Editorial

Although I can trace back my career in such a way that it sounds now like a well planned logical progression – physics to psychology to ergonomics to usability or academic to consultant – in practice the changes have been serendipitous. The changes have also never seemed that large at the time and indeed I still feel that my core interests have remained relatively consistent over the years – it's just the rest of the world which has changed.

In my most recent communication from Glasgow University – a nicely presented newsletter which just happens to contain an even more nicely presented appeal for funds – I noted that they have changed the name of the physics department since my time in the 1960s. What I studied was a science called natural philosophy (although even then it was really physics) whereas there was an arts subject called moral philosophy (which was really philosophy). I guess it makes sense to use the same terminology as everyone else in today's competitive environment – competing for students and research funding is going to be easier if you do not have to keep explaining the name.

But this change reminded me that the first journal which Taylor and Francis published in 1798 was the Philosophical Magazine (it was only Taylor – Richard Taylor then). The magazine is still in publication and is very definitely real physics (or the structure and properties of condensed matter as its catchy tag line puts it). But, when it started, it was concerned about the way the world worked, including how it worked for the people in it.

This slightly rambling introduction brings me back to the point in my first paragraph. Over the years, I have remained interested in how the world works for the people in it and so at times I have called myself an applied psychologist, an ergonomist and a usability or human computer interaction (HCI) specialist.

But none of these labels is entirely comfortable. At psychology conferences, I often feel that the delegates do not understand enough about the technology and its opportunities and limitations. At HCI conferences, I feel there is sometimes too much emphasis on the technology and at ergonomics conferences I get frustrated that human psychology is often seen as a problem to be addressed (e.g. how to deal with reluctant users) rather than a strength.

So I was pleased to be able to select some papers for this issue of Behaviour and Information Technology which deal explicitly with personality as an important issue. These cover a wide range of personality issues from its role in determining the cohesiveness of software engineering development teams, its impact on system security, how it predisposes people to accept animated interface agents or its relevance in selecting children to take part in user testing.

Mobile or cell phones are one of the most personal pieces of technology and the next set of papers addresses two intriguing aspects of modern phone design – what features people now want in their phone and how you provide access to Chinese characters with the limited number of buttons available on the modern cell phone.

This issue ends with an intriguing and somewhat off-the-wall case study concerning the use of Hollywood film scenes to illustrate organisational behaviour.

Personality, personality, personality

One of the problems of current technology is that the software has become so large and complex that it requires large teams to work on it simultaneously. As a result, it is usually obvious to the user that the individuals in these teams have not worked closely together. Despite the presence of user interface style guides and standards, the final product often reflects confusing variations in the interface, each of which no doubt made sense to the different software developers.

One approach to minimising such problems is to ensure good communication and cohesiveness amongst the different members of the team. The assumption, which is not unreasonable, is that the more they act as a team, the more consistent the final software will appear. J.S. Karn, S. Syed-Abdullah, A.J. Cowling and M. Holcombe from the Department of Computer Science at the University of Sheffield in the UK report an interesting qualitative study into the effects of personality type and methodology on cohesion in software engineering teams. Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), they examined the effects of personality on cohesiveness. Although their results suggest that personality is indeed important, there is no simple solution to the project manager who wishes to have a cohesive team. In some cases, they found that having similar personalities together worked well whereas in other cases, differences in personalities seemed to work well too. As is often the case with interesting findings, more research is needed.

The next paper also looks at personality and human behaviour in the context of information systems security. Denis Trček and Roman Trboc from the Department of Digital Communications and Networks at the Jožef Stefan Institute in Ljublijana and Nikola Pavešić and J.F. Tasič at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering at the University of Ljublijana explore ways of minimising security risk through understanding such behaviour. They present a template model which they argue allows behaviour and organisation issues to be addressed in a more systematic manner in information security policies and practices.

Alexander Serenko from the Faculty of Business Administration at Lakehead University and Nick Bontis and Brian Detlor from DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University, both in Ontario, were interested in the factors which affected a user's interaction with animated interface agents. They developed a theoretical model of the factors affecting a user's choice to use such agents, then conducted a survey of 261 participants to enable them to validate the factors. Probably the most widely known of such agents is the infamous paperclip in Microsoft Office. Not surprisingly, they found that personality factors were important in determining how people react to and use such features. For example, they found that highly innovative individuals were less likely to find the agents enjoyable. At last I have an excuse for arguing with the paperclip. However, they suggest that although there are problems with the early implementations of agents, the technology is maturing and as more is known about how we interact with them, the more powerful and potentially indispensable they will become (although being able to switch them off seems like an important feature for many people).

The final paper in this section about personality tackles the problem of testing with children and then discovering that the children selected are not very effective. Wolmet Barendregt, Mathilde M. Bekker and Esther Baauw from the Faculty of Industrial Design and Don G. Bouwhuis from the Faculty of Technology Management at Eindhoven University of Technology propose that personality characteristics can be used to solve the problem. They report an experiment where they identified which personality characteristics would predict effective participation. They found that curiosity correlated with children identifying more problems whereas friendliness and extraversion correlated with verbalisation. They also found that selecting participants based on these characteristics did not bias the results.

This time it's personal

The mobile or cell phone is one of the most personal items of technology we use and I have been intrigued to see how many people personalise them – especially in the Far East. Increasingly, of course, phones do far more than allow us to make telephone calls and the range of potential features seems endless. However, it is a highly competitive market and no sooner has one manufacturer provided what they believe to be groundbreaking features than the same (or similar but different enough to avoid IPR (intellectual property rights)) features appear in the competition.

Chen Ling from the School of Industrial Engineering at the University of Oklahoma, Wonil Hwang from the School of Industrial and Information System Engineering at Soongsil University in Seoul, and Gavriel Salvendy from the School of Industrial Engineering at Purdue University and the Department of Industrial Engineering at Tsinghua University in Beijing, report a survey of college students on what they liked and disliked in their current cell phones. Almost half of the total variance in determining user satisfaction was accounted for by the physical appearance, size and menu organisation. Of course, appearance and size are very easy to judge when buying a phone, but menu organisation is not so easy to assess. There is quite a difference between checking a few key features in the shop and, for example, working out how to increase the call volume when standing on a noisy street corner. Making it straightforward to navigate to an ever increasing range of features is certainly a significant menu design challenge. This is increasingly important when these features are potentially incompatible, for example, speaking on the phone and listening to music.

As phones become more complex, so the need for more intense interaction grows. One of the most significant design challenges is how to map the thousands of characters needed for the effective input of Chinese onto a telephone keypad. Various approaches have been tried with varying degrees of success. Min Lin and Andrew Sears from the Information Systems Department at UBMC in Baltimore tested various alternative keypad designs with novice users. Their results showed that combining abstract symbols and concrete examples resulted in a keying performance almost three times better than the original design. This approach clearly has great significance for users who wish to input Chinese text – a huge and growing market.

Case study

The final paper in this issue tests the boundaries of my tolerance as an editor of one of the leading journals on the human aspects of information technology. Steve Dunphy from the School of Management at Indiana University Northwest describes how he uses Hollywood's greatest film scenes to illustrate concepts of organisational behaviour and management. I could argue that I have included it because it represents a good example of how improved information technology (DVD rather than VCR) allows information to be used in a different way – unless one spent hours creating custom tapes it is hard to imagine jumping scenes in quite the way that DVDs allow. I could also argue that understanding organisational behaviour and management are vital for those interested in how we develop, implement and manage information technology into organisations. But, frankly, I have accepted and included it because it is a great idea and well argued. Enjoy.