Tracing impact in a usability improvement process

Interacting with Computers

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 48-63

  Uldall Espersen, Tobias ^a   Frøkjær, Erik ^a   Hornbæk, Kasper ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Case study; Metaphors of human thinking; Questionnaire; Think loud; Usability engineering; Usability improvement process

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SYSTEMS; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; USER INTERFACES;

STAKEHOLDERS; THINK LOUD; USABILITY IMPROVEMENT PROCESS;

USABILITY ENGINEERING;

EID: 37249088381     PISSN: 09535438     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.intcom.2007.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Beyer H., and Holtzblatt K. Contextual Design (1998), Morgan Kaufmann
2. Bias R.G., and Mayhew D.J. Cost-Justifying Usability. An update for the Internet Age (2005), Morgan Kaufmann
3. Butler, K.A. 1985. Connecting theory and practice: a case study of achieving usability goals. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, San Francisco, California, United States, pp. 85-88.
4. Bødker K., Kensing F., and Simonsen J. Participatory IT Design (2004), The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
5. Ebling, M.R., John, B.E. On the contributions of different empirical data in usability testing. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, ACM Press, New York City, New York, United States.
6. Frøkjær, E., Hertzum, M., Hornbæk, K. 2000. Measuring usability: are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, The Hague, The Netherlands.
7. Frøkjær E., and Lárusdóttir M. Prediction of usability: comparing method combinations. Proceedings of IRMA International Conference (1999) 248-257
8. Følstad A. Work-domain experts as evaluators: usability inspection of domain-specific work-support systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 22 3 (2007) 217-245
9. Good, M., Spine, T.M., Whiteside, J., George, P., 1986. User-derived impact analysis as a tool for usability engineering. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, Boston, Massachusetts, United States, pp. 241-246.
10. Gould J.D., and Lewis C. Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM 28 3 (1985) 300-311
11. Gray W.D., and Salzman M.C. Damaged merchandise? a review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human-Computer Interaction 13 3 (1998) 203-261
12. Hartson H.R., Andre T.S., and Williges R.C. Criteria for evaluating usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 13 4 (2001) 373-410
13. Hornbæk, K., Frøkjær, E. 2002. Evaluating user interfaces with metaphors of human thinking. In: Proceedings of User Interfaces for All, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2615, Springer-Verlag, pp. 486-507.
14. Hornbæk K., and Frøkjær E. Usability inspection by metaphors of human thinking compared to heuristic evaluation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 17 3 (2004) 357-374
15. Hornbæk, K., Frøkjær, E. 2004b. Two psychology-based usability inspection techniques studied in a diary experiment. In: Proceedings of Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiChi 2004), pp. 2-12.
16. Hornbæk, K., Frøkjær, E. 2005. Comparing usability problems and redesign proposals as input to practical systems development. In: Proceeding of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, Portland, Oregon, USA, pp. 391-400.
17. ISO 13407, 1999. Human-Centered Design Processes for Interactive Systems, ISO/IEC.
18. ISO 9241-11, 1998. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT)s - Part 11 Guidance on usability, ISO/IEC.
19. Jeffries R., Millar J.R., Wharton C., and Uyeda K.M. User interface evaluation in the real world: a comparison of four techniques (1991), ACM Press, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA pp. 119-124
20. Jokela T., Koivumaa J., Pirkola J., Salminen P., and Kantola N. Methods for quantitative usability requirements: a case study on the development of the user interface of a mobile phone. Personal Ubiquitous Computing 10 6 (2006) 345-355
21. Karat, C.-M., Campbell, R., Fiegel, T. 1992. Comparison of empirical testing and walkthrough methods in user interface evaluation. In: Proceeding of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, Monterey, California, USA, pp. 397-404.
22. Kelkar K., Khasawneh M.T., Bowling S.R., Gramopadhye A.K., Melloy B.J., and Grimes L. The added usefulness of process measures over performance measures in interface design. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 18 1 (2005) 1-18
23. Kensing F., and Munk-Madsen A. PD: structure in the toolbox. Communications of the ACM 36 6 (1993)
24. McGrath J.E. Methodology matters: doing research in the behavioral and social sciences. In: Baecker R.M., et al. (Ed). Readings in Human-Computer Interaction (1995), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc
25. Molich R. Brugervenlige EDB-systemer. Second ed. (1994), Ingeniøren Bøger
26. Norman, D.A., Draper, S.W. User Centered System Design New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
27. Ruthford, M.A., Ramey, J.A. 2000. The design response to usability test findings: a case study based on artifacts and interviews. In: Proceedings of IEEE Professional Communication Society International Professional Communication Conference and Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM International Conference on Computer Documentation: Technology & Teamwork, Cambridge, Massachusetts: IEEE Educational Activities Department, pp. 315-323.
28. Uldall-Espersen, T. 2004. Benefits of usability work - does it pay off?, (In Danish), Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen. (http://www.diku.dk/~tobiasue/thesis.exe).
29. Uldall-Espersen, T. 2005. Benefits of usability work - does it pay off?, Proceedings of the INTERACT 2005 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Rome, Italy: CEUR-WS, pp. 7-14.
30. Wixon D. Evaluating usability methods: why the current literature fails the practitioner. Interactions 10 4 (2003) 28-34
31. Woolrych A., Cockton G., and Hindmarch M. Knowledge resources in usability inspection. Proceedings of HCI 2005 (2005), Springer, Edinburgh, Scotland 15-20