Comparative usability evaluation

Behaviour and Information Technology

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 65-74

  Molich, Rolf ^a   Ede, Meghan R ^b   Kaasgaard, Klaus ^c   Karyukin, Barbara ^d  

^a DialogDesign ^*  (Denmark)

^b Wells Fargo   (United States)

^c YAHOO INC   (United States)

^d XEROX CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; EVALUATION; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

COMPARATIVE USABILITY EVALUATION; PROFESSIONAL USABILITY TEST;

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 0942288935     PISSN: 0144929X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0144929032000173951     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Boren, M. T. and Ramey, J., 2000, Thinking aloud: Reconciling theory and practice. IEEE Trans. Professional Communication, 43, 261-278.
2. Brooke, J., 1996, SUS - A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester and I. L. McClelland (eds) Usability evaluation in industry, (London: Taylor & Francis), pp. 189-194.
3. Dumas, J. S. and Redish, J. C., 1993, A Practical Guide to Usability Testing (Norwood: Ablex).
4. Gray, W. D. and Salzman, M. C., 1998, Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 203-261.
5. Hertzum, M. and Jacobsen, N. E., 2001, The evaluator effect: A chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 421-443.
6. Jacobsen, N. E., Hertzum, M. and John, B. E., 1998, The evaluator effect in usability studies: Problem detection and severity judgements. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, 5-9 October 1998 (Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society), pp. 1336-1340.
7. Kessner, M., Wood, J., Dillion, R. F. and West, R. L., 2001, On the reliability of usability testing. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI 2001, 31 March - 5 April 2001 (extended abstracts) (Seattle: ACM Press), pp. 97-98.
8. Molich, R., 2003, Comparative usability evaluation - CUE. http://www.dialogdesign.dk/cue.html.
9. Molich, R., Bevan, N., Butler, S., Curson, I., Kindlund, E., Kirakowski, J. and Miller, D., 1998, Comparative evaluation of usability tests. Usability Professionals Association 1998 Conference, 22-26 June 1998 (Washington DC: Usability Professionals Association), pp. 189-200.
10. Molich, R., Kaasgaard, K., Karyukina, B., Schmidt, L., Ede, M., van Oel, W. and Arcuri, M., 1999, Comparative evaluation of usability tests. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI99, 15-20 May 1999 (extended abstracts) (Pittsburgh: ACM Press), pp. 83-84.
11. Nielsen, J. and Landauer, T. K., 1993, A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: INTERCHI '93, 24-29 April 1993 (New York: ACM Press), pp. 206-213.
12. Nielsen, J., 2000, Why you only need to test with 5 users. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html.
13. QUIS, 2003, About the QUIS, version 7.0. http://www.lap.umd.edu/quis/
14. Rubin, J., 1994, Handbook of Usability Testing (New York: John Wiley).
15. Spool, J. and Schroeder, W., 2001, Testing web sites: Five users is nowhere near enough. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI 2001, 31 March - 5 April 2001 (extended abstracts) (Seattle: ACM Press), pp. 285-286.
16. Virzi, R. A., 1992, Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough? Human Factors, 34, 457-468.