Usability in practice: Formative usability evaluations - Evolution and revolution

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2002, Pages 885-890

  Redish, Janice ^a   Bias, Randolph G ^a   Bailey, Robert ^a   Molich, Rolf ^a   Dumas, Joe ^a   Spool, Jared M ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Consensus building; Inspection methods; Iterative design; Usability engineering; Usability methods; Usability report; User interface design; User centered design

Indexed keywords

DESIGN; ITERATIVE METHODS; USER INTERFACES; HUMAN ENGINEERING; INSPECTION; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS;

CONSENSUS BUILDING; INSPECTION METHODS; ITERATIVE DESIGN; USABILITY METHODS; USABILITY REPORT; USER CENTERED DESIGNS; USER INTERFACE DESIGNS;

USABILITY ENGINEERING;

EID: 0037711628     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Bailey, R.W. (2001), User Interface Update - 2001.
2. Catani, M.B. and Biers, D.W. (1998), Usability evaluation and prototype fidelity: users and usability professionals, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting.
3. CUE home page, http://www.dialogdesign.dk/cue.html
4. Dumas, J.S. and Redish, J.C. (1999/1993) A Practical Guide to Usability Testing, revised edition, Bristol, UK: Intellect.
5. Ivory, M.Y., Sinha, R.R., and Hearst, M.A. (2000), Preliminary findings on quantitative measures for distinguishing highly rated information-centric web pages, 6th Conference on Human Factors & the Web.
6. Ivory, M.Y., Sinha, R.R. and Hearst, M.A. (2001), Empirically validated web page design metrics, Proceedings of CHI 2001, 53-60.
7. Jacobsen, N.E. and John, B.E. (2000), Two case studies in using cognitive walkthroughs for interface evaluation, Computer Science Technical Report Abstracts.
8. Jacobsen, N. E., Hertzum, M., and John, B. E. (1998), The evaluator effect in usability studies: Problem detection and severity judgments, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, 1336-1340.
9. Kessner, M., Wood, J., Dillion, R.F., and West, R.L. (2001), On the reliability of usability testing, CHI 2001 Poster.
10. Molich, R., Kaasgaard, K., Karyukina, B., Schmidt, L., Ede, M., van Oel, W., and Arcuri, M. Comparative Evaluation of Usability Tests, CHI99 Extended Abstracts, ACM Press, 83-84.
11. Molich, R., Bevan, N., Curson, I., Butler, S., Kindlund, E., Miller, D., Kirakowski, J. (1998), Comparative evaluation of usability tests, Proceedings of the Usability Professionals' Association.
12. Nielsen, J. Usability Laboratories: A 1994 Survey, http://www.useit.com/papers/uselabs.html
13. Nielsen, J. (2000), Why you only need to test with five users, http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html
14. Rooden, M.J., Green, W.S., and Kanis, H. (1999), Difficulties in usage of a coffeemaker predicted on the basis of design models, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 476-480.
15. Spencer, R. (2000), The streamlined cognitive walk-through method, working around social constraints encountered in a software development company, CHI 2000 Conference Proceedings, 353-359.
16. Spool, J. and Schroeder, W. (2001), Testing web sites: Five users is nowhere near enough, CHI 2001 Conference Proceedings.
17. Stanton, N.A. and Stevenage, S.V. (1998), Learning to predict human error: Issues of acceptability, reliability and validity, Ergonomics, 41(11), 1737-1747.