The theoretical foundation and validity of a component-based usability questionnaire

Behaviour and Information Technology

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 121-137

  Brinkman, W P ^a,b   Haakma, R ^c   Bouwhuis, D G ^d  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^c PHILIPS RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (Netherlands)

^d EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Component based usability evaluation; Questionnaire; Technology acceptance model (TAM); Usability evaluation

Indexed keywords

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT;

COMPONENT-BASED SOFTWARE ENGINEERINGS; COMPONENT-BASED USABILITY EVALUATION; EVALUATION APPROACHES; MP-3 PLAYERS; PERCEIVED EASE OF USE; PERCEIVED USABILITIES; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOFTWARE ENGINEERS; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM); THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS; THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS; USABILITY EVALUATION; USABILITY STUDIES;

INTERNET PROTOCOLS;

EID: 61349094164     PISSN: 0144929X     EISSN: 13623001     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01449290701306510     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2. Aykin, N., 1994. Software reuse: a case study on cost-benefits of adopting a common software development tool. In: R.G. Bias and D.J. Mayhew, eds. Cost-justifying usability. London: Academic Press, 177-202.
3. Bark, I., Følstad, A., and Gulliksen, J., 2005. Use and usefulness of HCI methods: results from an exploratory study among Nordic HCI practitioners. In: Proceedings of HCI 2005. 5-9 September 2005. Edinburgh, London: Springer-Verslag, 201-217.
4. Borchers, J., 2001. A pattern approach to interaction design. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
5. Brinkman, W.-P., 2003. Is usability compositional? Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. PhD thesis.
6. Brinkman, W.-P., Haakma, R., and Bouwhuis, D.G., 2004a. Empirical usability testing in a component-based environment: improving test efficiency with component-specific usability measures. In: Pre-Proceedings of EHCIDSVIS. 11-13 July 2004, Hamburg, Germany 340-356.
7. Brinkman, W.-P., Haakma, R., and Bouwhuis, D.G., 2004b. Memory load: a factor that links the usability of individual interaction components together. In: Proceedings of HCI 2004. 6-10 September 2004, Leeds, United Kingdom, British HCI Group, Vol. 2, 165-168.
8. Brinkman, W.-P., Haakma, R., and Bouwhuis, D.G., 2004c. Consistency: a factor that links the usability of individual interaction components together. In: Proceedings of Twelfth European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics. 12-15 September 2004, York, United Kingdom, EACE, 57-64.
9. Brinkman, W.-P., Haakma, R., and Bouwhuis, D.G., 2005. Usability testing of interaction components: taking the message exchange as a measure of usability. In: R.J.K. Jacob, Q. Limbourg, and J. Vanderdonckt, eds. Computer-aided design of user interfaces IV. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 159-170.
10. Brooke, J., 1996. SUS: a "quick and dirty" usability scale. In: P.W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B.A. Weerdmeester, and A.L. McClelland, eds. Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor and Francis, 189-194.
11. Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F., 1998. On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Chin, J.P., Diehl, V.A., and Norman, L.K., 1988. Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. In: Proceedings of CHI. Washington, New York, NY: ACM press, 213-218.
13. Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press.
14. Coleman, W.D., Williges, R.C., and Wixon, D.R., 1985. Collecting detailed user evaluations of software interfaces. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society - 29th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, 240-244.
15. Coutaz, J., 1987. PAC, an object oriented model for dialog design. In: Proceedings of INTERACT'87. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 431-436.
16. Cox, B.J., 1990. There is a silver bullet: a software industrial revolution based on reusable and interchangeable parts will alter the software universe. Byte, 15, 209-218.
17. Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340.
18. Detweiler, M.C., Schumacher, M.C., and Gattuso, N.L., 1990. Alphabetic input on a telephone keypad. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society - 34th Annual Meeting, vol. 1. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, 212-216.
19. Doll, W.J., Hendrickson, A., and Deng, X., 1998. Using Davis's perceived usefulness and ease-of-use instruments for decision making: a confirmatory and multigroup invariance analysis. Decision Sciences, 29, 839-869.
20. Dragivevic, P. and Fekete, J.-D., 2001. Input device selection and interaction configuration with icon. In: Proceedings of IHM-HCI. 10-14 September 2001. Lille, France: Springer Verlag, 553-558.
21. Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S., 1993. The psychology of attitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
22. Gediga, G., Hamborg, K.-C., and Düntsch, I., 1999. The IsoMetrics usability inventory: an operationalisation of ISO 9241/10 supporting summative and formative evaluation of software systems. Behaviour and Information Technology, 18, 151-164.
23. 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.
24. Gulliksen, J., Boivie, I., Persson, J., Hektor, A., and Herulf, L., 2004. Making a difference - a survey of usability profession in Sweden. In: Proceeding of NordiCHI. 23-27 October 2004, Tampere, Finland. New York, NY: ACM Press, 207-215.
25. Haakma, R., 1999. Towards explaining the behaviour of novice users. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50, 557-570.
26. Hartson, H.R., Andre, T.S., and Williges, R.C., 2001. Criteria for evaluating usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 373-410.
