nails as a result of alwayshitting the keyboard.

What is your most unappealinghabit?Continuing to hit the keys on thekeyboard whilst others are talkingto me.

What is your favourite smell?My new PC.

What is your favourite word?Serendipity.

What is your favourite building?Restormel Castle.

What is your favourite journey?The one I make each day.

What or who is the greatest loveof your life?My family.

Which living person do you mostdespise?The person who stole my laptop.

On what occasions do you lie?When answering these questions(and completing psychologicaltests).

Which words or phrases do youmost over-use?Isn’t it time you went to bed, now?

What is your greatest regret?Not writing earlier.

When and where were youhappiest?As an undergraduate at Lough-borough.

How do you relax?Writing, cooking carrots and otherveg.

What single thing would im-prove the quality of your life?A wife (who stayed at home).

Which talent would you mostlike to have?Ability to run a marathon.

Jan Noyes

Dr Jan Noyes is a lecturer inthe Department of Experimen-tal Psychology at the Univer-sity of Bristol, UK. She is aFellow of the ErgonomicsSociety and currently chairsthe IEE Professional Group onhuman–computer interaction.She has published extensivelyin the area of HCI, particularlyin relation to her work oninterface design for advancedand emerging technologies.

What would your motto be?All things pass.

What keeps you awake at night?Children playing musical beds.

How would you like to die?When the time is right.

How would you like to be re-membered?Isn’t it time you went to bed, now?

Interfaces 37 15

diarydiarydiarydiarydiarydiarydiary

Diary

How To Use Scenarios And UseCases In The Systems DevelopmentProcess14 May, 1998, London, UKFurther Info: Liz Bromley, Centre for HCI Design,City University, Northampton Square, London,EC1V OHB; Tel: 0171-477-8427; Fax: 0171-477-8859; Email: E.M.Bromley@city.ac.ukSummary: Despite the considerable recent interestin the use of scenarios and use cases in thesystems development process, there is a lack ofscenario-based methods, techniques andguidelines available to practitioners, or evenagreement about the definition of use cases andscenarios in the first place. Jacobson has donemuch to introduce use cases into the systemsdevelopment process, but even he has left us withsome loose ends. As a result, discussions aboutuse cases and scenarios often lead to morequestions than answers.This symposium aims to provide some concreteanswers. It brings together practitioners, vendorsand academics with different interests in scenariosand use cases in the systems developmentprocess. Experts from the United States andEurope will present and explore the diverse uses ofscenarios and use cases, examine effectivemethods and guidelines, report on experiences andgood practice, and propose a common path for thedevelopment and application of new scenario-based systems development methods.

The 3D Information Worker19 May, 1998, London, UKFurther Info: Ian Benest, Department of ComputerScience, University of York, Heslington, YORK,YO1 5DD; Email: idb@minster.york.ac.ukSummary: This colloquium is organised by the IEEInformatics Professional Group A5 (HumanSystems Engineering) and is co-sponsored by theBCS HCI Group, the BCS Computer Graphics andDisplays Group, the Eurographics Association UKChapter, and the Virtual Reality Society. Thismeeting will provide an opportunity for practitionersand researchers in Virtual Reality to discussapproaches to those factors that influence theacceptability of the user-interface. Is there auniversal three-dimensional interface lurking in alaboratory somewhere, waiting to be publicised, justas the two-dimensional desktop interface remainedhidden at Xerox Parc Laboratory in the 1970s?

Workshop on Human ComputerInteraction with Mobile DevicesMay 22, 1998, Glasgow, UKFurther Info: Chris Johnson, Department ofComputing Science, University of Glasgow,Glasgow, G12 8QJ, Scotland; Tel: +44 141 3306053; Fax: +44 141 330 4913; Email:johnson@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk; URL: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~johnson/mobile.htmlSummary: The last 3–4 years have seen thedevelopment and marketing of a vast array ofmobile computing devices. These systems heraldwhat we believe to be a new era of ‘ubiquitous’computing. Unfortunately, there has been relativelylittle work into the development of effectiveinteraction techniques for these systems. The utilityof these devices is reduced by the problems ofaccessing information resources through tinydisplays. This can be especially problematic wherethat information is ‘perishable’; where its value isonly relevant to particular locations and times.The utility of mobile devices is further reduced bythe problems of manipulating miniaturised versionsof ‘standard’ keyboards and pointing devices. Usersare also forced to perform numerous, delicateoperations by selecting very small icons. Thisworkshop will provide a forum for academics andpractitioners to discuss the challenges and potentialsolutions for effective interaction with mobilesystems.

C O O P ‘ 9 8 – Third InternationalConference on the Design of Coop-erative Systems26–29 May, 1998, Cannes, FranceFurther Info: Monique Simonetti, INRIA, COOP’98,Bureau des Relations Exterieures, 2004 route desLucioles, BP 93, 06 902 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex,France; Tel: +33-4 93 65 78 64; Fax:+33-4 93 6579 55; Email: simoneti@sophia.inria.fr; URL: http://zenon.inria.fr/acacia/Coop/Coop98/Summary: The main goal of COOP’98 is tocontribute to the solution of problems related to thedesign of cooperative systems, and to theintegration of these systems in organizationalsettings. The Conference is sponsored by a numberof French and international organizations, andbrings together researchers from distributed AI,decision-making, distributed cognition, manage-ment studies, computer science and CSCW. Theconference is international yet intimate, andprovides a useful forum for debate aboutmethodologies, conceptual frameworks, and casematerial. The main language of the conference isEnglish.

DSV-IS’98: 5th InternationalEurographics Workshop on Design,Specification and Verification ofInteractive Systems3–5 June, 1998, Abingdon, EnglandFurther Info: Panos Markopoulos, Department ofComputer Science, Queen Mary and WestfieldCollege, University of London, Mile End Road,London E1 4NS, UK; Tel: +44 (0)171 975 5257;Fax: +44 (0)181 980 6533; Email:markop@dcs.qmw.ac.uk; URL: http://www.dcs.qmw.ac.uk/research/hci/dsvis98Summary: The workshop will provide a forum forthe exchange of ideas on diverse approaches tothe design of interactive systems. The particularfocus of this year’s event is on models (e.g. ofdevices, users, tasks, etc.) and their role insupporting the design and development ofinteractive systems. As in previous years wemaintain our interest in the use of formal represen-tations and their role in supporting the design,specification, verification, validation and evaluationof interactive systems. Contributions pertaining toless formal representations of interactive systemdesigns and model-based design approaches arealso encouraged. The workshop aims to encouragean exchange of ideas between these differentresearch fields.

FOIS’98 – International ConferenceOn Formal Ontology In InformationSystems6–8 June, 1998, Trento, ItalyFurther Info: ORGANIZATION CHAIR, AlessandroArtale, ITC-IRST, Povo, I-38050 Trento, Italy;Email: artale@irst.itc.it; URL: http://mnemosyne.itc.it:1024/fois98/Summary: Research on ontology is becomingincreasingly widespread in the computer sciencecommunity. Its importance has been recognized infields as diverse as qualitative modelling of physicalsystems, natural language processing, knowledgeengineering, information integration, databasedesign, geographic information science, andintelligent information access. Various workshopsaddressing the engineering aspects of ontologyhave been held in the past few years. However,ontology – by its very nature – ought to be aunifying discipline. Insights in this field havepotential impacts on the whole area of informationsystems. In order to provide a solid generalfoundation for this work, it is therefore important tofocus on the common scientific principles and openproblems arising from current tools, methodologies,and applications of ontology. The purpose of thisconference is to take a first step in this direction.The conference will have a strongly interdisciplinarycharacter. Expected participants include computerscience practitioners as well as linguists, logicians,and philosophers.

First International Workshop onInnovative Internet InformationSystems (IIIS’98)8–9 June, 1998, Pisa, ItalyFurther Info: David Schwartz, School of BusinessAdministration, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan,Israel; Email: dschwar@mail.biu.ac.ilSummary: The Internet is quickly moving from amarketing tool in which businesses and organiza-tions promote sales and awareness, to a coreelement of any information system architecture.The advent of the Internet as a fundamentalinfrastructure for the delivery of advanced businessinformation systems has opened up a wide range ofquestions for the design and development of suchsystems. This workshop focuses on InformationSystems that utilize the Internet as their primaryarchitectural base or as a secondary extension toexisting information systems. This workshop willserve as a forum to present and discuss earlyresults and challenges of innovative Internet-basedapplications.The workshop will last two days and it will takeplace immediately before CAiSE98. All participantsin the Workshop are expected to register forCAiSE98.

Workshop on Presence in SharedVirtual Environments10–11 June, 1998, BT Labs,Ipswich, UKFurther Info: Email: A.Steed@cs.ucl.ac.uk; URL:http://vb.labs.bt.com/SharedSpaces/Presence/

CE98 – 5th ISPE InternationalConference On Concurrent Engi-neering15–17 June, 1998, Tokyo, JapanFurther Info: Professor Shuichi Fukuda, Departmentof Production, Information and Systems Engineer-ing, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Technology, 6-6, Asahigaoka, Hino, Tokyo 191, Japan; Tel: +81-425-83-5111 Ext. 3605; Fax: +81-425-83-5119;Email: fukuda@mgbfu.tmit.ac.jp; URL: http://www.bath.ac.uk/Departments/Eng/CE98/home.htmlSummary: CE98, the 5th ISPE InternationalConference on Concurrent Engineering, is a majorforum for the international scientific exchange ofresearch results in the development of novelmethodologies, information technologies andbusiness practices in achieving concurrency andintegration in engineering.

Collaborative Virtual Environments1998 (CVE’98)17–19 June, 1998, Manchester, UKFurther Info: Dr. Dave Snowdon, Dept of ComputerScience, The University of Nottingham, UniversityPark, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; Email:d.snowdon@cs.nott.ac.uk; URL: http://www.crg.cs.nott.ac.uk/~dns/conf/vr/cve98/Summary: A Collaborative Virtual Environment(CVE) is one that actively supports human–humancommunication in addition to human–machinecommunication and which uses a Virtual Environ-ment (including textually based environments suchas MUDs/MOOs) as the user interface. This is anexciting field with much potential for inter-disciplinary collaboration particularly in the fields ofcomputer science, psychology, sociology,architecture & urban planning, cultural & mediastudies and Artificial Intelligence.Following on from the highly sucessful CVE’96,CVE’98 aims to present the current state of the artin Collaborative Virtual Environments and fosterinter-disciplinary links between researchers in thisfield. Compared to CVE’96, CVE’98 will have alarger and more varied programme committe toensure high quality and varied content and fullpapers (rather than extended abstracts) will bepublished in the proceedings.

