The arrival of 'user-friendly' (UF) computing has im portant implications, both for computer sales and for the accessibility of information online. Yet despite the growing trend towards UF systems and the increasing use of 'UF' in the literature, the term has not yet been adequately defined nor have criteria for UF been conclusively established. This paper stresses the importance of UF for the state-of-the-art and reviews the literature around this subject.
The popular understanding of UF is outlined and some other definitions cited which suggest that the concept is more complex than it might appear. The author asserts that the idea of 'friendliness' is qualified by the word 'user' and that there fore UF systems must be able to recognize and accommodate the needs of different user groups. Published criteria for 'friendliness', 'ease of use', etc., are then discussed and a set of criteria for UF on which there is a consensus, is listed. The paper concludes by suggesting that a plausible definition of UF must take into account variations in the user population in terms of their individual characteristics and the tasks they wish to perform.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
F. Gruenberger , Making friends with user-friendly, Datamation27 (1) (1981) 108.
2.
C.L. Borgman, Psychological research in human-computer-interaction, in: M.E. Williams, ed., ARIST Vol. 19 (ASIS, New York , 1984).
3.
L. Smith, Implications of AI for end-user use of online systems, Online Review4 (4) (1980) 383-391.
4.
J.L. Burch, ed., Computers, the non-technical (human) factors—a recommended reading list on computer ergonomics and user-friendly design, D. Ward, prod. Lawrence Kansas report store, 1984.
5.
C. Cuadra, Online systems- promises and pitfalls, J. ASIS22 (2) (1971) 107-114.
6.
H.R. Ramsey andM.E. Atwood, Man-computer interface guidance—state of the art, Proceedings of 24th Annual Meeting of Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, 1980, 85-9.
7.
W.C. Mann , Why are things so bad for the computer naive user? Proc. AFIPS National Computer Conference44 (1975) 785-787.
8.
J.E. Sammett, ed., ACM Guide to Computing Literature (ACM, New York1980).
9.
Science Citation Index, Permuterm subject index, Phil. P.A. Institute for Scientific InformationInc., 1981.
10.
A Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary, 4th Vol. (Se-Z) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986).
11.
G.C. Stevens , User-friendly systems? A critical examination of the concept, Behaviour and Information Technology2 (1) (1983) 3-16.
12.
S. Selander , Several approaches for improving user-cordiality in the design of online systems for novice users, Computer Periodicals9 (2) (1982) 18-21.
13.
J.L. Burch, ed., op.cit.
14.
F. Gruenberger, op.cit.
15.
A. Godman, ed., Cambridge Illustrated Thesaurus of Computing Science (Cambridge University Press, London, 1984).
16.
A.J. Meadows, ed., Dictionary of Computers and New Information Technology (Kogan Page , London, 1984).
17.
Advertising literature for Macintosh personal computer, Apple computers UK, 1984.
18.
B. Dwyer , Programming for users—a bit of psychology, Computers andPeople30 (1&2) (1981) 11-24, 26.
19.
M.A. Boden, The meeting of man and machine, in: K.P. Jones , ed., The Design of Information Systems for Human Beings, Informatics (6) (Aslib, London, 1981).
20.
J.R. Matthews and J. Frye, The user-friendly index: a new tool, Online (8) (1984) 31-34.
21.
ibid.
22.
G.C. Stevens, op.cit.
23.
P.F. Nesdore , User—friendly—friendly to all or none?Computerworld (October 31, 1983) 3.
24.
P.L. Noerr, Are micros friendly? Proc. International Online Conference, London, 1983, pp. 1-5.
25.
European users want online friendliness, Diane News (32) (October 1983).
26.
D. Dolan , Offlines, Database6 (4) (1983) 101-104.
L. Trenner and A.B. Buxton, Criteria for user-friendiness, Proc. International Online Conference, London, 1985, pp. 279-287.
29.
