Complementarity and convergence of heuristic evaluation and usability test: A case study of UNIVERSAl brokerage platform

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series

Volumn 31, Issue , 2002, Pages 71-80

  Law, Lai Chong ^a   Hvannberg, Ebba Thora ^b  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ICELAND   (Iceland)

Author keywords

brokerage platform; heuristics evaluation; usability problem; usability test

Indexed keywords

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS; EVALUATION METHOD; HEURISTIC EVALUATION; META-ANALYSIS; USABILITY EVALUATION METHODS; USABILITY PROBLEMS; USABILITY TESTING; USABILITY TESTS;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; USABILITY ENGINEERING;

HEURISTIC METHODS;

EID: 77953889660     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/572020.572030     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. th Annual Meeting, pp. 409-413.
2. Bailey, R.W. (2000). Improving usability in America's voting systems. Calculating the number of test subjects required to find usability problems. Available from: http://www.humanfactors.com/library/nov00.asp
3. Bailey, R.W. (2001). Heuristic evaluations vs. usability testing. Available from: http://www.humanfactors.com/library/jan012.htm
4. Behaviour & Information Technology (1997). Special issue on usability evaluation methods.
5. Cuomo, D.L., & Bowen, C.B. (1994). Understanding usability issues addressed by three user-system interface evaluation techniques. Interacting with Computers, 6, 86-108.
6. Desurvire, H.W. (1994). Faster, cheaper! Are usability inspection methods as effective as empirical testing? In J. Nielsen & R. Mack (eds.), Usability inspection methods, 173-201. New York: Wiley.
7. Dourish, P., & Button, G. (1998). On "Technomethodology": Foundational relationships between ethnomethodology and system design. Human- Computer Interaction, 13, 395-432.
8. Gerhardt-Powals, J. (1996). Cognitive engineering principles for enhancing human-computer performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 8(2), 189-211.
9. Gray, W.D., & Salzman, M.C. (1998). Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human-Computer Interaction, 3, 203-261.
10. Human-Computer Interaction (1998). Special issue on experimental comparisons of usability evaluation methods.
11. ISO 9241: Guidance on usability standards. Available from http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/CatalogueListPage.CatalogueList?ICS1=13&ICS2=180
12. Jeffries, R., Miller, J.R., Wharton, C., & Uyeda, K.M. (1991). User interface evaluation in the real world: A comparison of four techniques. Proceedings of ACM CHI'91, pp. 119-124. New York: ACM Press.
13. Jeffries, R., & Miller, J.R. (1998). Ivory towers in the trenches: Different perspectives on usability evaluations. Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 270-276.
14. Jorgensen, A. H. (1999). Towards an epistemology of usability evaluation methods. Available from: http://cyberg.curtin.edu.au/members/papers/43.shtml
15. Karat, C., Campbell, R., & Fiegel, T. (1992). Comparison of empirical testing and walkthrough methods in user interface evaluation. Proceedings of ACM CHI'92, pp. 397-404.
16. Law, L.-C. (2002) (Ed.). Trials Evaluation Report Y1, Deliverable D7A, the UNIVERSAL project.
17. Lewis, J.R. (1994). Sample sizes for usability studies: Additional considerations. Human Factors, 36(2), 368-378.
18. Mackay, W.E. (1998). Triangulation within and across HCI disciplines. Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 310-315.
19. Molich, R., & Nielsen, J. (1990). Improving a human-computer dialogue. Communications of the ACM, 33(3), 338-348.
20. Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In Nielsen, J., & Mack, R.L., (Eds.), Usability inspection methods, pp. 25-64. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
21. Nielsen, J. (1994). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. CHI'94 Conference Proceedings.
22. Nielsen, J. (1995). Technology transfer of heuristic evaluation and usability inspection. Presented as a keynote speech as the IFIP INTERACT'95, Norway, June 27.
23. Nielsen, J. (2000). Why you only need to test with 5 users. Jackob Nielsen's Alertbox. Available from: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html
24. Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T.K. (1993). A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. Proceedings of ACM/IFIP INTERCHI'93 Conference, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, April 24-29, 206-213.
25. Oviatt, S.L. (1998). What's science got to do with it? Designing HCI studies that ask big questions and get results that matter. Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 303-307.
26. rd Ed.). Reading: MA: Addison-Wesley.
27. Spool, J., & Schroeder, W. (2001). Testing web sites: Five users is nowhere near enough. Available from: http://www.winwriters.com/download/chi01- spool.pdf
28. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
29. Virzi, R.A. (1992). Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough? Human Factors, 34, 4, 457-468.
30. th Annual Meeting, 309-313. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
31. Vossen, P.H., & Maguire, M. (1998). Guide to mapping requirements to user interface specifications. RESPECT D4.2, EC Telematics Applications Programme, Project TE 2010. Available from: http://www.ejeisa.com/nectar/ respect/4.2/
32. Woodward, B. (1998). Evaluation methods in usability testing. Available from: http://www.swt.edu~hd01/5326/projects/BWOODWARD.HTML