Interfaces 3716

Diary

diarydiarydiarydiarydiarydiarydiary

ED-MEDIA / ED-TELECOM 98 –World Conference on EducationalMultimedia and Hypermedia andWorld Conference on EducationalTelecommunications20–25 June, 1998, Freiburg, GermanyFurther Info: ED-MEDIA 98/AACE, P.O. Box 2966,Charlottesville, VA 22902 USA; Email:AACE@virginia.edu; Voice: 804-973-3987; Fax:804-978-7449; URL: http://www.aace.org/conf/edmediaSummary: ED-MEDIA/ED-TELECOM 98 – WorldConference on Educational Multimedia andHypermedia and World Conference on EducationalTelecommunications are jointly held internationalconferences, organized by the Association for theAdvancement of Computing in Education (AACE).These annual conferences serve as multi-disciplinary forums for the discussion anddissemination of information on the research,development, and applications on all topics relatedto multimedia/hypermedia and distance education.ED-MEDIA/TELECOM, the premiere internationalconferences in the field, span all disciplines andlevels of education and attract 1000+ attendeesfrom 50+ countries.

Asia-Pacific CHI (APCHI’98)July, 1998, Kanawaga, JapanFurther Info: URL: http://apchi.softlab.is.tsukuba.ac.jpSummary: Foremost HCI conference serving Asiaand the Pacific rim.

Sixth International Conference onHuman Aspects Of AdvancedManufacturing: Agility & HybridAutomation (HAAMAHA ’98)5–8 July, 1998, Hong Kong Universityof Science and TechnologyFurther Info: http://www.spd.louisville.edu/~ergonomics/haamaha98.html

First World Congress on Ergonom-ics For Global Quality And Produc-tivity (ERGON-AXIA ’98)8–11 July, 1998, Hong Kong Universityof Science and TechnologyFurther Info: URL: http://www.spd.louisville.edu/~ergonomics/axia98.html

Workshop on User-Interfaces toTheorem Provers (UITP’98)13–14 July, 1998, Eindhoven, Nether-landsFurther Info: N. Merriam, Dept. of ComputerScience, U. of York, York YO1 5DD; Tel: (+44/0)1904 434755; Fax: (+44/0) 1904 432767; Email:Nicholas.Merriam@cs.york.ac.uk; URL: http://www.win.tue.nl/cs/ipa/uitp/Summary: This international workshop provides aforum for the exchange of ideas and research onthe analysis and design of user interfaces fortheorem proving assistants. In particular itfacilitates cross-fertilisation between the fields ofhuman–computer interaction (HCI) and mechanisedtheorem proving. The series was started inrecognition of the fact that the difficulty in usingpowerful theorem proving software frequently lieswith a poor user interface. There are gaps betweenthe knowledge required by designers of suchinterfaces and present state of the art in generalinterface design technology. Effective solutionsrequire the collaboration of HCI practitioners andthe authors and users of existing theorem provingsoftware.

ECAI’9823–28 August, 1998, Brighton, UKFurther Info: ECAI-98 Secretariat, Centre forAdvanced Software Applications, University ofSussex, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK; Tel: +44(0)1273678448; Fax: +44(0)1273 671320; Email:ecai98@cogs.susx.ac.uk; URL: http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/ecai98Summary: ECAI-98 is organised by the EuropeanCoordinating Committee for Artificial Intelligence(ECCAI) and hosted by the Universities of Brightonand Sussex on behalf of AISB.

15th IFIP World Computer Congress‘The Global Information Society onthe Way to the Next Millennium’31 August – 4 September, 1998,Vienna and BudapestFurther Info: Email: ifip98@ocg.or.at; URL: http://www.ocg.or.at/ifip98Summary: The Congress will consist of sevencarefully selected conferences, most of which boastlong traditions, with paper presentations and postersessions. Each conference is organized in closecooperation with the relevant Technical Commit-tees and Working Groups of IFIP. The structure ofthe International Programme Committee and theProgramme Committees of the seven conferenceswith well-known IT experts make sure that theparticipants of the congress will enjoy a high qualityscientific program that will give an excellent outlookof what can be expected in the future. Althoughparticipants register for one conference, they will beallowed to switch between the conferences:Telecooperation – The Global Office, Teleworkingand Communication ToolsICCHP ‘98 – 6th International Conference onComputers Helping People with Special NeedsSEC ‘98 – 14th International Information SecurityConferenceKnowRight ‘98 – 2nd International Conference onIntellectual Property Rights and Free Flow ofInformationFundamentals – Foundations of Computer ScienceIT & KNOWS – Information Technology andKnowledge SystemsTeleteaching ‘98 – Distance Learning, Training,and Education

ICCHP ’98: the 6th InternationalConference on Computers HelpingPeople with Special Needs31 August – 4 September, 1998,Vienna and Budapest.Further Info: Dr. A. D. N. Edwards, Department ofComputer Science, University of York, York,ENGLAND, YO1 5DD; Tel: + 44 1904 432775; Fax:+ 44 1904 432767; Email:alistair@minster.york.ac.uk; URL: http://www.ocg.or.at/VERA/IFIP98/ICCHP/icchp.htmlSummary: Part of the 15th IFIP World ComputerCongress, this conference is concerned with allaspects of the use of computers by people withdisabilities. That includes both the adaptation of thehuman–computer interface to enable the persons toaccess the computer for everyday use and thedevelopment of computer-based aids to reduce thehandicapping effect. Experience from the previousfive ICCHP conferences has shown that computershave positively affected the lives of disabled peoplein many different ways. The conference aims topromote discussion with all relevant disciplines.

HCI’981–4 September, 1998, Sheffield, UKFurther Info: HCI’98 Conference Coordinator,Conference 21, Sheffield Hallam University,Sheffield, S1 1WB, UK; Tel: +44 (0)114 225 5334;Fax: +44 (0)114 225 5337; Email:hci98@shu.ac.uk; URL: http://www.shu.ac.uk/hci98Summary: The HCI annual conference is theprimary European conference on human–computerinteraction. The conference regularly bringstogether researchers and practitioners concernedwith the effective utilisation of computing and

communication technology by humans, organisa-tions and society. This year’s conference, HCI’98,is to be held at Sheffield Hallam University. Inaddition to the usual presentation formats, aninnovation at this year’s conference is the inclusionof research symposia, at which full technical paperswill be discussed in a highly interactive format. Thefield of human–computer interaction ismultidisciplinary and includes contributions from thehuman and social sciences, computer science,technology, education and design. With thewidespread adoption and integration of computingand communication technology the relevance ofHCI is more significant than ever before. Inaddition, the current advances in technologypresent further opportunities and challenges forpractitioners and researchers within the HCIcommunity. Specifically, the professionalexploitation of multi-media technology provides arich domain which is creating new demands foreffective methods and tools. HCI’98 provides anopportunity to further investigate and developtheory and practice within all of these areas.

BCS – Formal Aspects of Comput-ing Science: Formal Aspects ofHuman Computer InteractionWorkshop5 /6 September, 1998, Sheffield, UKSubmissions by 29 MayFurther Info: Prof. Jawed Siddiqi, Sheffield HallamUniversity, School Of Computing and ManagementSciences, Sheffield, S1 1WB, UK; Tel: +44 (0) 114225 3171; Fax: +44 (0) 114 225 3161; Email:j.i.siddiqi@ shu.ac.uk; URL: http://www.shu.ac.uk//fahci/Summary: One particular thread in HCI, that’s beenaround for less than a decade and is the focus ofthis series of workshops, is application of formalityto HCI. What does formality have to offer in thisdebate about the foundations and nature of HCI?What types of formality are relevant? What are thebenefits and limitations in applying formality toHCI? Formality has a recognised place in computerscience in general, and software engineering inparticular, and the arguments have been frequentlystated. The workshop will ask: Are the argumentsjustifying the use of formality in constructingsoftware systems pertinent to HCI? To what extentdoes the use of formality make explicit theconcerns of human factors? How do broadercharacterisations of formality assist in modellingand analysing interaction?

Reliability and Safety of Human-Machine Systems6–13 September, 1998, Knossos RoyalVillage, CreteFurther Info: Reliability and Safety Summer School,Virginia Bocci, Laboratorio Multimediale, Universityof Siena, Via del Giglio, 14, 53100 Siena, ITALY;Fax: +39 577 298461;Email:school@media.unisiena.it; URL: http://www.media.unisi.it/schoolSummary: There is an increasing use of automationin contexts where humans and machines interact inprocess control, transportation, medical systemsand many other fields. The dependability analysisand evaluation of these systems requires anintegrated approach, considering the hardware,software and human components and theirinteractions. Aim of the summer school is to helpresearchers and practitioners in developing theinterdisciplinary competencies that are needed forthe design, analysis and evaluation of human–machine systems. Lecturers will be expert seniorresearchers from the different disciplinesconcerned (human reliability and cognitive science,hardware and software dependability). They willintroduce common goals, needs and problems ofthe different disciplines, and will describe theexisting methods for quantitative and qualitativeanalysis and evaluation of human–machinesystems. Practical work groups on case studies willhelp young students to link this information acrossdiscipline boundaries.

Interfaces 37 17

diarydiarydiarydiarydiarydiarydiary

To receive more information via email on all these events andothers, together with full details of many industrial, academic,and research studentship posts, subscribe to our electronicmailing list by sending the following two-line message, filled inappropriately, to the mailbase server:mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk

join bcs-hci [optional title] <your first name> <your last name>stop

Diary

Designing Effective and UsableMultimedia Systems: IFIP 13.2Working Conference9–11 September, 1998, Stuttgart,GermanyFurther Info: Professor Alistair Sutcliffe, Centre forHCI Design, School of Informatics, City University,Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB UK; Tel:+44-171-477-8411; Fax: +44-171-477-8859; Email:a.g.sutcliffe@city.ac.ukSummary: As the multimedia marketplace becomesmore crowded ease of use is becoming a keycompetitive advantage. Usability and effectivecommunication are vital to ensure the success ofmultimedia designs and to avoid problems ofinformation overloading. Multimedia systems areused in a wide variety of contexts such as computersupported learning, entertainment, decision supportand process control. The increasing diversity ofapplications raises complex design issues. Forexample, in educational applications sound designis necessary to promote learning with maintainingthe user’s attention; while in decision supportsystems representing key information isimportant.This conference will bring togetherresearchers and practitioners from a variety ofbackgrounds to exchange current knowledge in thearea, discuss design problems and solutions forimproving product usability and shape futureresearch agendas. The aim will be to advanceunderstanding of usability issues, quality assuranceand the design process for multimedia.

