Abstract
The Cognitive Dimensions of Notations framework has been created to assist the designers of notational systems and information artifacts to evaluate their designs with respect to the impact that they will have on the users of those designs. The framework emphasizes the design choices available to such designers, including characterization of the user’s activity, and the inevitable tradeoffs that will occur between potential design options. The resulting framework has been under development for over 10 years, and now has an active community of researchers devoted to it. This paper first introduces Cognitive Dimensions. It then summarizes the current activity, especially the results of a one-day workshop devoted to Cognitive Dimensions in December 2000, and reviews the ways in which it applies to the field of Cognitive Technology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Note that many of these publications are available online from the Cognitive Dimensions archive site: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~afb21/CognitiveDimensions/
Blackwell, A.F. & Green, T.R.G. (2000). A Cognitive Dimensions questionnaire optimised for users. In A.F. Blackwell & E. Bilotta (Eds.) Proceedings of the Twelth Annual Meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, 137–152.
Carpendale, M.S.T., Cowperthwaite D.J. and Fracchia, F. D. (1995). 3-Dimensional pliable surfaces for the effective presentation of visual information information navigation. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology p. 217–226.
Cheng, P.C. (1998). AVOW diagrams: A novel representational system for understanding electricity. In Proceedings Thinking with Diagrams 98: Is there a science of diagrams? pp. 86–93.
Fish, J. & Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying the mind’s eye: Sketching and visual cognition Leonardo, 23(1), 117–126.
Furnas, G.W. (1986). Generalized fisheye views visualizing complex information spaces. Proceedings of ACM CHI’86 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems p. 16–23.
Gilmore, D. J. (1991) Visibility: a dimensional analysis. In D. Diaper and N. V. Hammond (Eds.) People and Computers VI. Cambridge University Press.
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123–143.
Green, T. R. G. & Petre, M. (1996) Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 7, 131–174.
Green, T. R. G. (1989). Cognitive dimensions of notations. In People and Computers V, A Sutcliffe and L Macaulay (Ed.) Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 443–460.
Green, T.R.G. (1990) The cognitive dimension of viscosity: a sticky problem for HCI. In D. Diaper, D. Gilmore, G. Cockton and B. Shackel (Eds.) Human-Computer Interaction — INTERACT’ 90. Elsevier.
Green, T.R.G. (1991) Describing information artefacts with cognitive dimensions and structure maps. In D. Diaper and N. V. Hammond (Eds.) Proceedings of “HCI’91: Usability Now”, Annual Conference of BCS Human-Computer Interaction Group. Cambridge University Press.
Green, T.R.G. & Blackwell, A.F. (1998). Design for usability using Cognitive Dimensions. Tutorial presented at British Computer Society conference on Human Computer Interaction HCI’98. Available online from the Cognitive Dimensions archive site http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~afb21/CognitiveDimensions/
Hendry, D.G. and Green, T. R. G. (1994) Creating, comprehending, and explaining spreadsheets: a cognitive interpretation of what discretionary users think of the spreadsheet model. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 40(6), 1033–1065.
Hewson, R. (1991). Deciding through doing: The role of sketching in typographic design. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 23(4), 39–40.
O’Hara K.P., and Payne, S.J. (1999). Planning and the user interface: The effects of lockout time and error recovery cost International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 50(1), 41–59.
Shimojima, A. (1996). Operational constraints in diagrammatic reasoning. In G. Allwein & J. Barwise (Eds) Logical reasoning with diagrams. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 27–48.
Simos, M. & Blackwell, A.F. (1998). Pruning the tree of trees: The evaluation of notations for domain modeling. In J. Domingue & P. Mulholland (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, pp. 92–99.
Stacey, M. K. (1995) Distorting design: unevenness as a cognitive dimension of design tools. In G. Allen, J. Wilkinson & P. Wright (eds.), Adjunct Proceedings of HCI’95. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield School of Computing and Mathematics.
Stenning, K. & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19(1), 97–140.
Tufte, E. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut.
Whitley, K.N. and Blackwell, A.F. (1997). Visual programming: the outlook from academia and industry. In S. Wiedenbeck & J. Scholtz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Empirical Studies of Programmers, pp. 180–208.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Blackwell, A.F. et al. (2001). Cognitive Dimensions of Notations: Design Tools for Cognitive Technology. In: Beynon, M., Nehaniv, C.L., Dautenhahn, K. (eds) Cognitive Technology: Instruments of Mind. CT 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2117. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44617-6_31
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44617-6_31
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42406-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44617-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive