Usability engineering laboratories: Limitations and challenges toward a unifying tools/practices environment

Behaviour and Information Technology

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 281-291

  Seffah, Ahmed ^a   Habieb Mammar, Halima ^a  

^a Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering   (Canada)

Author keywords

Computer assisted usability engineering; Integration; Testing lab; Tools; Usability testing; User acceptance tests

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER ASSISTED; COMPUTER-ASSISTED USABILITY ENGINEERING; DATA-MINING SOFTWARE; HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE; QUANTITATIVE DATA; REMOTE LABORATORIES; RESEARCH ISSUES; ROADMAP; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TECHNICAL PROBLEM; USABILITY TESTING; USABILITY TOOLS; USER ACCEPTANCE TESTS;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; EMBEDDED SYSTEMS; INDUSTRIAL LABORATORIES; INTEGRATION; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING; USABILITY ENGINEERING; USER INTERFACES;

COMPUTER TESTING;

EID: 70449579431     PISSN: 0144929X     EISSN: 13623001     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01449290701803482     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bartek, V. and Cheatham, D., 2003. Experience remote usability testing, Part 1: Examine study results on the benefits and downside of remote usability testing. , Retrieved May, 2005, from http://www-106.ibm.com/ developerworks/library/wa-rmusts1/.
2. Becker, J., zur Muehlen, M., and Gille, M., 2002. Workflow application architectures: classification and characteristics of workflow-based information systems. In: Layna Fischer, ed. Workflow Handbook. Lighthouse Point, FL: Future Strategies, 39-50.
3. Bevan, N., 2000. Cost Benefit analysis. , TRUMP report, September. http://www.usability.serco.com/trump/methods/ integration/costbenefits.htm.
4. Bias, R.G. and Mayhew, D.J., 1994. Cost-justifying usability. Boston: Morgan Kaufmann.
5. Jintae, L., Grunninger, M., Jin, Y., Malone, T., Tate, A., Yost, G., Farquar, A., Menzel, C., Woelk, D., and Zlotkin, G., 1998. The PIF process interchange format and framework. Version 1.2, The knowledge engineering review, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 91-120.
6. Landauer, T.K., 1995. The trouble with computers: usefulness, usability and productivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Moha, N., Li, Q., Seffah, A., and Michel, G., 2004. Towards a platform for usability remote tests via internet. OZCHI 2004. Australia: University of Wollongong.
8. Morae, Morae: usability testing solution for web sites and software. Available online at: http://www.techsmith. com/morae.asp.
9. Muller, M.J., Wildman, D.M., and White, E.A., 1993. Equal opportunity PD using pictive. Communications of the ACM, 36, 64-66.
10. Noldus, Usability testing. Available online at: http://www. noldus.com/site/doc200502020.
11. Omg, Object management group, UML. Available online at http://www.uml.org/.
12. OvoStudio, Usability labs and software. Available online at http://www.ovostudios.com/.
13. Rubin, J., 1994. Handbook of usability testing: how to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. New York: Wiley.
14. Salzman, M.C. and Rivers, S.D., 1994. Smoke and mirrors: Setting the stage for a successful usability test. Behaviour and Information Technology, 13, 9-16.
15. Seffah, A. and Metzker, E., 2004. The obstacles and myths of usability and software engineering. Communications of the ACM, 47, 71-76.
16. Taylor, G.E., Jones, R.M., Goldstein, M., Frederiksen, R., and Wray, R.E., 2002. VISTA: A generic toolkit for visualizing agent behavior. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Computer Generated Forces and Behavioral Representation. . Institute for Simulation and Training, Orlando, Florida.
17. Triangle, Triangle usability professionals association. Available online at: http://www.triupa.org/.
18. Tullis, T.S., Fleischman, S., McNulty, M., Cianchette, C., and Bergel, M., 2002. An empirical comparison of lab and remote usability testing of web sites. UsabilityProfessionals Association Conference, July 2002, Orlando, USA.
19. Uzilla, Tools for a usable web. Available online at http:// uzilla.org/.