Analytic Evaluation of Groupware Design

Antunes, Pedro; Borges, Marcos R. S.; Pino, José A.; Carriço, Luís

doi:10.1007/11686699_4

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this system, several persons with individual roles monitored a display and coordinated their actions via a shared radio communication channel. In other studies, a group of researchers (Antunes et al, 2005;Antunes, Borges et al, 2006;Antunes, Ferreira et al, 2006;Ferreira & Antunes, 2007) proposed a new analytic method which was inspired by GOMS to evaluate synchronous shared workspace design. To validate this method, they applied it to the design of a collaborative game and that of a collaborative tool for software engineering requirements negotiation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicative NGOMSL: An Extension of NGOMSL to Analyze a Text-based Communication System

Lee

Koubek

2009

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study proposes Communicative NGOMSL, which is an extension of NGOMSL intended to accommodate modeling of text-based communication among two or more individuals. Besides the properties of GOMS techniques in evaluation, Communicative NGOMSL additionally considers two key concepts: common ground and communication time. Common ground means the mutual knowledge, belief and assumptions of participants in a conversation, and communication time refers to one individual's waiting time for the other's response. As a case example, Communicative NGOMSL is applied to a virtual text-based communication system for exchanging addresses between two individuals. The Communicative NGOMSL analysis makes some suggestions to better design a communication system: (1) focusing on the interface design that is directly related to grounding process in a conversation; (2) considering the relationship of communication time and execution time for each individual; and (3) balancing between participants for learning time and mental workload.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%