Page, Stanley R. “User Customization of a Word Processor.” Common Ground (n.d.): 340-46. Web. 3 Dec. 2014. <http://www.sigchi.org/chi96/proceedings/papers/Page/srp_txt.htm>.

The primary author of this paper, Stanley R. Page, worked for Novell Incorporated at the time of writing.  Not much was to be found concerning Mr. Page’s current status, however the Novell website is up to date and provides some insight into the author’s background.  From their homepage: “Novell supports thousands of organizations around the globe, delivering software that makes the workplace more productive, secure and manageable.”  The paper falls in line with this mission statement in that its objective was to find out what and how users change in their word processors.  Based on a study of 101 volunteers, the research team tracked on discs what changes users made to the software (WordPerfect 6.0a), responses to a questionnaire, and macro usage files.  Put simply, their findings were that, “92% of the participants in this study did some form of customization of the software. The maximum number of changes made by a participant was 54. The mean was 9.1. Eighty-six percent made changes to their general preferences settings.  Sixty-three percent made use of custom functionality in macros. Seventy-seven percent customized the software interface to add or change access to their functionality.” Though the piece may be somewhat out of date, in the past eighteen years, not much has changed in word processing outside of cloud storage and a few nifty tricks and features.  These numbers are most likely different today, however they are more than likely still representative of general trends in word processor usage.

The researchers’ audience for this study were originally those in attendance at the 1996 Conference of Human Factors in Computing, a conference that is still held today.  As the name implies, the conference focuses on how humans and our ever-present computers interact with one another, with an attendance base from across the computing spectrum.  The bias or slant present in the paper is minimal.  Though the authors are all involved in computing technology themselves, the paper remains easy to comprehend for those less versed in such vernacular.  The team set out to find out something they did not know, and were not out to prove anything, they write several times that the fact that 92% of users customize their processors to be surprising.

One of the main reasons this remains such an interesting and relevant study is that within it is contained a sampling of the word processor user demographics.  The researchers state that of those sampled, “57.4% having ten or more years of computer experience . . . 50.5% falling between the ages of 40 and 54 . . . 55.4% female and 44.6% male.” In addition the study provides a comprehensive analysis of what users changed and theorizes on why the changes were made.  Two of the key reasons cited for the desire to customize the word processor were that the user realized certain patterns or habits they had and wanted to facilitate these changes more, or that the user wanted to retrofit some new piece of software into an older version of the program.  These two user desires are key in developing White Space further in that once the user’s wants are more deeply understood, the product may react accordingly.  That said, it is important that White Space should do more than just provide users with what they know they want, to stay ahead of competition it is important to try new things, test ideas that have no assured demand, and create inventions that give the user something they didn’t even know they wanted.  Apple is a perfect example of this practice.  When the iPhone was launched in 2007, there were few if any metrics to depict how a smartphone would sell, but Apple took a chance, and now its product is one of the most widely used devices on the market.