{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025954198473282442, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004580152671755725, 'mean_word_length': 4.775330396475771, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Conceptual Models and Task Representation in Using a Command Language

In most cases, there is no direct correspondence between the objectives that users of an interactive device may be led to formulate and the commands that enable them to attain those objectives. In order to set up what Young (1981) calls a “mapping” between the “task and action arenas”, users must (1) reorganize their objectives in order to adapt them to the capabilities of the device and (2) if necessary, combine several commands to reach a given objective. In doing so, they are assumed to rely on a “conceptual model” of the device, a notion whose cognitive status remains to be clarified. In this article, the editing keys of the MS/DOS operating system are taken as an example and described according to two different conceptual models. The links between the task and action arenas, in these two conceptual models and in a third one called the “mixed model”, are analysed in detail. Finally, the performance of three groups of subjects, while editing a line of text, are compared. All three of the dependent variables analysed are shown to vary according to how the objective is assumed to be formulated in the three conceptual models. Some hypotheses are presented concerning the cognitive mechanisms involved in such a situation.