Focus, fit, and fervor: Future factors beyond play with the interplay

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 239-250

  Cockton, Gilbert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DESIGN AND EVALUATIONS; EVALUATION METHODS; MANAGEMENT SUPPORT; SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT; USABILITY EVALUATION; USER CENTERED DESIGNS;

SALES;

DESIGN;

EID: 33751502278     PISSN: 10447318     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327590ijhc2102_7     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Cockton, G. (2005). A development framework for value-centred design. In C. Gale (Ed.), CHI 2005 extended abstracts (pp. 1292-1295). New York: ACM Press.
2. Cockton, G., & Lavery, D. (1999). A framework for usability problem extraction. Proceedings of INTERACT 99, 347-355.
3. Cockton, G., Woolrych, A., Hall, L., & Hindmarch, M. (2003). Changing analysts' tunes: The surprising impact of a new instrument for usability inspection method assessment. In P. Palanque, P. Johnson, & E. O'Neill (Eds.), People and computers XVII (pp. 145-162). New York: Springer.
4. Cockton, G., Woolrych, A., & Hindmarch, M. (2004). Reconditioned merchandise: Extended structured report formats in usability inspection. In CHI 2004 extended abstracts (pp. 1433-1436). New York: ACM Press.
5. Czerwinski, M. (2004). Bridging the gap from theory to practice: The path toward innovation in human-computer interaction. Proceedings of UIST 2004, ACM, 1.
6. Dye, K. (2001). As easy to use as a banking machine. In J. Vanderdonckt, P. Gray, & A. Blandford (Eds.), People and computers XV (pp. 3-16). New York: Springer.
7. Fast Company. (2005, June). Masters of design [Issue 95]. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/95
8. Gray, W. D., & Salzman, M. C. (1998). Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 203-261.
9. Hartson, H. R., Andre, T. S., & Williges, R. C. (2001). Criteria for evaluating usability methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 373-410.
10. Heskett, J. (2005). Design: A very short introduction. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.
11. Lavery, D., & Cockton, G. (1996). Iterative development of early usability evaluation methods for software visualisations. In W. D. Gray & D. A. Boehm-Davies (Eds.), Empirical studies of programmers: 6th workshop (pp. 275-276). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
12. Lewis, J. R. (2001). Introduction: Current issues in usability evaluation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 343-349.
13. Medlock, M., Wixon, D., McGee, M., & Welsh, D. (2005). The rapid iterative test and evaluation method: Better products in less time. In R. Bias & D. Mayhew (Eds.), Cost-justifying usability: An update for the information age (pp. 489-517). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
14. Muller, M. J., Dayton, T., & Root, R. W. (1993). Comparing studies that compare usability assessment methods. INTERCHI'93 Adjunct Proceedings, 185-186.
15. Siegel, D., & Dray, S. (2003). Living on the edges: User-centered design and the dynamics of specialization in organizations. Interactions, 10(5), 18-27.
16. Wixon, D. (2003). Evaluating usability methods: Why the current literature fails the practitioner. Interactions, 10(4), 28-34.
17. Woolrych, A., Cockton, G., & Hindmarch, M. (2004). Falsification testing for usability inspection method assessment. Proceedings of HCI 2004, 137-140.