Usability problem taxonomy: A framework for classification and analysis

Empirical Software Engineering

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 71-104

  Keenan, Susan L ^c   Hartson, H Rex ^a,d,e   Kafura, Dennis G ^a   Schulman, Robert S ^b  

^a State University   (United States)

^b VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c University System of Georgia   (United States)

^d Ohio Library Council   (United States)

^e XEROX CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SYSTEMS PROGRAMMING; GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

USABILITY PROBLEM TAXONOMY (UPT);

COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION;

EID: 0033099775     PISSN: 13823256     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1009855231530     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Card, D. N. 1993. Defect-causal analysis drives down error rates. IEEE Software 10.4: 98-99.
2. Card, D. N. 1998. Learning from our mistakes with defect causal analysis. IEEE Software 15.1: 56-63.
3. Carroll, J. M., Kellogg, W. A., and Rosson, M. B. 1991. The task-artifact cycle. Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 74-102.
4. Chin, J. P., Diehl, V. A., and Norman K. L. 1988. Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. Proc. ACM CHI '88 Conference. Washington, D.C., 213-218.
5. Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement XX 1: 37-46.
6. Desurvire, H. W. 1994. Faster, cheaper!! Are usability inspection methods as effective as empirical testing?. In J. Nielsen and R. L. Mack (eds.), Usability Inspection Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 173-202.
7. Dumas, J. S., and Redish, J. C. 1994. A Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.
8. Fleiss, J. L. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin 76.5: 378-382.
9. Giblin, D. 1992. Defect causal analysis: A report from the field. Proceedings of the ASQC Second International Conference on Sofware Quality, 1-5.
10. Grady, R. B. 1994. Successfully applying software metrics. IEEE Computer 27. 9: 18-25.
11. Hix, D., and Hartson, H. R. 1993. Developing User Interfaces Ensuring Usability Through Predate & Process. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
12. Jeffries, R. 1994. Usability problem reports: Helping evaluators communicate effectively with developers. In J. Nielsen and R. L. Mack (eds.), Usability Inspection Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 273-294.
13. Karat, C., Campbell, R., and Fiegel, T. 1992. Comparison of empirical testing and walkthrough methods in user interface evaluation. Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI '92 Conference Proceedings. Monterey, California, 397-404.
14. Keenan, S. L. 1996. Product Usability and Process Improvement Based on Usability Problem Classification. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Computer Science. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
15. Mack, R., and Montaniz, F. 1994. Observing, predicting, and analyzing usability problems. In J. Nielsen and R. L. Mack (eds.), Usability Inspection Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 295-339.
16. Muller, M. J., Dayton, T., and Root, R. 1993. Comparing studies that compare usability assessment methods: An unsuccessful search for stable criteria. Proceedings of INTERCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Adjunct). New York: Amsterdam, 185-186.
17. Myers, Glenford, J. 1979. The Art of Software Testing. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
18. Nielsen, J. 1994. Heuristic evaluation. In J. Nielsen and R. L. Mack (eds.), Usability Inspection Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 25-62.
19. Nielsen, J. 1992. Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI '92 Conference Proceedings. Monterey, California, 373-380.
20. Nielsen, J., and Molich, R. 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Proceedings ACM CHI'90 Conference. Seattle, Washington, 249-256.
21. Nielsen, J. 1993. Usability Engineering. San Diego, California: Academic Press, Inc.
22. Ostrand, T. J., and Weyuker, E. J. Collecting and categorizing software error data in an industrial environment. The Journal of Systems and Software 4: 289-300.
23. Paternò, F., and Mancini, C. 1999. Engineering the design of usable hypermedia. Empirical Software Engineering: An International Journal, Special Issue on Usability Engineering 4.1: 11-42.
24. Pfleeger, S. L. 1991. Software Engineering The Production of Quality Software. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
25. Porteous, M. A., Kirakowski, J., and Corbett, M. 1993. Software Usability Measurement Inventory Handbook. Cork, Ireland: Human Factors Research Group, University College.
26. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S., and Carey, T. 1995. Human-Computer Interaction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
27. Pressman, R. S. 1997. Sotware Engineering A Practitioner's Approach Fourth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
28. Rubin, J. 1994. Handbook of Usability Testing. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
29. Shneiderman, B. 1998. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, Third Edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
30. Senders, J. W., and Moray, N. P. (Eds.). 1991. Human Error: Cause, Prediction, and Reduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Sommerville, I. 1989. Software Engineering. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
32. Vora, P. 1995. Classifying user errors in human-computer interactive tasks. Common Ground. Usability Professional Association. Vol. 5. No. 2. 15.
33. Weiss, D. M. 1979. Evaluating software development by error analysis: The data from the architecture research facility. The Journal of Systems and Software 1. 57-70.
34. Zhang, Z., Basili, V., and Shneiderman, B. 1999. Perspective-based usability inspection: An empirical validation of efficacy. Empirical Software Engineering: An International Journal, Special Issue on Usability Engineering 4.1: 43-70.