ABSTRACT
In the relatively short history of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), several approaches have been developed to account for the design of computer-based interactive artifacts. The most prominent have been the paradigms of Human Factors evaluation, cognitive science, and more recently, user-centered design (UCD). (It should be noted that in recent years there has been a growing interest in more developmental approaches to HCI design (Carroll 1991), such as activity theory, distributed cognition, situated action models, etc. As these approaches still seek their ultimate formulation in the field of HCI, they will not be addressed here. However, their potential value as new prescriptive frameworks for designing computer-mediated human activities in an Information Society is fully acknowledged.) Human Factors evaluation and cognitive science have been criticized with respect to the underpinning scientific ground and the means (e.g. instruments, methods and tools) for achieving a specific set of objectives. The literature in the field of HCI reports many on-going debates (e.g. Nardi 1996), and offers an insight into the diversity that characterizes the field. The essence of the critique is that, on the one hand, traditional large-scale user testing (e.g. the Human Factors evaluation paradigm) is both costly and suboptimal, while on the other hand any attempt for a generalized model or theory (e.g. the information processing psychology approach of cognitive science) for designing interactions between humans and machines is simply not feasible.
