A deliberation theory-based approach to the management of usability guidelines

Informing Science

Volumn 12, Issue , 2009, Pages 73-104

  Yetim, Fahri ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SIEGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Deliberation; Discourse theory; Human factors in information systems; Human computer interaction; Reflective design; Tool; Usability categories; Usability guidelines

Indexed keywords

EID: 67649276707     PISSN: 15214672     EISSN: 15214672     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.28945/429     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Agarwal, R., & Venkatesh, V. (2002). Assessing a firm's web presence: A heuristic evaluation procedure for the measurement of usability. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 168-186.
2. Allwood, J. (2000). An activity-based approach to pragmatism. In H. Bunt & W. Black (Eds.), Abduction, belief and context in dialog (pp. 47-79). Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publ.
3. Arvola, M. (2006). Interaction design patterns for computers in sociable use. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 25 (2/3), 128-139.
4. nd International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2007), Pasadena, California, USA, 13-15 May 2007.
5. Bock, R., & Yetim, F. (2008). Entwicklung und evaluation eines web-basierten tools zum management von usability guidelines. [Development and evaluation of a web-based tool for the management of usability guidelines.] Information Wissenschaft & Praxis, 59(3), 175-180.
6. Buckingham Shum, S., & Hammond, N. (1994). Argumentation-based design rationale: What use at what cost? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40(4), 603-652.
7. Carroll, J. M., & Kellogg, W. A. (1989). Artifact as theory-nexus: Hermeneutics meets theory-based design. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin--Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Wings for the Mind, 20(SI), 7-14.
8. Carroll, J. M., & Moran, T. P. (Eds.). (2001). Special issue on design rationale. Human-Computer Interaction, 6 (3 & 4), 197-442.
9. Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). On-line trust: Concepts, evolving themes, a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 737-758.
10. Erickson, T. (2008). The interaction design patterns page. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from http://www.visi.com/~snowfall/InteractionPatterns.html
11. Fogg, B. J. (2002). Stanford guidelines for web credibility. A research summary from the Stanford persuasive technology lab. Stanford University. Retrieved May 22, 2009, from http://credibility.stanford.edu/guidelines/
12. Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Design theories in information systems - A need for multi grounding. JITTA: Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 6(2), 59-72.
13. Goldkuhl, G., & Lyytinen, K. (1982). A language action view of information systems. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Ann Arbor, Michigan.
14. Grammenos, D, Akoumianakis, D., & Stephanidis, C. (2000). Integrated support for working with guidelines: The Sherlock guideline management system. Interacting with Computers, 12(3), 281-311.
15. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
16. Habermas, J. (1993). Justification and application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28, 75-105.
19. Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K., & Lyytinen, K. (1996). Exploring the intellectual foundations of information systems. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 6, 1-64.
20. Hitchcock, D., & Verheij, B. (Eds.). (2005). Special issue: The Toulmin model today. Argumentation, 19(3), 255-391.
21. Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Peralta, M. (1999). Building consumer trust online. Communications of the ACM, 42(4), 80-85.
22. IBM web design guidelines. (2008). Retrieved May 30, 2008, from http://www-3.ibm.com/ibm/easy/eou_ext.nsf/publish/572
23. Karat, J. (1997). Evolving the scope of user-centered design. Communications of the ACM, 40, 33-38.
24. Keeker, K. (1997). Improving web-site usability and appeal: Guidelines compiled by MSN usability research. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc889361.aspx
25. Klein, H., & Hirschheim, R. (2001). Choosing between competing design ideals in information systems development. Information Systems Frontiers, 2, 75-90.
26. Koyani, S. J., Balley, R. W., Nall, J. R., Allison, S., Mulligan, C., Bailey, K., & Tolson, M. (2003). Research-based web design & usability guidelines. NIH Publication NO. 03-5424.
27. Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2000). Communication with users: Insight from second language acquisition. Interacting with Computers, 12, 587-599.
28. Linstone, H., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison Wesley Advanced Book Program.
29. Loui, R. P. (2005). A citation-based reflection on Toulmin and argument. Argumentation, 19(3), 259-266.
30. Mariage, C., Vanderdonckt, J., & Pribeanu, C (2005). State of the art of web usability guidelines. In R. W. Proctor & K.-Ph.L.Vu (Eds.), The handbook of human factors in web design. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Mayhew, D.J. (1992). Principles and guidelines in software user interface design. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