5th International Conference onObject-oriented information systems9–11 September, 1998, La Sorbonne,Paris, FranceFurther Info: G. Grosz, OOIS‚98, C. R. I., Universityof Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne, 90, rue de Tolbiac,75013 Paris, France; Tel: +33 (0)1 40 77 46 34;Fax: +33 (0)1 40 77 19 54; Email: OOIS98@univ-paris1.fr; URL: http://panoramix.univ-paris1.fr/CRINFO/OOIS98Summary: OOIS’98 addresses recent research inobject-oriented concepts and principles, object-oriented methods and ools, as well as industrialprojects.

7th IFIP Working Conference onEngineering for Human–ComputerInteraction (EHCI’98)14–18 September, 1998, Heraklion,Crete, GreeceFurther Info: Len Bass, SEI/CMU, 5000 ForbesAvenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, U.S.A.; Email:ljb@sei.cmu.edu; ehci98@imag.fr; URL: http://iihm.imag.fr/EHCI98 or http://www.sei.cmu.edu/~EHCI98Summary: EHCI’98 will take place at the KnossosRoyal Village, in Heraklion. It is a single-trackconference organised by IFIP Working Group 2.7(13.4). Participation is limited to 60 persons and willbe by invitation: authors of accepted papers will beexpected to participate. Others may attend byinvitation of the General Chair. Accepted paperswill be included in the Conference Proceedings,published by Chapman and Hall.

First Workshop on EmbodiedConversational Characters12–15 October, 1998, Tahoe City,California, USASubmissions by 15 JuneFurther Info: Joseph W. Sullivan, FX Palo Alto Lab,USA; Email: sullivan@pal.xerox.com; JustineCassell, MIT Media Laboratory, USA; Email:justine@media.mit.edu; URL: www.fxpal.com/wecc98/Summary: Recent advances in several coresoftware technologies have made possible a newtype of human–computer interface: the conversa-tional character. Conversational characters areautonomous, anthropomorphic, animated figuresthat have the ability to communicate throughmultiple modalities, including spoken language,facial expressions, and gestures. The primary goalof this workshop is to advance the state ofconversational character research and develop-ment by identifying novel approaches to the topicsand issues listed below, and integrating them into aframework for embodied, conversational human–computer interaction.

13th IEEE International Conferenceon Automated Software Engineering(ASE’98)13–16 October, 1998, Honolulu,HawaiiSubmissions by 8 MayFurther Info: Alex Quilici, Department of ElectricalEngineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2504Dole Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA; Tel: +1808 956-9735; Fax: +1 808-956-3427; Email:alex@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu; URL: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~ase98Summary: The IEEE International Conference onAutomated Software Engineering brings togetherresearchers and practitioners to share ideas on thefoundations, techniques, tools and applications ofautomated software engineering technology. Bothautomatic systems and systems that support andcooperate with people are within the scope of theconference, as are computational models of humansoftware engineering activities. ASE-98 encouragescontributions describing basic research, novelapplications, and experience reports.

Fifth International Conference onAuditory Display (ICAD’98)1–4 November, 1998, Glasgow, UKSubmissions by 6 JuneFurther Info: Email: For registration queries contact:icad98_registration@santafe.edu; For papersubmission queries contact: alistair-icad@minster.york.ac.uk; URL: http://www.santafe.edu/~icad/ or http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/icad98/Summary: Continuing the work of the successfulseries of ICAD Conferences, ICAD’98 will be heldat the University of Glasgow, UK (previousproceedings of ICAD are on-line at http://www.santafe.edu/~icad/). This is the the first timethe ICAD conference will be held outside the USA.ICAD is the premier forum for presenting researchon the use of sound to provide enhanced userinterfaces, display data, monitor systems, and forcomputers and virtual reality systems. It is unique

in its singular focus on auditory displays, and thearray of perception, technology, design andapplication areas that these encompass. Like itspredecessors, ICAD’98 will be a single-trackconference. Attendance is open to all, with nomembership or affiliation requirements.

WebNet 98 – World Conference OfThe WWW, Internet & Intranet7–12 November, 1998, Orlando,FloridaFurther Info: WebNet 98/AACE, P.O. Box 2966,Charlottesville, VA 22902 USA; Voice: 804-973-3987; Fax: 804-978-7449; Email:AACE@virginia.edu; URL: http://www.aace.orgSummary: WebNet – the World Conference of theWWW, Internet, and Intranet is an internationalannual conference that serves as a multi-disciplinary forum for the exchange of informationon the development, applications, and research onall topics related to the Web. This encompasses theuse, applications and societal and legal aspects ofthe Internet in its broadest sense. Organized byAACE – Association for the Advancement ofComputing in Education – in cooperation withWWW/Internet businesses & industry.

ACM 1998 Conference on ComputerSupported Cooperative Work(CSCW’98)14–18 November, 1998, Seattle,Washington State, USASubmissions by 3 AprilFurther Info: Tower Building Suite 1414, 1809Seventh Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 USA; Email:cscw98-info@acm.org; URL: http://www.acm.org/sigchi/cscw98/Summary: The CSCW Conference is the preemi-nent venue for presenting research and develop-ment achievements covering the design, introduc-tion, and use of technology that affects groups,organizations, and society. Since its inception adecade ago, CSCW has been on the leading edgeof our extraordinary expansion in the uses oftechnology. CSCW’98 will play an important role inframing and extending the discussion abouttechnology’s role in work and the home.

EuropIA’98 CYBERDESIGN: Media,Communication and Design Practice28–29 November, 1998, Paris, FranceSubmissions by 12 JuneFurther Info: Delia Atherton, University of Paisley,Department of Computing and InformationSystems, Paisley, PA1 2BE, Scotland, UK; Tel: 4441 848 3300; Fax: 44 41 848 3542; Email: ATHE-CI0@paisley.ac.uk; URL: http://www-cis.paisley.ac.uk/europia98/Summary: This conference brings togetherresearchers in design, architecture, engineering,construction management, cognitive science,computer science, artificial intelligence, sociology,geography and education as well as industrypartners, practitioners and other users of mediacommunications.The focus for this diverse group is mediacommunications in design practice – what type ofmedia we use in design practice and what types ofmedia communications tools are available to us –appropriating recent exciting developments inmedia communications for local area and/or widearea networks, new media types for interaction, andcommunications tools for multimedia.

Interfaces 3718

Contact D

etails ( Give a personal contact w

hen asking for Corporate M

embership)

Title ........... First N

ame ..................................... L

ast Nam

e ...........................................

Work A

ddress............................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

Tel.........................................................................Fax.............................................................

E-m

ail. .........................................................................

Nature of the w

ork you do:........................................................................................................

Hom

e Address

...........................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

Please send mailings to: m

y work address

; my hom

e address .

Mem

bership StatusC

urrent British H

CI G

roup Mem

bership No. (if applicable)

....................................................

Current B

ritish BC

S Mem

bership No. (if applicable)...............................................................

Student status (if applicable) .....................................................................................................

Professional Interests (please indicate up to six areas of professional interest)

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

Data P

rotection Act

The data on this form

will be treated as confidential to the B

CS. N

ames and address m

ay be used,under our strict control, for m

ailings judged by the British H

CI G

roup Executive to be of value to

the mem

bership.

Mem

bership Directory

Do you w

ish your contact details and professional interests to be listed in the Mem

bership Directory

sent to all mem

bers of the group? (We w

ill NO

T use your hom

e address, unless that is all you havegiven us.) Y

es N

o

Getting Involved…

We are alw

ays looking for people interested in contributing to HC

I group activities by, writing for

Interfaces magazine, helping run the annual conference or joining the executive. If you are able to

contribute in this way or if you have ideas for 1-day m

eetings or new activities please contact the

mem

bership secretary, Ismail Ism

ail (I.Ismail@

cs.ucl.ac.uk; Fax. 0171-387-1397).

Mem

bership Fee

Mem

bership classes and fees for 1998 are:

BC

S Mem

ber £25 N

on BC

S Mem

ber £30 Student £10

£ ...............

Corporate £195

Corporate m

embership entitles the organisation to 8 copies of

Interfaces and other mailings; m

embership rate for any 4 individuals at B

ritish HC

IG

roup events, as well as, a free one-page entry in the m

embership handbook.

Journal Subscription to ‘Interacting with C

omputers’

The H

CI G

roup manages a journal, Interacting w

ith Com

puters, published quarterly byE

lsevier Science. Mem

bers may subscribe to this journal at a reduced rate. V

ol. 10-No.1

will appear in the Spring of 1998.

Please send me V

ol. 10 (1998) of Interacting with C

omputers (£50)

£ ...............

Please send me V

ols. 9 & 10 of Interacting w

ith Com

puters (£100)£ ...............

Please send me a free sam

ple issue

Paym

entP

lease enter the total amount for m

embership and subscriptions

£ ...............

I enclose a cheque/postal order (in Pounds Sterling only please), made payable to

British H

CI G

rouporPlease debit m

y Access/V

isa/Mastercard

Card num

berE

xpiry

/

/ T

he information provided on this form

is to my know

ledge correct and I agree to theconditions stated.

Signature: .............................................................D

ate: ...................

Card holder’s nam

e and address if different from above:

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

Send completed form

s and cheques to:

HC

I Mem

bership, British C

omputer Society,

1 Sanford Street, Swindon, SN

1 1HJ, U

K(T

el.+44(0)1793 417417)

Queries about m

embership can also be e-m

ailed to: hci@bcs.org.uk

British H

CI G

roup – Application F

orm 1998

Please print or type

Interfaces 37 19Continued overleaf…

Why are scrollbars on the right,and is it the best place forthem? There are good reasonsto think that the left-hand sidemay be the better choice, but invirtually every interface sincethe Xerox Star the scrollbar hasappeared on the right-handside. In this short paper we’lllook at this issue and also atthe design of a browser severalyears ago, which raised similar issues in the placement of on-screenbuttons. In both cases, the best placement does not look right whenyou see it statically, but feels right when it is used. The reason for thisdiscrepancy is an aversion to virtual hands across the screen.

