%M J.CACM.32.10.1164
%T The Case Against User Interface Consistency
%A Grudin, Jonathan
%J Communications of the ACM
%D 1989
%V 32
%N 10
%P 1164-1173
%W http://research.microsoft.com/research/coet/Grudin/papers/CACM1989.pdf
%W http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=67934
%X Designers striving for user interface consistency can resemble Supreme Court
justices trying to define pornography: each of us feels we know it when we see
it, but people often disagree and a precise definition remains elusive. A close
examination suggests that consistency is an unreliable guide and that designers
would often do better to focus on users' work environments.

%T Why groupware applications fail: Problems in design and evaluation
%A Grudin, Jonathan
%J Office: Technology and People
%D 1989
%V 4
%N 3
%P 245-264

%M J.MISQ.13.3.319
%T Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of
Information Technology
%A Davis, F. D.
%J MIS Quarterly
%D 1989
%V 13
%N 3
%P 319-340
%Y PERCEIVED USEFULNESS
1. Using the system in my job would enable me to accomplish tasks more quickly
2. Using the system would improve my job performance
3. Using the system in my job would increase my productity
4. Using the system would enhance my effectiveness on the job
5. Using the system would make it easier to do my job
6. I would find the system useful in my job
PERCEIVED EASE OF USE
7. Learning to operate the system would be easy for me
8. I would find it easy to get the system to do what I want it to do
9. My interaction with the system would be clear and understandable
10. I would find the system to be flexible to interact with
11. It would be easy for me to become skillful at using the system
12. I would find the system easy to use