32. Neuwirth, C. M., & Kaufer, D. S. (1989). The role of external representation in the writing process: Implications for the design of hypertext-based writing tools. Proceedings of Hypertext'89. Baltimore, MD: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 319-341.
33. Newman, S., & Marshall, C. (1992). Pushing Toulmin too far: Learning from an argument representation scheme. Xerox PARC technical report no, SSL-92-45. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/marshall/toulmin.pdf
34. Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability. The art of the simplicity, Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing.
35. Nielsen, J., Molich, R., Snyder, C., & Farrel, S. (2001). E-commerce user experience. Fremont, CA: Nielsen Norman Group.
36. Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things, New York; Doubleday.
37. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design. Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Cambridge: Basic Books.
38. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T, Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, A. (2008). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45-77.
39. Peirce, C. S. (1931-35). Collected Papers, Vol. I-V. C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (Eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Pres.
40. Scapin, D., Leulier, C., Vanderdonckt, J., Bastien, C., Farenc, C., Palanque, P., & Bastide, R. (2000). A framework for organizing web usability guidelines. Proceedings of 6th Conference on Human Factors & the Web; May 2000, Austin, Texas, USA.
41. Schoop, M., de Moor, A., & Dietz, J. (2006). The pragmatic web: A manifesto. Communications of the ACM, 49 (5), 75-76.
42. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
43. Schütz, A., 1970. Reflections on the problem of relevance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
44. Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface. Addison-Wesley.
45. Shneiderman, B. (2003). Forward to "research-based web design & usability guidelines". In Koyani et al., (2003). Research-based web design & usability guidelines. NIH Publication NO. 03-5424
46. Smith, A., & Yetim, F. (Eds.). (2004). Special issue: Global human computer systems: Cultural determinants of usability. Interacting with Computers, 1.
47. Tapio, P. (2002). Disaggregating policy Delphi using cluster analysis as a tool for systematic scenario formation. Journal of Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70, 83-101.
48. Te'eni, D. (2001). Review: A cognitive-affective model of organizational communication for designing IT. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 251-312.
49. Te'eni, D., Carey, J.M., & Zhang, P. (2006). Human-computer interaction: Developing effective organizational information systems. John Wiley and Sons.
50. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51. Tractinsky, N., Cokhavi, A., Kirschenbaum, M., & Sharfi, T. (2006). Evaluating the consistency of immediate aesthetic perceptions of web. Int. Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(11), 1071-1083.
52. Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000). What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13, 127-145.
53. Ulrich, W. (2001). A philosophical staircase for information systems definition, design and development. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 3, 55-84.
54. Vanderdonckt, J. (1995). Accessing guidelines information with SIERRA. Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT'95. London: Chapman & Hall, pp. 311-316.
55. van Welie, M. (2008). Patterns in interaction design. Retrieved May 30, 2008, from http://www.welie.com
56. st International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology. Claremont, California, pp. 1-18.
57. Venkatesh, V., & Ramesh, V. (2006). Web and wireless site usability: Understanding differences and modeling use. MISQ Quarterly, 30(1), 181-206.
58. Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
59. The Web Accessibility Initiative. (2008). Retrieved May 30, 2008, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/guidtech.html
60. Webster, N., & Porter, N. (1913). Webster's revised unabridged dictionary of the English language. G.C. Merriam Company.
61. Yetim, F. (1998). Interkulturalität und informatische Gestaltung - Eine interdisziplinäre Annäherung. [Interculturality and design - An interdisciplinary approach]. Informatik-Spektrum, 21, 203-212.
62. Yetim, F. (2006a). Acting with genres: Discursive-ethical concepts for reflecting on and legitimating genres. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(1), 54-69.
63. Yetim, F. (2006b). Bridging diversity: A deliberative approach to the organization and application of usability guidelines. Proceedings of European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), June 12-14, 2006, Gothenburg, Sweden.
64. Yetim, F. (2008a). A framework for organizing justifications for strategic use in adaptive interaction contexts. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS-2008). June 9-11, 2006, Galway, Irland.
65. Yetim, F. (2008b). Critical examination of information: A discursive approach and its implementations. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 11, 125-146. Retrieved November 11, 2008, from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol11/ISJv11p125-146Yetim212.pdf
66. Yetim, F., & Turoff, M. (2004). Structuring communication processes and enhancing public discourse: The Delphi method revisited. Proceedings of the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modeling (LAP 2004), June 2-3, Rutgers University, NJ, USA.