MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056453264 · doi:10.1177/154193120905302406

Beyond User-Centered Design: Applicable Concepts from Complementary Approaches

2009· article· en· W2056453264 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

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUser-centered designFunction (biology)Quality function deploymentKnowledge managementProcess managementSoftware deploymentSoftware engineeringSystems engineeringEngineering managementHuman–computer interactionEngineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In human factors, and especially in the area of computer system design, practitioners often employ a design approach or design philosophy called user-centered design (UCD). This paper provides an introduction to three complementary approaches (Quality Function Deployment, Front End Loading, and Service-Oriented Project Management) that originated in different domains and are primarily used by business development and project management. These approaches are then compared to UCD to determine whether UCD practitioners may be able to complement these approaches as well as incorporate new perspectives, strategies, or principles to enhance their application of UCD in system design. The principles from these other approaches may provide UCD practitioners with guidance to create a more robust approach to incorporating the human element into system design, and the tools and methodologies that accompany each approach could enhance UCD practices in the future.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.201 · 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