Just another scrollbarAfter typing, using a scrollbar must be one of the common-est actions in a graphical interface. As with all commonwidgets, it is easy to assume that there is nothing interestingin its design. Of course, there have been extensions to thebasic scrollbar, such as Ahlberg and Shneiderman’s (1994)Alphaslider, or Brewster et al.’s (1994) auditory-enhancedscrollbar, and if you look back at older scrollbars, the modeof interaction is sometimes quite different. Also there arevariations in current scrollbars: in the buttons placed at topand bottom (one arrow top and bottom, both at one end,both at both ends), in the information added to the scrollbaritself (e.g. miniature view of the document lines), in thefeedback from the window (continuous while the scrollbaris being moved or jump scrolling when it is released).However, the basic current scrollbar design is taken forgranted.

Hands across the screenwhy scrollbars are on the right and other stories

Sinister positioning?Think of the reason for using a scrollbar. You have a docu-ment or list and want to find something. So you scroll a bit,examining the document as you go until you find therequired position in the text or list. Now, consider your eyemovement throughout this. For English and Europeanlanguages the text is read from left to right and, further-more, for lists of titles or names, it is usually the first fewcharacters or words that are significant in identifyingwhether you are at the right place. So, your eye has toconstantly scan from the scrollbar on the right (which youare controlling with a mouse and thus need to look at) to thestart of the text on the left. To feel this in the extreme, tryresizing a window to make it very wide and short and thenscroll to find something.

Brewster et al. describe ‘kangarooing’. This happens onscrollbars where the user can click on the scrollbar below thehandle (or ‘thumb’) causing the window to jump down ascreenful. However, when doing this, at some point thehandle jumps below the current mouse position and so thepage jumps back up on the next mouse click, then downagain, etc. If the material is being quickly scanned it may notbe apparent at first that this is happening and it is certainlyconfusing for both novice and expert. As Brewster et al.point out, the feedback of the moving scrollbar can be quitesmall, hence is easy to miss even if you are looking at it, which,given the important information is on the left of the screen,it is highly unlikely you will be.

So for both drag scrolling and jump scrolling the positionof the scrollbar is problematic and it seems likely that theleft-hand side is a better design choice. Why then arevirtually all scrollbars on the right?1

1..2.3...4.5..6..7.8...9.10..11.12. 13..14.. 15.

13. Design Solution

Having realised that the crucial issue was disorientation we were able to create a design for on-screen buttons by two simple expedients. First, the page up/down function was modified so that a section heading always snapped to the top of the screen. Because of the application data these sections were always guaranteed to be no more than half a screen-full long. This meant that if one were scrolling down, this title would have been the one previously in the middle of the screen and if one were scrolling up it would be the next unseen section above. Second, we moved the page up/down buttons from the bottom

Figure 1 Rapid eye movement

1 See the appendix for an exception with a left-hand scrollbar.

Feature

Alan Dix

Hands across the screen, Staffordshire University School of Computing Technical Report Series, SOCTR/97/06. Reprinted by permission.

Interfaces 3720 ...continued from page 19

Origins?In fact, the early scrollbars in the Smalltalk andInterlisp environments (the direct ancestors ofour current WIMP interface), had user-configurable scrollbars, which could be made toappear either side. But the default and normwas on the left. In fact, the Interlisp scrollbarhad a quite different interaction from currentones, with velocity-based scrolling, and thecurious behaviour whereby the scrollbarsappeared as you moved off the left of awindow. The design choices around the latterwere one of the early examples studied usingQOC design rationale (MacLean et al. 1991).

The history of the change from left to rightpuzzled me for some years, but it was onlyrecently, on a visit to Rank Xerox’s Cambridgelaboratory, that I first saw a demonstration ofGlobalView, the Xerox Star desktop interface. Itsscrollbars were on the right (see right here). Sothe right-hand-side scrollbar appears to havebegun there and has been inherited since by theApple Lisa, followed by the Macintosh, and is nowin virtually all windows interfaces.

Of course, this still leaves the question of whythe scrollbar moved to the right.

A digression – arrowsWhile examining the Star scrollbar it is worthnoting two differences from many currentscrollbars. First of all note the ‘–’ and ‘+’ buttons.These scrolled back to the top of the current page,or on to the top of the next page respectively.This feature is available on some currentscrollbars (e.g. Microsoft Word 6.0). Less obviousis the direction of the arrows. Compare themwith your screen. Current arrows tend to pointoutwards, whereas the Star arrows pointedinwards. It is not that the functionality hasswapped round, just the icon and the actionmetaphor. In the Star interface the arrowspointed in the direction the text would move inthe window, the current designs point in thedirection the window will move in the document.This is a fundamental problem that cannot beremoved: as the text goes down, the handle goesup. The only scrollbar I have seen that avoids thisparadox was in the Spy editor (produced byRutherford Appleton Laboratory for the PERTworkstation), which had the scrollbar arrangedhorizontally across the top of the document!

A similar problemBefore returning to the question of why thescrollbar is now on the right, I’ll recount a designstory with a similar problem.

Some years ago I worked on a project that,

amongst other things, compared various designs for brows-ers. The first experiments compared a hypertext browserwith one using an outliner style and one using a plainscrolling window (Monk et al. 1988). The last of these was tohave two forms of navigation (Figure 2), a scrollbar andpage up/down controls. Along the top of the screen was ascrollbar that showed the current position in the document.The user could move to any location by clicking on thescrollbar (no dragging) and was helped in this by thedisplay of section numbers at appropriate points. Now, thiswas not too long after the publication of Card, Moran andNewell’s (1983) classic and the performance implications ofKLM were foremost in the minds of the psychologists on theproject. In particular, they wanted to avoid the ‘homing’time between mouse and keyboard and so we made allcontrols screen based, using the mouse, with no keyboardcontrols or short cuts. For page up/down scrolling we thuseschewed the keyboard and decided to put arrow buttons(yes, much agonising over the arrow directions) on thescreen. These were positioned to the bottom right as seen inFigure 2.

From the beginning something ‘felt’ wrong with the pageup/down buttons. The keyboard seemed easier to use eventhough you had to move back and forth from the mouse.However, to give a level playing field with the other brows-ers the scrolling browser was limited to screen-only controls.

After the experiment was complete the event logs were

1..2.3...4.5..6..7.8...9.10..11.12.13..14..15.

controls or short cuts. For page up/down scrolling we thus eschewed the keyboard and decided to put arrow buttons (yes, much agonising over the arrow directions) on the screen. These were positioned to the bottom right as seen in Figure 1.

7. Initial Impressions

From the beginning something 'felt' wrong with the page up/down buttons. The keyboard seemed easier to use even though you had to move back and forth from the mouse. However, to give a level playing field with the other browsers the scrolling browser was limited to screen-only controls.

8. Experimental Evidence

After the experiment was complete the event logs were analysed. In traditional fashion, the subjects had practice time with the interfaces before addressing the main tasks. During the latter, none of the subjects assigned to the scrolling browser used the page up/down buttons.

This was not a problem for the first experiment, but later we wanted to run a similar experiment, this time with two versions of the scrolling browser. One version was to have only the numbered scrollbar, the other to have only the page up/down buttons. The intention was to investigate the different cognitive structures subjects built up when jumping about the document with a scrollbar

Figure 2 Browser – initial design

Feature

Hands across the screen

Interfaces 37 21Continued overleaf…

analysed. In traditional fashion, the subjectshad practice time with the interfaces beforeaddressing the main tasks. During the latter,none of the subjects assigned to the scrollingbrowser used the page up/down buttons.

This was not a problem for the firstexperiment, but later we wanted to run asimilar experiment, this time with twoversions of the scrolling browser. Oneversion was to have only the numberedscrollbar, the other to have only the pageup/down buttons. The intention was toinvestigate the different cognitive structuressubjects built up when jumping about thedocument with a scrollbar compared withscrolling through the documentsequentially. However, to be a valid com-parison the two designs had to be equallyusable, but the users had very clearly votedwith their feet (or at least mice) and it wasevident some redesign was necessary.

At this point we needed to move from avague feeling that something was wrong toa critical analysis of the problem. First of all,why did the keyboard ‘feel’ OK, despitehaving to move back and forth from themouse. A little self analysis showed that onecould glance down at the keyboard and thenreturn one’s eyes to the screen withoutwatching for the finger to strike the rightkey. After having fixed the button in space,our well-honed motor system is well abletake over in parallel. Furthermore, it was very easy to re-fixate on the place where one left the screen. It is almost as ifone had a visual stack, or hypertext ‘back’ button to returnto the last gaze point. In contrast, to ‘press’ the on-screenpage up/down buttons, one had to position the mouse overthe correct button. This positioning task appeared tointerfere with the ability to re-fixate. Also, until after thepositioning was complete, one could not return one’s eyes tothe screen and this typically happened after the button wasclicked.

These differences with the buttons were aggravated bythe disorienting nature of bitmap scrolling. On oldercharacter-map terminals the screens would often scroll line-by-line upwards or downwards allowing the user to seewhere text was going to or coming from. In fact, Bornat andThimbleby (1986) deliberately designed screen updatepolicies to promote the correct feeling of movement. Incontrast, bitmap screens tended to flash between one viewand the next. This has not improved and the word processorI am currently using always redraws lines from the top tothe bottom no matter which direction you scroll!

Having realised that the crucial issue was disorientationwe were able to create a design for on-screen buttons by twosimple expedients. First, the page up/down function wasmodified so that a section heading always snapped to the

top of the screen. Because of the application data thesesections were always guaranteed to be no more than half ascreenful long. This meant that if one were scrolling down,this title would have been the one previously in the middleof the screen and if one were scrolling up it would be thenext unseen section above. Second, we moved the page up/down buttons from the bottom right to the top left of thescreen, and aligned them so that they were next to thebeginning of the first line of text. Thus after clicking therelevant button one’s eye naturally moved across to thesection heading, thus allowing one to instantly re-orientate.

The difference was phenomenal. Suddenly it becamenatural and easy to use. This design issue was not the focusof our work, so we never verified the difference experimen-tally. However, the effect was so marked that experimentwas unnecessary.

