A few representations have been used for capturing design rationale. To understand their scope and adequacy, we need to know how to evaluate them. In this article, we develop a framework for evaluating the expressive adequacy of design rationale representations. This framework is built by progressively differentiating the elements of design rationale that, when made explicit, support an increasing number of the design tasks. Using this framework, we present and assess DRL (Decision Representation Language), a language for representing rationales that we believe is the most expressive of the existing representations. We also use the framework to assess the expressiveness of other design rationale representations and compare them to DRL. We conclude by pointing out the need for articulating other dimensions along which to evaluate design rationale representations.

The idea that game design can inspire the design of motivating, enjoyable interactive systems has a long history in human-computer interaction. It currently experiences a renaissance as gameful des...

Artifacts and their use are constantly developing, and we address development in, and of, use. The framework needs to support such development through concepts and methods. This leads to a methodol...

This study investigates whether a tutorial for software training can be enhanced by adding a pedagogical agent, and whether the type of agent matters i.e., cognitive, motivational, or mixed. The co...