Errors in working with office computers: A first validation of a taxonomy for observed errors in a field setting

Abstract

An action‐oriented taxonomy of errors in human‐computer interaction in the office differentiated four classes: functionality problems, usability problems, interaction problems, and inefficient behavior. Functionality problems were differentiated in how they affect the action process. Usability problems were differentiated according to levels of action regulation and steps in the action process. For example, conscious strategies were differentiated from automatic ones. To examine the taxonomy's construct validation, several hypotheses regarding error‐handling time, need for external support, complexity at work, and novices versus experts were tested in a field study of 198 clerical workers at 11 German companies and 7 small firms. A total of 1,749 errors were observed within a 2‐hour period, 1,306 were rated concordantly by two re‐raters. As expected, errors resulting from conscious regulation and functionality problems needed more error‐handling time than errors resulting from more automatic actions. There were more thought and memory errors at workplaces with high complexity. The most external support was needed for knowledge errors. Novices committed more knowledge errors and experts more habit errors. Practical implications are discussed both for software development and training.