Success! But why did we automatically put the buttons atthe bottom right and why, even after verifying that it ‘felt’right, did it still look wrong at the top?

1..2.3...4.5..6..7.8...9.10..11.12.13..14..15.

12. Bitmap Scrolling

These differences with the buttons were aggravated by the disorienting nature of bitmap scrolling. On older character map terminals the screens would often scroll line-by-line upwards or downwards allowing the user to see where text was going or coming from. In fact, Bornat and Thimbleby (1986) deliberately designed screen update policies to promote the correct feeling of movement. In contrast, bitmap screens tended to flash between one view and the next. This has not improved and the word processor I am currently using always redraws lines from the top to the bottom no matter which direction you scrolled!

13. Design Solution

Having realised that the crucial issue was disorientation we were able to create a design for on-screen buttons by two simple expedients. First, the page up/down function was modified so that a section heading always snapped to the top of the screen. Because of the application data these sections were always guaranteed to be no more than half a screen-full long. This meant that if one were scrolling down, this title would have been the one previously in the middle of the screen and if one were scrolling up it would be the next unseen section above. Second, we moved the page up/down buttons from the bottom right to the top left of the screen, and aligned them so that they were next to the beginning of the first line of text. Thus after clicking the relevant button one's eye naturally moved across to the section heading, thus allowing one to instantly re-orientate.

Figure 3 Browser – redesign

Alan Dix

Feature

Interfaces 3722 ...continued from page 21

Hands across the screenIt was only years later when considering the right-handedscrollbar that the answer to both conundrums became clear.The right-hand side looks right because to grab a scrollbaron the left, or to press a button on the left would mean yourhand would have to move across the screen. Wait – ofcourse your hand doesn’t really have to move across thescreen, the mouse does, but it feels as if it would have to! Infact, for a touchscreen, light pen or stylus, the right-handside is a good idea, but not on-screen. Anyway, what aboutthe left-handed user…?

ReferencesC. Ahlberg and B. Shneiderman (1994). The Alphaslider: a compact and rapid

selector. Proceedings of CHI’94, Boston, ACM Press. pp. 365–371.R. Bornat and H. Thimbleby (1986). The life and times of ded, display editor.

Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London.S. A. Brewster, P. C. Wright and A. D. N. Edwards (1994). The design and

evaluation of an auditory-enhanced scrollbar. Proceedings of CHI’94,Boston, Massachusetts, ACM Press, Addison-Wesley. pp. 173–179.

S. K. Card, T. P. Moran and A. Newell (1983). The Psychology of HumanComputer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum.

A. MacLean, R. Young, V. Bellotti and T. Moran (1991). Questions, options andcriteria: elements of design space analysis. Human–Computer Interaction, 6:201–250.

A. F. Monk, P. Walsh and A. J. Dix (1988). A comparison of hypertext,scrolling and folding as mechanisms for program browsing. People andComputers: From Research to Implementation – Proceedings of HCI’88,Cambridge University Press. pp. 421–436.

1..2.3...4.5..6..7.8...9.10..11.12.13..14..15.

13. Design Solution

Having realised that the crucial issue was disorientation we were able to create a design for on-screen buttons by two simple expedients. First, the page up/down function was modified so that a section heading always snapped to the top of the screen. Because of the application data these sections were always guaranteed to be no more than half a screen-full long. This meant that if one were scrolling down, this title would have been the one previously in the middle of the screen and if one were scrolling up it would be the next unseen section above. Second, we moved the page up/down buttons from the bottom right to the top left of the screen, and aligned them so that they were next to the beginning of the first line of text. Thus after clicking the relevant button one's eye naturally moved across to the section heading, thus allowing one to instantly re-orientate.

14. Hands across the screen

It was only years later when considering the right-handed scrollbar that the answer to both conundrums became clear. The right-hand side looks right because to grab a scrollbar on the left, or to press a button on the left would mean your hand would have to move across the screen. Wait – of course your hand doesn't really have to move across the screen, the mouse does, but it feels as if it would have to! In fact, for a touch screen, light pen or stylus the right-hand side is a good idea, but not on-screen. Anyway, what about the left-handed user...?

Figure 4 Hands across the screen?

Appendix – the exceptionproves the ruleAlthough most scrollbars are now found onthe right, I have come cross one recentexception, the scrollbar on the AnubisMounter control panel. This is a Macintoshutility for mounting SCSI devices whilst theMacintosh is running, avoiding having toshut down and restart the machine everytime a device is added. The control panelhas a ‘designer’ style very different from thenormal Macintosh look and feel. Because ofthis it does not use the standard Macintoshbuilt-in widgets and hence the builders hadfree reign.

In fact the left-hand scrollbar is particu-larly important in this control panel. Withscrolling text the reader’s locus of attentionis on the initial letters of each line – on theleft. In the Anubis Mounter, the interfacehas an outliner style showing a hierarchy:SCSI bus – drive – partition. To hide orreveal items within this hierarchy the userclicks on the small triangles to the left. Thatis, not only is the locus of attention on theleft, so also is the locus of action. Thinkingback to Figure 1, if Anubis Mounter had aright-hand scrollbar, this would be thepattern of not just eye movement, butmouse movement as well!

Alan DixSchool of Computing, Staffordshire UniversityPO Box 334, Beaconside, Stafford, ST18 0DGemail: A.J.Dix@soc.staffs.ac.ukhttp://www.soc.staffs.ac.uk/~cmtajd/

Feature

Hands across the screen Alan Dix

Interfaces 37 23Continued overleaf…

Foreign interactions

Aotearoa – “land of the long white cloud”, the Maori call NewZealand; soaring mountains, lush valleys, fire and ice, surf andski. If you’re lucky, you’ll spot a Weka – a small, flightless bird thatforages mainly at dusk, in a wide range of habitats. Alternatively,your Weka experience may be because you’re involved with themachine learning project of the same name at the University ofWaikato. Not all the projects at the University have such environ-mentally inspired names: another big project there is called NZDL– no feathery mascot for that project! Combine these projectswith the climate, the wonderful outdoor opportunities the countryoffers, add in other research in CSCW, graphics and visualisation,and an invite to the University of Waikato proved too irresistible tomiss.

I was at the Department of ComputerScience from February for 6 monthslast year (1997). The NZDL andmachine learning groups shared arecently refurbished lab, and I spentmuch of my time in there, despitebeing provided with my own office.Well-equipped and lively, the lab wasa cauldron of ideas, activity and life.Research students, some undergradu-ates doing projects, a smattering ofresearch associates, and a regularwander-through of staff contributes toa rapid interchange of ideas, thoughtsand gossip, and I was rapidly ab-sorbed into that community.

The style and pace of life in NewZealand was good. I roller-bladed towork in shorts and tee-shirt, cap onhead and sunblock on my nose andlips. We sauntered to the café forlunch barefoot, sunglasses firmly inplace. I roller-bladed back from work– but that was a mistake. I could goforwards, and turn right. Left wasn’tso hot, and stopping was a definiteno-no. Back from work had a longdownhill in it; there I was, all bentknees and balanced arms – and therewas a bump, and there I was, all bentknees and flailing arms, and there wasa bend, and there I was, all greenknees and scratched arms, parallelfurrows stretching across a lawn, bitsof ex-hedge scattered behind me.

Situated in Hamilton, an hour anda bit south of Auckland, we were wellserved with restaurants, barbecues,parties and hospitality. The beer’s

great too. Waikato has a fair smatter-ing of ex-Brits who have left the RAE-race behind them, and liked nothingbetter than to sit in the pub and supaway as the Conservatives lost powerin Britain. People are really friendly –within an hour of arriving in theUniversity, someone who I’d nevermet had arranged to lend me their carfor a week whilst I got myself sortedout with transport. It was a classic car,too – a Volvo, faded to powder blueby the sun, of roaring engine andsome amazing mechanism by whichthe power that bellowed from thebonnet was somehow stopped fromactually driving the wheels. It had aresident spider, great at spinningwebs over the windscreen. It wentwell in a straight line, but corneringwasn’t its strong point. Still, I got towork, to the shops, to town – and tothe second-hand car yards prettyquick. Thanks Geoff!

With administration hassles leftbehind, I could concentrate on mypersonal research agenda (AI in HCI,learning to turn left on blades, thatsort of thing), and was given a freehand to dabble in interesting aspectsof the ongoing research of the variousgroups. The New Zealand DigitalLibrary is a huge effort of collationand dissemination in both Englishand Maori of technical and newspaperinformation. Based upon the MGdatabase engine (“ManagingGigabytes”), the NZDL offers a web-based interface to a number ofcollections of digitised material,

indexed at the word level. We dis-cussed the issues that offering a web-based interface to the NZDL pre-sented, and the specific problemsraised by digital libraries. Much timewas spent on examining strategies fordealing with search requests contain-ing multiple words. In a full-textindexed system, deciding the granu-larity of search scope is a non-trivialmatter. For example, if the documentin question is a book, there is a highchance of the search words occurringwithin it somewhere. Should there bea notion of adjacency? If so, is it at thenext word level, or within the samesentence, or paragraph, or page, orchapter. Or do you weight thesedifferently? And if you do, how doyou rank two documents, one ofwhich contains all the search termssomewhere but not close, with theother having most of the terms withina page, but missing a few vital ones.And if this seems a trivial issue,examine your own behaviour on theweb search engines. How often doyou look at the third or subsequentpages that a query has returned? Iknow I rarely do – I use those systemsthat return my sort of results on thefirst page, and am happy to ignore, ifnot damn out of hand, those that donot. The NZDL team ran a number ofinformal user trials on differentstrategies, and developed their ownranking policy. To see if it works, tryit yourself! Check it out at <http://www.nzdl.org/>.

Feature

Russell Beale

Interfaces 3724 ...continued from page 23

Figure 1 The NZDL web interfacepresenting query results

“let’s look for stuff on visualisation – hey, more than a thousand hits,let’s be more specific…

visualisation and graphics… let’s flick down this list of things…hmmm, I like that, and that one could be useful, but I’m not sureabout these.

