Usability testing: What have we overlooked?

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 1415-1424

  Lindgaard, Gitte ^a   Chattratichart, Jarinee ^b  

^a CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b KINGSTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Metrics; Participant recruitment; UEM; Usability testing

Indexed keywords

CORRELATION METHODS; ENGINEERING RESEARCH; PROBLEM SOLVING; SOFTWARE TESTING; USER INTERFACES;

PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT; USABILITY TEAM; USABILITY TEST PERFORMANCE; USABILITY TESTING;

USABILITY ENGINEERING;

EID: 35348926976     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1240624.1240839     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Chattratichart, J. & Jordan, P. W. Simulating 'lived' user experience - Virtual immersion and inclusive design. In Proceedings of Interact 2003, Amsterdam: IOS Press (2003), 721-725.
2. Cockton, G & Woolrych, A. Understanding inspection methods: Lessons from an assessment of heuristic evaluation. In People & Computers XV, A. Blandford & J. Vanderdonckt (Eds.), Springer-Verlag (2001), 171-191.
3. Constantine, L. CHI 2003 Feature: Testing... 1 2 3 4 5 ... Testing ... http://usabilitynews.com/news/article1058.asp. May, 2003.
4. Faulkner, L. Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 35, 3, Psychonomic Society (2003), 379-383.
5. nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons (1981).
6. Hertzum, M. & Jacobsen, N. E. The evaluator effect: A chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 1, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (2003), 183-204.
7. Jacobsen, N. E., Hertzum, M., & John, B. E. The evaluator effect in usability studies: Problem detection and severity judgements. In Proc. HFES 1998, HFES (1998), 1336-1340.
8. Molich, R. & Dumas, J. S. Comparative Usability Evaluation (CUE-4). Behaviour & Information Technology, Taylor & Francis (in press).
9. Molich, R. & Jeffries, R. Comparative expert review, In Proc. CHI 2003, Extended Abstracts, ACM Press (2003), 1060-1061.
10. Molich, R., Ede, M. R., Kaasgaard. K., & Karyukin, B. Comparative usability evaluation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23, 1, Taylor & Francis (2004), 65-74.
11. Molich, R., Bevan, N., Curson, I., Butler, S., Kindlund, E., Miller, D., & Kirakowski, J. Comparative evaluation of usability tests. In Proc. UPA 1998, UPA (1998), 189-200.
12. Molich, R., Thomsen, A.D., Karyukina, B., Schmidt, L., Ede, M., Oel, W.V. & Arcuri, M. Comparative evaluation of usability tests, Proc. CHI 1999, Extended Abstracts, ACM Press (1999), 83-84.
13. Nielsen, J. Why you only need to test with 5 users, Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, March 19, 2000, http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html.
14. Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T. K. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In Proceedings of INTERCHI 1993, ACM Press (1993), 206-213.
15. Spool, J. & Schroeder, W. Testing Websites: Five users is nowhere near enough. In Proc. CHI 2001, Extended Abstracts, ACM Press (2001), 285-286.
16. Virzi, R.A. Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough? Human Factors, 34, HFES (1992), 457-468.