Abstract
Work analysis techniques are the primary methods for designers to obtain knowledge for good interfaces. The majority of current techniques are either task-centered or system- or work domain-centered. In previous work (Miller and Vicente, 1998) we maintained that each technique focuses on different aspects of the design problem and has complementary strengths and weaknesses, thus mandating a unification for completeness. Here, we compare the results of two analyses of the same work environment, one using a work domain-centered technique (Rasmussen's (1985) Abstraction Decomposition Space or Abstraction Hierarchy) and the other using a task-centered technique (Hierarchical Task Analysis—Shepherd, 1989). We compare the requirements produced by each analytic technique and demonstrate their complementary nature. We argue for examining a work domain from both perspectives and discuss interface concepts that would satisfy both analyses. We argue that these interfaces would provide better user support than one designed from either analytic technique alone.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