Let’s try ‘visualisation and graphics and animation’ to cut those out…

Oh, no, that’s far too specific – I don’t want any of those. Back to‘visualisation and graphics’ but let’s add ‘colour’ too – now, that’sbetter…”

Searching theNZDL promotedus to take a closerlook at people’sstrategies forelectronic searches;this scenario istypical:

Foreign interactions

Feature

Interfaces 37 25Continued overleaf…

Essentially a process of selectiverefinement, queries start off fairlygeneral and get added to in order tobe more specific and return a manage-able number of documents. However,the addition of terms to one queryoften doesn’t return the type of resultswe are looking for, so we return to anearlier query and try to refine that.There is little support for this type ofstrategy; the best that is offered is ashorthand for an earlier query, whichcan have terms added or can becombined with another query. Whilstthis speeds up the process of iterativerefinement, it offers no help inactually relating the results of thedifferent queries to one another. We

decided that, since people oftenbacktracked through their queryhistory, and explored alternativepaths, offering some form of supportfor this process would be beneficial.In addition, people actually look at asubset of the documents returned inorder to decide if their query hasbeen successful or not – any supportsystem should recognise this.

We developed a visualisation ofusers’ search strategies that offered awider perspective on the search. Formore information see “Visualisingsequences of queries: a new tool forinformation retrieval”, Beale R,McNab R.J. and Witten I.H. (1997)Proc. IEEE Conf. on Information

Visualisation, pp 57–62, London,England, August. <http://www.dlib.org/>

A visualisation of a simple searchis shown in Figure 2. This is a 3-D“dandelion head” – the central noderepresents the query, and the outlyingspheres the documents returned bythat query. The size of the noderepresents the document size: thecloser the node is to the centre, thehigher the degree of match betweenthe document and the query. Clickingon a node takes you to the NZDLcopy of that document. A secondquery can be issued, and the visual-isation alters to that of Figure 3.

Figure 2Figure 3

The original query ison the right, the newone on the left. Notethat two documentsmatch both queries,hence are linked toboth. However, theymatch the first querymore exactly than thesecond. Figure 4shows two morequeries issued afterthe first couple, newqueries appearing tothe left each time.More documents arein common, thoughnever with more thantwo queries at any onetime.

Figure 4

Russell Beale

Feature

Interfaces 3726 ...continued from page 25

These 2-D static representations areuseful: the full system is animated 3-Dand much easier to interpret. Theresults of query combinations can beseen easily; it is simple to backtrack toan earlier query and refine that; thenumber and relevance of documentsreturned can be easily seen, and so on.And users liked the system!

This system was produced usingan agent-based approach developedat Birmingham: the agent observedthe standard NZDL queries, proc-essed them and sent the visualisationsystem the relevant instructions. Italso interpreted input from thevisualisation and controlled theNZDL engine. This approach allowedus to integrate existing systemsrelatively easily. The agent-basedwork was also discussed with theCSCW group, led by Mark Apperley,who are working on developing aCSCW IDE. This project is in theprocess of being expanded to considercollaborative information gathering inthe large unstructured electronicenvironments becoming commontoday, and looks likely to producesome important results.

More information on the depart-ment can be found at <http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz>. Space limitsfurther discussion of their work here,and I’ve not even mentioned thebungy jumping, jet boating, under-ground rafting, mountain climbing orsailing that went on. My thanks toProf. Mark Apperley for the invite, tothe machine learning and digitallibrary groups for putting up with me,and to Steve, Steve, Ian, Stuart, Geoff,Roger, Kirsten, Dave, Mark andMarion (and also their partners) forsuch a great time. Thanks also theSchool of Computer Science at theUniversity of Birmingham, whoseemed to manage just fine in myabsence.

1. Summary: The INUSE Usability Maturity ModelThe EC INUSE project has developed the Usability Maturity Model (UMM). This isa model of the processes which make a system human-centred. The UMM is basedon ISO 13407 and complies with ISO 15504. It includes a scale for measuring anorganisation’s attitude towards human-centredness. The UMM has been reviewedwidely and is undergoing a programme of evaluation and trials with a range ofindustrial organisations.

2. Background: usability maturity modellingA wide range of usability engineering methods are available. In order to make bestuse of these methods they need to be integrated into an organisation’s productdevelopment process. This integration should take account of the current state ofthe organisation’s usability process and its overall attitude to usability. Thisrequires an assessment of the capability of the organisation against a referencemodel of human-centred process. The EC INUSE1 project (IE 2016) has developed arange of process assessments designed to suit the wide variety of organisationalapproaches to process issues. These are based around a scale of human-centredness and a model of human-centred processes. The scale and the processescan be used in combination with general process assessment techniques to carryout a range of assessments.2.1 Selection of a suitable assessment approachThere are several approaches to assessment of usability maturity. Which is appro-priate for an organisation will depend on the resources available, the degree ofmanagement commitment and the importance of usability in the systems pro-duced. Rigorous approaches are likely to find acceptance in organisations whichalready carry out process assessment. Lightweight, organisational assessmentagainst the human-centredness scale is likely to be a first step by an organisation.First party assessment is likely to be used in problem solving, or by organisationsused to total quality approaches. The following sections describe the range ofalternatives. The following two sections describe the tools available from INUSEand the next three sections describe different levels of rigour in assessment.2.2 Organisational human-centredness assessmentThis is a fast evaluation of an organisation’s attitude to usability and the users ofits systems. The assessment uses the scale of human-centredness and is checklist-based. It gives a rating in the form of a level of maturity on a scale of Avoidance toInnovation. The result is an overview of how important user issues are to theorganisation. The result of an assessment would be used as a ‘health check’ of theorganisation, as a diagnostic tool by a HF consultant or in planning a moredetailed assessment.2.3 Human-centred process assessmentThis is a capability assessment against the human-centred process model, a model ofthe activities carried out during the development and use of a system. The modelis compliant to ISO 15504, Software Process Assessment. The 15504 capability scaleis used to give a measurement of how well the organisation carries out the human-centred activities. One or more projects are assessed and the results averaged togive a clear picture of how well the organisation is doing and managing human-centred activities. In order to give a more complete picture of the organisation’sactivities, selected processes from other models can be added to the processescovered by the assessment.2.4 First party assessmentA first party assessment is a workshop-style consultative activity in which HFexperts work together with a project or department. The human-centred processmodel is used as a description of good practice. How these activities are enacted by

Product Announcement

Neither Lloyd’s Register of Shipping of nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall be responsible or liable in negligence of otherwise howsoever in respect of any inaccuracy oromission herein.Without derogating from the generality of the foregoing neither Lloyd’s Register nor any of its officers, employees or agents shall be liable for any indirect or consequential losscaused by or arising from any information advice or inaccuracy or omission herein.

The Usability Maturity

Russell BealeSchool of Computer ScienceThe University of BirminghamEdgbaston, BirminghamB15 2TT, United KingdomEmail: R.Beale@cs.bham.ac.ukhttp://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~rxb/HTML_text/home.html

Foreign interactions

Interfaces 37 27Continued overleaf…

the project or department is discussed by the participants. The group then decides if improvements are required and undertakeactions to bring them about. Several HF consultants may be involved in order to lead the discussion and provide on-the-spottechnical advice.2.5 Second party assessmentA second party assessment is more formal and structured. The human-centred process model and a capability scale, such as theISO 15504 scale, are used as the basis of interviews with a range of project staff. A record is made of the degree to which eachprocess is carried out, and how well the processes which are fully-performed are carried. This recording is either on a speciallyprepared assessment instrument or with a computer-based assessment tool. The results are collated and presented in a formalfeedback session. The management of the department and the process improvement consultants discuss the findings andprepare a process improvement plan. The department or project is re-assessed after the plan has been carried out. The benefitof a second party assessment is improved accuracy of result and a greater degree of certainty that the results obtained reflectactual practice.2.6 Third party assessmentA third party assessment is a more rigorous version of a second party assessment. It is carried out by a separate organisation(neither the assessee or the process improvement consultants). This form of assessment is most often performed to benchmarka set of organisations or, more commonly, to certify an organisation’s level of capability as a service provider or sub-contractor.Third party assessments tend to be more rigorous, are formally reported, run to a required level of quality and take longer thansecond party assessment. Repeat or surveillance assessments are made at regular intervals.

3. The product: The INUSE Usability Maturity ModelThe INUSE Usability Maturity Model, also known as the UMM, is a synthesis of ISO DIS 13407 Human-centred design processesfor interactive systems, IBM’s work on Usability Management Maturity, the BAeSEMA Total Systems Maturity Index (TSMI), thePhilips HumanWare model, the British Computer Society HCI Group Industry structure model, and Eason and Harker’s Humansystem maturity model. Examples of the use of an HC maturity model are:

• a high level plan for setting up usability activities

• the basis of improvement activities to identify and resolve barriers to effective exchange of usability information

• assessment of the capability of sub-contractors or service providers

• benchmarking of usability processes within an organisation or in relationship to its competitors.

The model is sufficiently based on the structure of SPICE to make it compliant to ISO TR 15504 Software Process Assessment.However, in order to make it understandable and more flexible in use it is presented as a set of processes based on the proc-esses described in the forthcoming international standard for human-centred design activities for interactive systems ISO13407. These processes cover the core activities common to the management, planning, specification, design, testing andsupport of systems. The five ISO 13407 processes are augmented by two extra processes, one covering activities associatedparticularly with commercial products and one covering activities associated with large, long-term, more socio-technicalprojects such as management information and defence systems.

To further assist in flexibility the model is presented in two forms:

1. as a process model, UMM:P

2. as a scale for the measurement of organisational human-centredness, UMM:HC.

The former is intended for use by fairly mature organisations with established HF processes. The latter is more suitable fororganisations which are new to human factors or which have a more TQM-orientated approach to system development. Thetwo forms are described in the following sections.3.1 The process model – UMM:PThe process part of the model consists of seven sets of Base Practices. These practices describe what has to be done in order torepresent and include the users of a system during the lifecycle. The contents of the model can be summarised as a processhierarchy (see overleaf).

Assessment of capability in any process is made using the standard ISO 15504 capability scale. The processes in the modelare linked and human-centred lifecycles are iterative.