27. 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.
28. Hoc, J.-M., 2000. Toward ecological validity of research on cognition. In: Proceedings of IEA 2000/HFES 2000 congress, vol. 1. Santa Monica, CA: Human factors and Ergonomics Society, 549-552.
29. Hollemans, G., 1999. User satisfaction measurement methodologies: extending the user satisfaction questionnaire. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1008-1012.
30. ISO, 1998. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) Part 11. Guidance on usability (ISO no. 9241-11). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
31. Kaptelinin, V., 1996. Activity theory: implication for humancomputer interaction. In: B.A. Nardi, ed. Context and consciousness. London: MIT Press, 103-116.
32. Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H., 1976. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: John Wiley.
33. Kieras, D. and Poison, P.G., 1985. An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22, 365-394.
34. Kirakowski, J. and Corbett, M., 1993. SUMI: the software usability measurement inventory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 210-212.
35. Kirakowski, J., Clarídge, N., and Whitehead, R., 1998. Human centered measures of success in web site design. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Human Factors and the Web. Available online at www.research.att.com/conf/hfweb/proceedings/kirakowski/(accessed 16 May 2005).
36. Krasner, G.E. and Pope, S.T., 1988. A cookbook for using the model-view-controller user interface paradigm in Smalltalk-80. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, 1, 7-49.
37. Lee, Y., Kozar, K., and Larsen, K.R.T., 2003. The technology acceptance model: past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12, 752-780.
38. Lewis, J.R., 1995. IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 57-78.
39. Lin, H.X., Choong, Y.-Y., and Salvendy, G., 1997. A proposed index of usability: a method for comparing the relative usability of different software systems. Behaviour and Information Technology, 16, 267-278.
40. Loewenthal, K.M., 2001. An introduction to psychological tests and scales. Hove: Psychology Press.
41. Love, S., 2005. Understanding mobile human-computer interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
42. Mao, J.-Y., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P.W., and Carey, T., 2005. The state of user-centered design practice. Communications of the ACM, 48, 105-109.
43. Mcllory, M.D., 1979. Mass produced software components. In: Software Engineering: Concepts and Techniques: Proceedings of the NATO Conferences. 1968 and 1969, Garmisch, Germany, and Rome, New York, NY: Mason/Charter, 88-98.
44. Molich, R., Ede, M.R., Kaasgaard, K., and Baryukin, B., 2004. Comparative usability evaluation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23, 65-74.
45. Myers, B.A., 1998. A brief history of human-computer interaction technology. Interactions, 5, 44-54.
46. Myers, R., 1990. Classical and modern regression with applications. Boston, MA: PWS-KENT.
47. Neisser, U., 1976. Cognition and reality. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
48. Neuman, W.L, 1997. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
49. Newell, A., 1990. Unified theories of cognition. London: Harvard University Press.
50. Nielsen, J., 1986. A virtual protocol model for computerhuman interaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24, 301-312.
51. Nielsen, J., 1993. Usability engineering. Boston: AP Professional.
52. Norman, D.A., 1984. Stages and levels in human-machine interaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21, 365-375.
53. Norman, K.L., 1991. The psychology of menu selection: Designing cognitive control of the human/computer interface. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
54. Palay, A.J., Hansen, W.J., Kazar, M.L., Sherman, M., Wadlow, M.G., Neuenorffer, T.P., Stern, Z., Bader, M., and Peters, T., 1988. The Andrew toolkit - an overview. In: Proceedings of the Winter USENIX Conference. Berkeley, CA: USENIX Association, 9-21.
55. Paternò, F., 2000. Model-based design and evaluation of interactive applications. London: Springer.
56. Powers, W.T., 1973. Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
57. Preece., J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H, Benyon, D., Holland, S., and Carey, T., 1994. Human-computer interaction. Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley.
58. Sanders, M.S. and McCormick, E.J., 1993. Human factors in engineering and design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
59. Stevens, J., 1996. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
60. Snowberry, K., Parkinson, S.R., and Sisson, N., 1983. Computer display menu. Ergonomics, 26, 699-712.
61. Taylor, M.M., 1988. Layered protocol for computer-human dialogue. I. Principles. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 28, 175-218.
62. Taylor, M.M., 1989. Response timing in layered protocols: a cybernetic view of natural dialogue. In: M.M. Taylor, F. Néel, and D.G. Bouwhuis, eds. The structure of multimodel dialogue. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 159-172.
63. Taylor, M.M., Farrell, P.S.E., and Hollands, J.G., 1999. Perceptual control and layered protocols in interface design. II. The general protocol grammar. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50, 521-555.
64. Taylor, S. and Todd, P.A., 1995. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6, 144-176.
65. Taylor, M.M. and Waugh, D.A., 2000. Multíplexíng, divíplexíng, and the control of mutímodal dialogue. In: M.M. Taylor, F. Néel, and D.G. Bouwhuis, eds. The structure of multimodal dialogue II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 439-456.
66. Vallacher, R.R. and Wegner, D.M., 1987. What do people think they're are doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3-15.
67. Zhang, J. and Norman, D.A., 1994. Representation in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, 87-122.