Involving users in expert system development

The ultimate criterion of success for interactive expert systems is that they will be used, and used to effect, by individuals other than the system developers. A key ingredient of success in most systems is involving users in the specification and development of systems as they are being built. However, until recently, system designers have paid little attention to ascertaining user needs and to developing systems with corresponding functionality and appropriate interfaces to match those requirements. Although the situation is beginning to change, many developers do not know how to go about involving users, or else tackle the problem in an inadequate way. This paper discusses the need for user involvement and considers why many developers are still not involving users in an optimal way. It looks at the different ways in which users can be involved in the development process and describes how to select appropriate techniques and methods for studying users. Finally, it discusses some of the problems inherent in involving users in expert system development, and recommends an approach which incorporates both ethnographic analysis and formal user testing.

User interface standards for expert systems: are they appropriate?

In recent years there has been a growing debate over whether or not standards should be produced for user system interfaces. Those in favor of standardization argue that standards in this area will result in more usable systems, while those against argue that standardization is neither practical nor desirable. The present paper reviews both sides of this debate in relation to expert systems. It argues that in many areas guidelines are more appropriate than standards for user interface design.

The expert teacher of English

The Expert Teacher of English is for all passionate teachers – both novice and expert - who aspire to become outstanding professionals. It considers what we mean by ‘expert’ and ‘expertise’, explores concepts that are vital to understanding what expertise in teaching is ‘for’, and discusses the characteristics of excellent teaching. As increasing attention is being paid to the concept of the professional who can model excellent teaching and mentor and develop others, it provides a critical analysis of The Advanced Skills Teacher and the Excellent Teacher, as well as the Chartered Teacher in Scotland and the ‘highly accomplished teacher’ in the US. Drawing on the views, ideas and experiences of a group of skilful teachers, The Expert Teacher of English aims to stimulate personal and professional development, help you reflect on the concept of expertise, and support you as you develop as a highly accomplished teacher.

Differences between naïve and expert observers’ vergence and accommodative responses to a range of targets

Purpose: Vergence and accommodation studies often use adult participants with experience of vision science. Reports of infant and clinical responses are generally more variable and of lower gain, with the implication that differences lie in immaturity or sub-optimal clinical characteristics but expert/naïve differences are rarely considered or quantified. Methods: Sixteen undergraduates, naïve to vision science, were individually matched by age, visual acuity, refractive error, heterophoria, stereoacuity and near point of accommodation to second- and third-year orthoptics and optometry undergraduates (‘experts’). Accommodation and vergence responses were assessed to targets moving between 33 cm, 50 cm, 1 m and 2 m using a haploscopic device incorporating a PlusoptiX SO4 autorefractor. Disparity, blur and looming cues were separately available or minimised in all combinations. Instruction set was minimal. Results: In all cases, vergence and accommodation response slopes (gain) were steeper and closer to 1.0 in the expert group (p = 0.001), with the largest expert/naïve differences for both vergence and accommodation being for near targets (p = 0.012). For vergence, the differences between expert and naïve response slopes increased with increasingly open-loop targets (linear trend p = 0.025). Although we predicted that proximal cues would drive additional response in the experts, the proximity-only cue was the only condition that showed no statistical effect of experience. Conclusions: Expert observers provide more accurate responses to near target demand than closely matched naïve observers. We suggest that attention, practice, voluntary and proprioceptive effects may enhance responses in experienced participants when compared to a more typical general population. Differences between adult reports and the developmental and clinical literature may partially reflect expert/naïve effects, as well as developmental change. If developmental and clinical studies are to be compared to adult normative data, uninstructed naïve adult data should be used.