For users who wish to add UMM processes to software process assessments the model includes mappings to ISO 15504, theCapability Maturity Model (CMM) and the Systems Engineering CMM. It should be noted that the mapping of the UMMprocesses onto other processes extends well beyond the engineering process in the CMM or ISO 15504. Human-centredness ina project or organisation affects many areas including the customer–supplier relationship, the support of the development

ModelA new, public-domain model of human-centred processes

Product Announcement

Jonathan Earthy

Interfaces 3728 ...continued from page 27

Product Announcement

The Usability Maturity Model

HCD 1 HCD 2 HCD 3 HCD 4 HCD 5 HCD 6 HCD 7Ensure HCD Plan the HCD Specify user Understand and Produce design Evaluate Facilitatecontent in process and specify the solutions designs against human-systemsystem strategy organisational context of use requirements implementation

requirements

identifystakeholders

consultstakeholders

plan userinvolvement

selecthuman-centredmethods

ensure ahuman-centredapproach

plan HCDprocess

manage HCprocess

champion HF

support HCD

represent theend user

collect marketintelligence

define andplan a systemstrategy

collect marketfeedback

analyse usertrends

clarify systemgoals

assess H&Srisk

define system

generaterequirements

set usabilityobjectives

identify user’stasks

identify userattributes

identifyorganisationalenvironment

identifytechnicalenvironment

identifyphysicalenvironment

allocatefunctions

produce taskmodel

producesystemdesign

developdesignsolutions

specifysystem

developprototypes

develop usertraining

develop usersupport

specifycontext ofevaluation

evaluate forrequirements

evaluate toimprovedesign

evaluateagainstsystemrequirements

evaluateagainstrequiredpractice

evaluate inuse

managementof change

determineimpact

customisationand localdesign

deliver usertraining

support users

conformanceto ergonomiclegislation

Human-centred development

process and the management of the project and organisation. The model also has a wider scope than the CMM or ISO 15504. Itcovers all of system engineering, not just software development.3.2 The Human-centredness Scale – UMM:HCThe Human-centredness Scale ismore concerned withmeasuring organisa-tional attitude tohuman-centreddesign activities. Itconcentrates on howhuman-centred workis managed inprojects and by theorganisation ingeneral. The Human-centredness Scalecomprises the levelsshown (right), each ofwhich comprises oneor more attributes.

These levels arebased on the

ID Title/attribute Management attitude (pace Crosby 1978)Level X Avoided “We don’t have problems with usability”.

(no indicators)Level A Needed “We don’t know why we have problems with usability.”A1 Problem recognitionA2 Performed processesLevel B Considered “Is it absolutely necessary to always have problemsB.1 Quality in use awareness with usability?”B.2 User focusLevel C Implemented “Through management commitment and improvementC.1 User involvement of human-centred processes we are identifying andC.2 Human factors technology resolving our problems.”C.3 Human factors skillsLevel D Integrated “Usability defect prevention is a routine part of ourD.1 Integration operation.”D.2 ImprovementD.3 IterationLevel E Institutionalized “We know why we do not have problems withE.1 Human-centred leadership usability.”E.2 Organisational human-centredness

Interfaces 37 29Continued overleaf…

How to use this scenarioThere is a great deal of activity in the HCI, Human Factors,Usability Engineering community concerned with tools,methods and metrics. In order to demonstrate that suchtools, methods and metrics are usable in the context of a realproject, it was felt helpful to propose a hypothetical contextof use. Clearly the scope of describing use of a specific tool,method or metric depends on its scope, thus ISO 9241 orSSADM 4+ would affect many aspects of the whole life cycleand many stakeholders, while a workload prediction toolmight have a much more localised context of use.

Readers are invited to submit entries to show how aspecific tool, method or metric might be used in the contextof the scenario given here. The most promising entry andthe most entertaining entries will be awarded prizes(Whisky) by a panel made up of members of the HumanCentred Process Improvement Group.BACKGROUNDThe Ambridge Building Society (ABS) has become a bank. Inorder to raise the revenue needed to pay for the windfallhandouts, the board has decided to sell personal pensions.Following the board meeting there are the following centresof activity:

The business development group is defining a set ofproducts, deciding suitable launch dates and marketing.Projections of market share, numbers of sales and customerprofiles are being made. They have decided to sell themover the counter at branches rather than direct sales or overthe Internet. The group has brought in MAMMON manage-ment consultants to help with the business planning andproduct development. MAMMON were involved in theflotation and know that ABS need to lose 20% of theircounter staff to meet financial predictions.

The compliance group is devising a strategy to avoidmis-selling in the light of the damage to Prudential andothers from mis-selling personal pensions. They wereconcerned at the complexity of personal pensions comparedto building society products and that counter staff would beunable to cope with this. However, they have been assuredthat the new computer system will supply the necessarysupport, backed up with the open learning resourcescoming on stream. (One of the compliance group used towork for CIS and has a fair idea of how long it takes tocomplete a personal pension sale in the client’s home).

The human resources department is considering a rangeof new terms and conditions of employment with a bigmove to performance-related pay. If pensions sales meet thebusiness development department projections, then 25% ofcounter staff take-home pay will be a function of successfulpensions selling. They realise that both technical andpersonal development training will be required and havecontracted Row and Holdall (R&H) to conduct a corporatetraining analysis and plan.

The IT department was considering a new infrastructureas part of the move to a bank; the choice was between Javaand thin clients or NT LANs and a separate WAN structure.They would like to make the pensions applications the lead

Test ScenarioFor the application of human-centredtools, methods or metrics

Feature

Requests for information about the model should bedirected to its lead developer:Jonathan EarthyLloyd’s Register of ShippingLloyd’s Register of Shipping House29 Wellesley Road, CroydonUnited Kingdom, CR0 2AJ Tel +44 (0)181 681 4040Fax +44 (0)181 681 4839Email jonathan.earthy@lr.org

BAeSEMA TSMI levels, but the model realises and describesthe attributes of each level in terms of sets of organisationalmanagement practices which are performed at each level.Assessment against the scale is similar to assessment againstthe ISO 15507 capability scale.

4. Availability and developmentThe whole model is described in two documents. Thesehave been reviewed extensively through trials and theHuman-Centred Process Improvement Group (a forum ofleading industrial usability practitioners established byINUSE). The model and supporting fact sheets are availableon the INUSE www site (www.npl.co.uk/inuse). The UMMprocesses will be proposed as a New Work Item to ISOTC159/SC4/WG6 in April 1998 and are to be included inthe forthcoming Systems lifecycle process standard ISO15288.

5. Source documentsISO DIS 13407, Human-centred design processes for interactive systems.ISO TR 15504 Part 2, Software process assessment - A reference model for

processes and process capability.ISO TR 15504 Part 5, Software process assessment - An assessment model and

indicator guidance.Brennan C., Earthy J. and Jennings D. (1995) Draft HCI Functions for BCS

Industry Structure Model (version 3).Crosby P.B. (1978) Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain. New

York: McGraw-Hill.Eason K., Harker S.D. (1997) User Centred Design Maturity, Personal

communication.Flanaghan G.A. (1995) IBM Usability Leadership Maturity model (self-

assessment version). Distributed at CHI Workshop 1995.Gupta A. (1997) Humanware Process Improvement, the Philips approach to

institutionalising the principles of user centred design, Personal communi-cation.

Humphrey W.S. (1989) Managing the software process. Addison-Wesley,Reading M.A.

INUSE (1998) Usability Maturity Model: Human-Centredness Scale, Lloyd’sRegister of Shipping project IE2016 INUSE Deliverable D5.1.4s.

INUSE (1998) Usability Maturity Model: Processes, Lloyd’s Register ofShipping project IE2016 INUSE Deliverable D5.1.4p.

Sherwood-Jones B. (1995) Total Systems Maturity. Internal report, version 2.BAeSEMA, 1 Atlantic Quay, Broomielaw, Glasgow G2 8JE.

Jonathan Earthy

1 The INUSE project was undertaken by a European consortium comprising theNational Physical Laboratory, HUSAT and Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (UK), HFRG(Ireland), IAO (Germany), SINTEF Rehab (Norway), NOMOS (Sweden), SIEM (Greece),CB&J (France), SiESA (Spain). Further information can be obtained from the projectmanager Dr N Bevan at NPL Usability Services, National Physical Laboratory, QueensRoad, Teddington, TW11 OLW, Middx, UK, Tel: +44 181 943 6993, Fax: +44 181 9436306, inuse@hci.npl.co.uk, http://www.npl.co.uk/inuse

Interfaces 3730 ...continued from page 29

Feature

item on the new computer system while they solve theproblems of transferring legacy software. Either way, theuser interface will be windowing and therefore easy to use.The IT department knows it is under some threat ofoutsourcing. Partly to counter this it is talking to JohnWayne Facilities (JWF) with the intent of placing andmanaging a subcontract on them for the supply of the newinfrastructure, and possibly the pensions software.

The union, BIFFO, has its mind firmly fixed on avoidingredundancies and negotiating satisfactory conditions ofemployment. It had an unfortunate run-in with ABS someyears back on working conditions and is disinclined toconsider IT-related stress. Further, it is aware that the CEOof the HSE has said that they will not be policing theDisplay Screen Equipment Regulations.

The CEO of ABS has sent her husband (Mr Archer – hechanged his name) to evening classes in user-centred designin the hope that he can get a good job at the end of it. Hecame back very enthusiastic about <insert your tool, methodor metric here>. In return for him taking the children toWoolley’s Burger Bar (he is a vegetarian) she agreed to sendcopies of the report of <insert your tool, method or metrichere> to all heads of department.

