China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Improving Sensemaking through the Design of Representations
Published in Philip J. Smith, Robert R. Hoffman, Cognitive Systems Engineering, 2018
John M. Flach, Kevin B. Bennett
Metaphors tap into forms of knowledge (i.e., base domains) other than pattern recognition skills. The most familiar use of metaphor is the desktop metaphor that played a significant role in the development of personal computing. In this case, familiarity with how to manage files in an office together with analogical relations associated with movements using the mouse control were employed as the referents to facilitate intuitions about how to manage information in a computer. Thus, similar data files can be organized into “folders” and files can be deleted by placing them in the “trash can,” and they are only permanently deleted when the “trash is emptied.”
Representation of System Invariants by Optical Invariants in Configural Displays for Process Control
Published in Peter Hancock, John Flach, Jeff Caird, Kim Vicente, Local Applications of the Ecological Approach to Human-Machine Systems, 2018
The use of particular metaphors in displays will activate knowledge of particulars and types foreign to the work domain. The purpose of, for example, the desktop metaphor is to increase the initial familiarity with actions, procedures, and concepts in office information systems by letting them appear as well-known objects and actions. The objects of a metaphorical definition are what Lakoff and Johnson (1980) called “natural kinds of experience” (p. 117). Hereby, they meant experiences that are a product of our bodies, our interaction with the physical environment, or our interaction with other people.
Metaphors in software engineering
Published in Don Harris, Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, 2017
Metaphors are already used in human-computer interaction for designing the user interface e.g. the familiar desktop metaphor. Metaphors might also be useful in understanding the development team, the development context (e.g. the host organisation) and the end product. Some authors (Coyne, 1995; Avison & Wood-Harper, 1995) have suggested that method itself should be considered as a metaphor. It should be noted that the use of metaphors would involve a move away from positivism, which is dominant in software engineering, towards interpretivism.
Empirical Research in Mid-Air Interaction: A Systematic Review
Published in International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2019
Panayiotis Koutsabasis, Panagiotis Vogiatzidakis
Metaphors facilitate the understanding of an unfamiliar situation in terms of a known one (Ortony, 1993). Simply put, a metaphor is a way of ‘seeing’ (or not) a design space and a way of identifying important elements of the design. Possibly the most famous metaphor in HCI design is the “desktop metaphor”, which produced several concepts and digital tools of personal computers. When it comes to gestures, these are classified as metaphorical when they resemble something concrete in order to represent something abstract, e.g. gesturing of a spherical shape to represent the idea of wholeness (Casasanto and Lozano, 2007).
Spatial and Temporal Audience Behavior of Scrum Practitioners Around Semi-Public Ambient Displays
Published in International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2022
Jan Schwarzer, Susanne Draheim, Kai von Luck
Embedding interfaces in the wild, meaning placing them stationary in real-world public and semi-public spaces (Williamson & Williamson, 2017), is one of the key aims of ubiquitous computing (Dalton et al., 2015). Nowadays, interfaces have advanced past the desktop metaphor and emphasize touch and gesture interactions (Stephanidis et al., 2019), while being, in fact, ubiquitous (Boucher et al., 2021). With the rise of the post-desktop era, the spatial variable in HCI research has become an integral part of the overall interaction process (Dalton et al., 2015). Large and interactive displays, or ambient displays as we refer to them, are no exception to this development in ubiquitous computing. An increasing number of deployments in public (e.g., city settings) and semi-public (e.g., offices) environments can be observed (Ardito et al., 2015) resulting in a notable contextual diversity of installations (Germany et al., 2019). Commonly, ambient displays are evaluated through understanding their audience behavior (Elhart et al., 2017), while behavior here means a performance of some kind that people carry out in front of an installation (Williamson & Williamson, 2014). Past research, however, was more concerned with aspects, such as a technology’s usability (Williamson & Williamson, 2014) leading to a lacking of understanding of how ambient displays affect audience behavior physically, socially, and culturally (Ardito et al., 2015). Unsurprisingly, ambient displays were often found to be irrelevant to the space where they were deployed and, simultaneously, it remains unclear how they are really appropriated in the wild (Parker et al., 2018). While studies attempted to model spatial and temporal audience behavior in the past (Shi & Alt, 2016), it remains a challenging endeavor (Ardito et al., 2015).