W.G. Quirk, User-friendly: Designing for novice and experts , Computerworld (October 31, 1983) 3.
30.
D.P. Wallace , A preliminary examination of the meaning of User-friendliness, Proceedings of 48th Annual Meeting of ASIS, Las Vegas, 1985, pp. 337-341.
31.
W.J. Raduchel , A professional's perspective on user-friendliness , Byte9 (5) (1984) 101-106.
32.
W.F. Dick , More on user-friendly, Byte9 (10) ( 1984) 23-24.
33.
J.A. Mulick , More on user-friendly, Byte9 (10) ( 1984) 24.
34.
R.B. Miller , Human ease of user criteria and their trade-offs, IBM Report 00.2185, Poughkeepsie, April 1971 .
35.
W. Dehning, H. Essig and S. Maass, The adaptation of virtual man-computer interfaces to user requirements in dialogs, in: Lecture Notes Comput. Sci 110 (1981) 25-29.
36.
B.R. Gaines and P.V. Facey, Some experiments in interactive systems development and application, Proc. IEEE63 (6) (1975) 894-911.
37.
T.C.S. Kennedy , The design of interactive procedures for man-machine communication, Internat. J. Man-Machine Studies (6) (1974) 309-334.
38.
L. Borgman and R. Karr, An evaluation of the friendliness of a time-sharing system, ACMSIG on social and behavioural science of computing bulletin (1982) 31-34.
39.
T. Gilb and C.M. Weinberg, Humanised Input (Winthrop, Cambridge, MA, 1977).
40.
V. Stibic , A few practical remarks on the friendliness of online systems, Journal of Information Science2 (6) (1980) 277-283.
41.
D.R. Cheriton , Man machine interface guidance for time-sharing systems, Proceedings of ACM National Conference , 1976, pp. 362-380.
42.
R.W. Pew and A.M. Rollins, Dialog specification procedure, Bolt, Beranek and Newman report 3129 rev. ed, Cambridge, MA, 1975.
43.
J.R. Matthews and J. Frye, op.cit.
44.
J.L. Bennett, The user interface in interactive systems, in: M.E. Williams, ed., ARIST Vol. 7 (ASIS, New York, 1972).
45.
R.N. Cuff, On casual users, Internat. J. Man Machine Studies (12) (1980) 163-187.
46.
L. DeBoever, The myth of user-friendly computing, Computerworld (August 23, 1982).
47.
B. Dwyer, A user-friendly algorithm, Comm. ACM24 (9) (1981) 556-561.
48.
D. Golden, A plea for friendly software, Software Engineering Notes 5 (4) ( 1980).
49.
H. Goldes, User problems in interactive environments, British J. Educat. Techn.15 (3) (1984) 161-175.
50.
C.M. Goldstein and W.H. Ford, User cordial interface, Online Review2 (1978) 269-275.
51.
R.V. Katter, On the online user of remote access citation retrieval services, SCD TM(L)4494 (January 8, 1970).
52.
J. Maltby, What's user-friendly?Computing (May 1985) 24.
53.
J. Martin, The Design of Man Computer Dialogues (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1973).
54.
T.H. Martin, The user interface in interactive systems, in: M.E. Williams, ed., ARIST Vol. 8 (ASIS, New York, 1973).
55.
S. Pollitt, Why are online systems still unfriendly?Computerworld UK (March 25, 1981) 43.
56.
B. Schneiderman, Software Psychology-Human Factors in Computer and Information Systems (Winthrop, Cambridge, MA, 1980).
57.
B. Schneiderman, Human Factors experiments in designing interactive systems, Computer12 (12) (1979) 9-20.
58.
T.D. Sterling, Guidelines for humanising computerised information systems, Comm. ACM17 (11) (1974) 603-613.
59.
A.T. Wasserman, The design of idiot-proof interactive systems, Proc. AFIPS Conference (42) (1973) ( NCC, NJ) M34-38.