There are a number of ways that this scenario couldevolve. Please describe how specific stakeholders would use<your tool, method, metric> for one or more of the follow-ing options (add your own options as you see fit). Make surethat its use has commercial benefits to those who are to useit.SPECIFICATION

Option A - in-house ITMrs Archer asks the IT department to write specificationsfor the infrastructure and for the pensions applicationsoftware, emphasising that while she would be pleased tohave the work done in-house, it will have to go to competi-tive tender.Option B - in-house multi-disciplinaryMrs A asks each of the centres of activity to second someoneto a working party to write the specification, led by thebusiness development group. She has asked a member ofthe Borchester counter staff – Shula – to act as a user repre-sentative (Thursday afternoons). It is expected that while thebusiness group are in charge of the requirements specifica-tion, it will go the IT dept to be turned into a full procure-ment specification.Option C - sub-contractMrs A asks for quotes from JWF, MAMMON and GabrielConsultants to write the specification. Gabriel Consultantswin by £10.IMPLEMENTATION

Option A - business-led IT changeThe board has considered a number of papers by the ABScentres of activity and has opted to place a performance-related Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) programmewith MAMMON who will supply the necessary IT applica-

Brian Sherwood Jones

Brian Sherwood JonesBAeSEMA1 Atlantic QuayBroomielawGlasgowG2 8JE+44 (0)141 204 2737

tions to support this. The leading application will be pen-sions. The IT department has decided to go with Java, andJWF will be installing the infrastructure (only). The legacyABS software will be treated as ‘middleware’. Databasedevelopment and updating will be done by the IT depart-ment; MAMMON will do the user interface and any front-end development. Quotes from R&H and MAMMON(Training) both proved too expensive for the implementa-tion of the training plan, and so training requirements willbe specified in-house, as will the development of classroomcourseware. Video training material will be sub-contractedto Fawlty Towers Video (FTV). CBT and on-line help will bedone as part of the MAMMON IT contract.Option B - Learning organisationMrs Archer has decided that IT is too central to the future offinancial services to be handed out to greedy contractorsand consultants. She has given the go-ahead for NT-basedLANs to be set up in each major branch, and appointed ITgurus to each branch for applications development. The ITdepartment will develop the WAN, and be responsible forsoftware engineering aspects such as version control.Training requirements will be defined by the humanresources department working with the local branches.Training material development will be done by R&H.Branches have been given tight personnel budgets whichwill be difficult to meet with early retirement, but naturalwastage might just do it. The Borchester branch will lead thedevelopment of pensions software. The legacy software willbe rewritten from new at a number of branches because itwas getting out of date anyway.Option C - Major subcontractingJWF have been given the contract to put in a Java-basedintranet and develop pensions software as the lead applica-tion. They are basing the application on a US savings andloan software product. MAMMON will be providing thebulk of the resources for pension product development andplanning the marketing material. R&H will be subcontractedto implement the training plan.

Test scenario

Please submit entries for the TestScenario to the author, not toInterfaces

Interfaces 37 31

Feature

There is a strong bias to be found incurrent research and teaching on HCI,a bias that is distorting our under-standing and limiting the applicabilityof our findings. This bias is so central,so pervasive, that we fail to notice itspresence, even in the very name ofour discipline: Human–ComputerInterACTION. Increasingly, we talk ofpurposes and the need to designartifacts that successfully help us fulfilthose purposes. Yet we fail to ac-knowledge that our purposes do notalways involve activity; quite thecontrary. Has human progress beenprimarily motivated by the desire todo things, or by the desire to avoiddoing things? Clearly, a bit of both,yet our discipline is blind to theimportance of idleness in the humanpsyche.

A few examples should make mypoint clearer. We speak of the need,even the desire, for Life Long Learn-ing. Yet we also know, but suppressthe idea, that the main ongoingproject for many people is that of LifeLong Laziness. The suppressioncomes from guilt, and probablyreflects the dominance of the Anglo-

Saxon Protestant Work Ethic as theunquestioned ideology of many ofthose involved in our field. We seektheoretical approaches that will makesense of the role of artifacts in humanactivities. But what of human inactiv-ity? How can we hope to account forphenomena such as TV-watching orWeb-surfing for hours on end,without a Theory of Human Inactivitylinking artifacts and human inaction?

Although we are beginning to seethe need to consider leisure as well aswork in our approaches to the designof computer-based artifacts, we speakonly of “leisure activities”. What ofrecreational inactivity? Is this not atleast equally significant? Similarly, weare beginning to hear many calls todesign for human creativity in HCI.We assume that creativity is aboutsolving problems, thinking in newways (especially laterally), andfinding novel solutions. But, for all weknow, the essence of creativity may bethe avoidance of problems to besolved, of seeing situations in newways so that less work is needed, ofpurposively choosing to do nothing.

As a discipline, we have been blind

John Waterworth

Department of InformaticsUmeå UniversityS-901 87 Sweden

Email: jwworth@informatik.umu.se

Alternative RealitiesRealitiesOur current conception of what HCI is and should be cannot possibly last. We are at a transition pointin the relationship between people, information technology, and society, and need to break up a few ofour cosy preconceptions about the field. Alternative Realities is a new regular section which is in-tended to serve as a forum for expressing much-needed alternative, and preferably controversial,views of what is, should, or will be going on. Contributions are sought which might be brief and jokey,or more serious in tone and deeper in argumentation. Articles should not be merely amusing though –we are looking for meaty issues behind the views expressed, however lightly. So, get it off your chestand write to Alternative Realities!

The series starts with a short piece from me on a neglected issue in HCI – the frequent human need toavoid most of the activities on which we currently focus in HCI design.

to the importance of inactivity. It isgenerally accepted that learning anddevelopment are a function of actingin the world. This is a good motiva-tion for the design of systems tosupport both physical and mental“doing”, and has been the focus ofalmost all our efforts in HCI. But thereis more to life than work, and more tomental life than thought. Dreaming,sleeping, resting, drifting, doodling,playing, dozing and daydreamingmay well be equally important. This isobvious in relation to the intangiblerealms of creativity and psychologicalwellbeing, but it may be that effectivemental action also depends oninaction, as effective physical actiondepends on rest.

In an effort to correct this perva-sive bias in our discipline, and explorethe potential of inactivity in compu-ter-mediated human existence, I haveinitiated the IDLE project: InactionDesign for a Lazy Existence. If youwould like to participate in this newsub-branch of HCI, however pas-sively, you are very welcome tocontact me with your musings.

The IDLE ProjectSupporting Human–Computer Inaction

Interfaces 37

HCI Executive Contact ListConference planningGilbert CocktonUniversity of SunderlandTel: +44(0) 191 515 3394Email: Gilbert.Cockton@sunderland.ac.uk

Practitioner representativesRory ChannerAIT LtdTel: +44(0) 1491 416778Fax: +44(0) 1491 416601Email: Rory.Channer@ait.co.uk

Dave ClarkeVisualize Software LtdTel: +44(0) 410 481863Email: Dave@visualize.demon.co.uk

David JenningsDavid Jennings AssociatesTel: +44(0) 114 249 3435Fax: +44(0) 114 249 3450Email: dj@syspace.co.uk

Student representativeAnne AdamsUniversity College LondonTel: +44(0) 171 419 3462Fax: +44(0) 171 387 1397Email: A.Adams@cs.ucl.ac.uk

INTERACT ‘99 ConferenceAlistair KilgourHeriot-Watt UniversityTel: +44(0) 131 451 3438Fax: +44(0) 131 451 3327Email: A.C.Kilgour@hw.ac.uk

HCI ‘98 LiaisonChris RoastSheffield Hallam UniversityTel: +44(0) 114 253 3171Fax: +44(0) 114 253 3398Email: C.R.Roast@shu.ac.uk

Bob SteeleSheffield Hallam UniversityTel: +44(0) 114 253 3155Fax: +44(0) 114 253 3161Email: R.Steele@shu.ac.uk

Ordinary memberAlan DixStaffordshire UniversityTel: +44(0) 1785 353428Fax: +44(0) 1785 353431Email: A.J.Dix@soc.staffs.ac.uk

BCS CONTACTSSue Tueton (Membership) hci@bcs.org.uk+44(0) 1793 417416Andrew Wilkes (Committees)awilkes@bcs.org.uk, +44(0) 1793 417471Stephen Blanchard (Specialist groups)Bob Hill (Printing) +44(0) 1793 417486

The British Computer Society1 Sanford StreetSwindon SN1 1HJTel: +44(0) 1793 417417Fax: +44(0) 1793 480270Email: hci@bcs.org.uk

ChairAndrew MonkUniversity of YorkTel: +44(0) 1904 433148Fax: +44(0) 1904 433181Email: am1@york.ac.uk

Secretary & MembershipIsmail IsmailUniversity College LondonTel: +44(0) 171 419 3048Fax: +44(0) 171 387 1397Email: I.Ismail@cs.ucl.ac.uk

TreasurerChris JohnsonUniversity of GlasgowTel: +44(0) 141 330 6053Fax: +44(0) 141 330 4913Email: johnson@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk

InterfacesJanet FinlayUniversity of HuddersfieldTel: +44(0) 1484 472913Fax: +44(0) 1484 421106Email: j.e.finlay@hud.ac.uk

Meetings OfficerSandra P. FoubisterNapier UniversityTel: +44(0) 131 455 5340Fax: +44(0) 131 455 5394Email: sandra@dcs.napier.ac.uk

Mailing List ModeratorAdrian G. WilliamsonUniversity of PaisleyTel: +44(0) 141 848 3752Fax: +44(0) 141 848 3542Email: will-ci0@wpmail.paisley.ac.uk

HCI Web ResourcesSimon Buckingham ShumThe Open UniversityTel: +44(0) 1908 655723Fax: +44(0) 1908 653169Email: S.Buckingham.Shum@open.ac.uk

IwC EditorDan DiaperBournemouth UniversityTel: +44(0) 1202 595571Email: ddiaper@bournemouth.ac.uk

BCS LiaisonStella MillsCheltenham & Gloucester College ofHigher EducationTel: +44(0) 1242 543231Fax: +44(0) 1242 543205Email: smills@chelt.ac.uk

Executive

Advertising ratesQuarter page £135Half page £240Full page £44520% supplement for cover or

inside cover pagesDiary entries FREELoose inserts £175 + weight allowance

if over 10gDiscounts given to corporate members,

educational institutions, and charities.Special rates for job advertisements.Contact the editor.

Send reviews material to: Interfacesreviews c/o Alistair Kilgour at Dept ofComputing and Electrical Engineer-ing, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton,Edinburgh EH14 4ASTel: +44(0) 131 451 3438;Email: A.C.Kilgour@hw.ac.uk

Interfaces is published quarterly by theBritish HCI Group.© 1998 The British HCI Group (unlessindicated otherwise).The opinions expressed represent thepersonal views of the authors, and arenot the official views of their compa-nies, nor of the British HCI Group,unless specifically stated.Submissions should be received by the20th May for the next issue.Electronic versions are preferred: RTF,plain text or MS Word (5/6) , via emailor FTP, or on Mac, PC disks; but copywill be accepted on paper or fax.

Send to: Interfaces, c/o Janet Finlay,School of Computing and Mathemat-ics, University of Huddersfield,Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DHTel: +44(0) 1484 472913Fax: +44 (0) 1484 421106Email: j.e.finlay@hud.ac.uk

and copy email submissions to FionaDix, Interfaces production editorEmail: fiona@hiraeth.com