Commercial experiences have shown that involving users in the software design cycle is a cost-effective way of improving both the quality and the acceptability of tool products. This paper addresses the issue of whether users also should be involved in the research activities that lay the foundation for parallel tool design. Integrating users changes the basic nature of the software process in sev eral ways, as illustrated with examples from recent Parallel Tools Consortium projects. Tool designers must invest additional time to prepare example scenarios or proto types for user discussions, identify alternatives that can serve as points of departure for user-derived meta phors or models, and analyze user responses. By iden tifying user suggestions consistently throughout the de sign process, however, the development time for research prototypes is actually shortened.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Appelbe, B., and Bergmark, D.1996. Software tools for high-performance computing: Survey and recommendationsScientific Programming5:239-250.
2.
Bias, R. G., and Mayhew, D. J., eds. 1994. Cost-justifying usability.New York: Academic Press .
3.
Cook, C., Pancake, C., and Walpole, R.1994. Are expectations for parallelism too high? A survey of potential parallel users. Proceedings of Supercomputing '94, Washington, DC, November, pp. 126-133.
4.
Fang, Y., and Pancake, C.M.1996. Design and implementation of the Message Queue Manager Technical report CSTR96-80-2. Department of Computer Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis.
5.
Genmer, D., and Stevens, A. L., eds. 1983. Mental models.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
6.
Gowda, M.M., and Pancake, C.M.1994. The Lightweight Corefile Browser. Technical report CSTR94-80-17Department of Computer Science, Oregon State University , Corvallis.
7.
Gowda, M.M., and Pancake, C.M.1995. Basing tool design on user feedback: The Lightweight Corefile Browser Parallel Tools Consortium document available on the Web at www.cs.orst.edu/∼pancake/papers/1cb/1cb.html .
8.
Greenbaum, J., and Kyng, M., eds. 1991. Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Holtzblatt, K., and Beyer, H.1993. Making customer centered design work for teamsCommunications of the ACM36(10):93-103.
10.
Karat, C.-M.1993. Usability engineering in dollars and centsIEEE Software, May, pp. 88-89.
11.
Kieras, D.E., and Bovair, S.1984. The role of a mental model in learning to operate a deviceCognitive Science8:255-273.
12.
Kuehn, J.1993. NCAR user perspectiveProceedings of the 1992 Supercomputing Debugger Workshop , Dallas, TX, January.
13.
Landauer, T.K.1995. The trouble with computers: Usefulness, usability, and productivityCambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
Lewis, C., and Norman, D.A.1983. Designing for error. In Readings in human-computer interaction, edited by R. M. Baecker and W.A.S. Buxton. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman , pp. 627-638.
15.
Mantei, M.M., and Teorey, T.J.1988. Cost/benefit analysis for incorporating human factors in the software lifecycle. Communications of the ACM31:428-439.
16.
Messina, P., Sterling, T., and Pool, J.Forthcoming. Proceedings of the Second Pasadena Workshop on System Software and Tools for High Performance Computing Environments , Pasadena, CA, January 1995. Draft available on the Web at cesdis. gsfc.nasa.gov/PAS2.
17.
Monk, A., Wright, P., Haber, J., and Davenport, L.1993. Improving your human-computer interface: A practical techniqueEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
Moran, T.P.1981. An applied psychology of the userACM Computing Surveys13(1):1-12.
19.
National Science Foundation.1993. From desktop to teraflop: Exploiting the U.S. lead in high performance computingWashington, DC: National Science Foundation.
20.
Neilsen, J.1989. Usability engineering at a discount. In Designing and using human-computer interfaces and knowledge-based systems , edited by G. Salvendy and M. J. Smith. New York: Elsevier Science, pp. 394-401.
21.
Neilsen, J.1992. The usability engineering life cycleComputer, March, pp. 12-22.
22.
Norman, D.A.1983. Design rules based on analyses of human errorCommunications of the ACM24(4): 254-258.
23.
Pancake, C.M.1993. Why is there such a mismatch between user needs and parallel tool support? Keynote address, Workshop on Parallel Computing Systems, Keystone, CO.
24.
Pancake, C.M.1994. A collaborative effort in parallel tool designTools and Environments for Parallel Scientific Computation , edited by J. Dongarra and B. Tourancheau. New York: North Holland, pp. 112-118.
25.
Pancake, C.M.1996. Improving the usability of numerical software through user-centered design In The quality of numerical software: Assessment and enhancement, edited by B. Ford and J. Rice. New York: Chapman & Hall .
26.
Pancake, C.M., Blaylock, B., and Ferraro, R.1995. Guidelines for writing system software and tool requirements . NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
27.
Pancake, C.M., and Cook, C.1994. What users need in parallel tool support: Survey results and analysis. Proceedings of the Scalable High Performance Computing Conference, Knoxville, TN, pp. 40-47.
28.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S., and Carey, T., eds. 1994. Human-computer interaction.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
29.
Rose, A., Shneiderman, B., and Plaisant, C.1995. An applied ethnographic method for redesigning user interfacesProceedings of the Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems : Processes, Practices, Methods, & Techniques , Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 25-31.
30.
Whiteside, J., Bennett, J., and Holtzblatt, K.1988. Usability engineering: Our experience and evaluation In Handbook of human-computer interaction , edited by M. Helander. New York: North-Holland.
