MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W560201418

Pattern-oriented UI design based on user experiences : a method supported by empirical evidence

2006· dissertation· en· W560201418 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

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2006
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPersona Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityPersonaComputer scienceUser experience designHuman–computer interactionUser storyUser interfaceEngineering design processUser-centered designProcess (computing)User interface designSoftware engineeringProduct designUSableSet (abstract data type)Design processProduct (mathematics)World Wide WebEngineeringWork in processSoftware developmentProgramming languageSoftware
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

User-Centered Design (UCD) is a philosophy surrounding interactive system design, with the purpose of achieving product usability. One challenge with UCD and its related methods is the lack of a concrete process which supports designers in building user interface (UI) designs founded on user experiences. In current practice, design decisions are made based on loosely-defined guidelines, giving rise to a significant "gap" between user analysis and design outcomes. This is especially problematic for novice designers who lack the background and training required to make trade-offs, judgments and interpretations towards a usable design. In this thesis, we propose a Pattern-Oriented UI Design method which is driven by user experiences. It is founded on a set of core UCD principles which we have enriched with "engineering-like" concepts such as reuse and traceability. The method is based on two key artifacts--personas, used to model user experiences, and patterns, used to capture best design practices. Following this method, we define the UX-P Process, a systematic process which is semi-automated and characterized by rigorously-defined steps; designers iteratively create personas, select patterns, and compose patterns into a comprehensive design, based on user specifications and usability considerations. We have built a supporting tool, which allows designers to cluster users into personas and select candidate patterns based on persona specifications. We carried out two empirical studies with end-users. The goal of the first study was to assess the feasibility of the method; the second, to validate the process. Both studies were carried out with Bioinformatics applications and were comparative in nature testing the original design with our prototype. The outcome of these empirical studies indicated a positive increase in usability measures for our design prototypes, including a significant improvement in task times and user satisfaction.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.273 · 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