User action framework: a reliable foundation for usability engineering support tools

International Journal of Human Computer Studies

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 107-136

  Andre, Terence S ^a   Rex Hartson, H ^b   Belz, Steven M ^b   McCreary, Faith A ^b  

^a AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS; DATA ACQUISITION; DATA REDUCTION; HEURISTIC METHODS; RELIABILITY; REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING; USABILITY ENGINEERING; USER INTERFACES;

COST EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS; HEURISTIC EVALUATION; STRUCTURED KNOWLEDGE; USABILITY ENGINEERING SUPPORT TOOLS; USABILITY EVALUATION; USER ACTION FRAMEWORK;

COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 0343431409     PISSN: 10715819     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/ijhc.2000.0441     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. BODKER S. Through the Interface: A Human Activity Approach to User Interface Design. 1991;Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.
2. BROOKS P. Adding value to usability testing. NIELSEN J., MACK R. L. Usability Inspection Methods. 1994;255-271 John Wiley & Sons, New York.
3. CARROLL J. M., KELLOGG W. A., ROSSON M. B. The task-artifact cycle. CARROll J. M. Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface. 1991;74-102 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
4. COCKTON G., LAVERY D. A framework for usability problem extraction. Proceedings of the IFIP 7th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT '99. 1999;IOS Press, London. p. 344-352.
5. COHEN J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 20:1960;37-46.
6. CUOMO D. L. A method for assessing the usability of graphical, direct-manipulation style interfaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 6:1994;275-297.
7. CUOMO D. L., BOWEN C. D. Stages of user activity model as a basis for user-system interface evaluations. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting. 1992;Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica. p. 1254-1258.
8. DESURVIRE H. W. Faster, cheaper! Are usability inspection methods as effective as empirical testing? NIELSEN J., MACK R. L. Usability Inspection Methods. 1994;173-202 John Wiley & Sons, New York.
9. DOUBLEDAY A., RYAN M., SPRINGETT M., SUTCLIFFE A. A comparison of usability techniques for evaluating design. Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '97) Conference Proceedings. 1997;ACM Press, New York. p. 101-110.
10. DUTT A., JOHNSON H., JOHNSON P. Evaluating evaluation methods. COCKTON G., DRAPER S. W., WEIR G. R. S. People and Computers IX. 1994;109-121 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
11. FLEISS J. L. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin. 76:1971;378-382.
12. GARZOTTO F., MATERA M., PAOLINI P. Model-based heuristic evaluation of hypermedia usability. Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces - AVI '98. 1998;ACM Press, New York. p. 135-145.
13. GOOD M., WHITESIDE J., WIXON D., JONES S. Building a user-derived interface. Communications of the ACM. 27:1984;1032-1043.
14. GRAY W. D., SALZMAN M. C. Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human-Computer Interaction. 13:1998;203-261.
15. HARTSON H. R., ANDRE T. S., WILLIGES R. W., VAN RENS L. The user action framework: a theory-based foundation for inspection and classification of usability problems. BULLINGER H., ZIEGLER J. Human-Computer Interaction: Ergonomics and User Interfaces. 1:1999;1058-1062 Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahway.
16. HIX D., HARTSON H. R. Developing User Interfaces: Ensuring Usability through Product and Process. 1993;John Wiley & Sons, New York.
17. JEFFRIES R. Usability problem reports: helping evaluators communicate effectively with developers. NIELSEN J., MACK R. L. Usability Inspection Methods. 1994;273-294 John Wiley and Sons, New York.
18. JEFFRIES R., MILLER J. R., WHARTON C., UYEDA K. M. User interface evaluation in the real world: a comparison of four techniques. CHI '91 Conference Proceedings. 1991;ACM Press, New York. p. 119-124.
19. JOHN B. E., MARKS S. J. Tracking the effectiveness of usability evaluation methods. Behaviour and Information Technology. 16:1997;188-202.
20. KARAT C. A comparison of user interface evaluation methods. NIELSEN J., MACK R. L. Usability Inspection Methods. 1994;203-233 John Wiley & Sons, New York.
21. KAUR K., MAIDEN N. K., SUTCLIFFE A. Interacting with virtual environments: an evaluation of a model of interaction. Interacting with Computers. 11:1999;403-426.
22. KEENAN, S. L. 1996, Product usability and process improvement based on usability problem classification, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
23. KEENAN S. L., HARTSON H. R., KAFURA D. G., SCHULMAN R. S. The usability problem taxonomy: a framework for classification and analysis. Empirical Software Engineering. 4:1999;71-104.
24. LAVERY D., COCKTON G., ATKINSON M. P. Comparison of evaluation methods using structured usability problem reports. Behaviour and Information Technology. 16:1997;246-266.
25. LIM K. H., BENBASAT I., TODD P. An experimental investigation of the interactive effects of interface style, instructions, and task familiarity on user performance. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 3:1996;1-37.
26. MAYHEW D. J. Principles and Guidelines in Software User Interface Design. 1992;Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
27. MEISTER D. Behavioral Analysis and Measurement Methods. 1985;John Wiley & Sons, New York.
28. MULLER M. J., DAYTON T., ROOT R. Comparing studies that compare usability assessment methods: an unsuccessful search for stable criteria. INTERCHI '93 Conference Proceedings (Adjunct). 1993;ACM Press, New York. p. 185-186.
29. NIELSEN J. Usability Engineering. 1993;Academic Press, Boston.
30. NIELSEN J. Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. CHI '94 Conference Proceedings. 1994a;ACM Press, New York. p. 152-158.
31. 1NIELSEN J. Heuristic evaluation. NIELSEN J., MACK R. L. Usability Inspection Methods. 1994b;25-62 John Wiley and Sons, New York.
32. NIELSEN J. UPA 93 trip report. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin. 26:1994c;29-32.
33. NIELSEN J., MACK R. L. Usability Inspection Methods. 1994;John Wiley & Sons, New York.
34. NIELSEN J., MOLICH R. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. CHI '90 Conference Proceedings. 1990;ACM Press, New York. p. 249-256.
35. NORMAN D. A. Cognitive engineering. NORMAN D. A., DRAPER S. W. User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. 1986;31-61 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.
36. PAYNE S. J. Display-based action at the user interface. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 35:1991;275-289.
37. RIZZO A., MARCHIGIANI E., ANDREADIS A. The AVANTI project: prototyping and evaluation with a cognitive walkthrough based on the Norman's model of action. Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '97) Conference Proceedings. 1997;ACM Press, New York. p. 305-309.
38. RUBIN J. Handbook of Usability Testing. 1994;John Wiley & Sons, New York.
39. SEARS A. Heuristic walkthroughs: finding the problems without the noise. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 9:1997;213-234.
40. SHNEIDERMAN B. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. 1998;Addison-Wesley, Reading.
41. SUCHMAN L. Plans and Situated Action: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. 1987;Cambridge University Press, New York.
42. SUTCLIFFE A., RYAN M., SPRINGETT M., DOUBLEDAY A. Model Mismatch Analysis: Towards a Deeper Evaluation of Users' Usability Problems. 1996;School of Informatics Report, City University, London.
43. VAN RENS, L. S. 1997, Usability problem classifier, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
44. VORA P. Classifying user errors in human-computer interactive tasks. Usability Professional's Association Common Ground. 5:1995;15.
45. WELLER H. G., HARTSON H. R. Metaphors for the nature of human-computer interaction in an empowering environment: interaction style influences the manner of human accomplishment. Computers in Human Behavior. 8:1992;313-333.