MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1551330137 · doi:10.3127/ajis.v7i2.267

Adapting the Locales Framework for Heuristic Evaluation of Groupware

2000· article· en· W1551330137 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAJIS. Australasian journal of information systems/AJIS. Australian journal of information systems/Australian journal of information systems · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Calgary
FundersAdvanced Research Projects AgencyNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyU.S. Air ForceMicrosoft Research
KeywordsHeuristicsCollaborative softwareUsabilityComputer scienceHeuristic evaluationHeuristicHuman–computer interactionUser interfaceProduct (mathematics)Interface (matter)Knowledge managementArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heuristic evaluation is a rapid, cheap and effective way for identifying usability problems in single user systems. However, current heuristics do not provide guidance for discovering problems specific to groupware usability. In this paper, we take the Locales Framework and restate it as heuristics appropriate for evaluating groupware. These are: 1) Provide locales; 2) Provide awareness within locales; 3) Allow individual views; 4) Allow people to manage and stay aware of their evolving interactions; and 5) Provide a way to organize and relate locales to one another. To see if these new heuristics are useful in practice, we used them to inspect the interface of Teamwave Workplace, a commercial groupware product. We were successful in identifying the strengths of Teamwave as well as both major and minor interface problems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.050
Open science0.0050.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it