MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038583143 · doi:10.1145/1047671.1047677

The state of user-centered design practice

2005· article· en· W2038583143 on OpenAlexaff
Ji‐Ye Mao, Karel Vredenburg, Paul W. Smith, Tom Carey

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications of the ACM · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)University of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityComputer scienceUser-centered designTask (project management)Multidisciplinary approachProduct (mathematics)Process managementUser requirements documentUser experience designKnowledge managementKey (lock)Product designHuman–computer interactionEngineering managementSoftware engineeringSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

User-Centered Design (UCD) is a multidisciplinary design approach based on the active involvement of users to improve the understanding of user and task requirements, and the iteration of design and evaluation. It is widely considered the key to product usefulness and usability---an effective approach to overcoming the limitations of traditional system-centered design. Much has been written in the research literature about UCD. As further proof of internationally endorsed best practice, UCD processes are also defined in ISO documents, including ISO 13407 and the associated technical report, ISO TR 18529. Increasingly, UCD has become part of the cultural vernacular of the executives and managers who drive technology development in companies of all sizes.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.121
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.125
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1210.125
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.041
Scholarly communication0.0260.021
Open science0.0090.012
Research integrity0.0110.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.006

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations473
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications of the ACMSame topicUsability and User Interface DesignFrench-language works237,207