Automatic support for usability evaluation

Lecerof, A.; Paternò, Fabio

doi:10.1109/32.729686

Cited by 118 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead of recording the higher level message exchange directly, these techniques attempt to generate the higher level interaction from the recorded lower level input, without taking into account the component's response and state when processing these messages. An indirect way of solving this would be to record the system state together with the user events and to envision the response of the system (see the work of Lecerof and Paternò [46] for an example).…”

Section: B Other Empirical Evaluation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Component-Specific Usability Testing

Brinkman

Haakma

Bouwhuis

2008

IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This paper presents the results of a meta-analysis carried out on the results of six experiments to support the claim that component-specific usability measures are on average statistically more powerful than overall usability measures when comparing different versions of a part of a system. An increase in test effectiveness implies the need for fewer participants in usability tests that study different versions of a component. Three component-specific measures are presented and analyzed: an objective efficiency measure and two subjective measures, one about the ease-of-use and the other about the users' satisfaction. Whereas the subjective measures are obtained with a questionnaire, the objective efficiency measure is based on the number of user messages received by a component. Besides describing the testing method, this paper also discusses the underlying principles such as layered interaction and multiple negative-feedback loops. The main contribution of the work described is the presentation of component-based usability testing as an alternative for traditional holistic-oriented usability tests. The former is more aligned with the component-based software engineering approach, helping engineers to select the most usable versions of a component. IndexTerms-Component-based software engineering (CBSE), software testing, usability testing, user-centered design methodology.

show abstract

Section: B Other Empirical Evaluation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Component-Specific Usability Testing

Brinkman

Haakma

Bouwhuis

2008

IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Improving usability is frequently considered as optimizing efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction for the user by means of user interface solutions (ISO, 2015). The usability concept includes different aspects, such as acceptance, use, and adoption (Bevan, 1991;Tractinsky, 1997); learnability and relevance (Lecerof & Paternó, 1998); and engagement and emotions (Hartmann et al, 2008) such as enjoyment, connectedness, and cohesion (Lim, Cha, Park, Lee, & Kim, 2011).…”

Section: Usability In User Interfaces Vs Sociomaterials Quasi-objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sociomaterial Quasi-objects: From Interface to Experience

Hylving¹

2017

THCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this paper, I examine design practices by contrasting the Cartesian view of separation with an ontological perspective and argue for a dynamic, multiple, and entangled world (namely, sociomateriality). In the digital era we live in, sociomateriality helps move design practices forward in order to embrace constant changes and reconfigurations. The word interface manifests a worldview of separation. Researchers typically conceive an interface as belonging to an artifact; that is, the technology, the material. More so, [people] typically considers user interfaces as the layer that separates and connects the technology and the user, which enables interaction. I recognize the limitations of the well-established perspective of interface design and contrast two traditional HCI concepts (namely, usability and context) from a Cartesian versus a sociomaterial perspective. However, to embrace and capitalize on the emergent digital reality, we need a new vocabulary. I introduce helpful concepts that one can use when designing and talking about experiences, and I ground the concepts in a sociomaterial ontological perspective. The concepts and design approach presented in this paper invite and encourage researchers to focus on experiences as sociomaterial entanglements and re-configurations and not as separated social and material entities. By using Michel Serres ' (1980) term quasi-objects, I call attention to the complexity of sociomaterial entanglements that make up experiences and emphasize a holistic and inclusive design approach. In addition, introducing sociomaterial concepts, such as agential cuts and intra-actions, into the human-computer interaction domain invites researchers to think and act in new ways in the era of digitalized experiences. I examine the benefits of the sociomaterial design approach and present practical guidelines on how to approach experiential design with a sociomaterial take.

show abstract

“…Authors such as Lecerof and Paterno (1998) and Juristo et al (2001) extend this list of attributes to also include memorability and productivity. Whilst intranets are closed systems, they are derivations of web-based structures: usability has been identified as a vitally important aspect of web-based systems (Juristo et al, 2001;Agarwal and Venkatesh, 2002;Lecerof and Paterno, 1998).…”

Section: From Intranets To Usabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are differences in opinion regarding the particular components to use (Aladwani and Palvia 2002). Most authors include ease of use, 'learnability', number of errors made during tasks, and satisfaction as measures of usability (Nielsen 2001;Carroll et al 2002;Juristo et al 2001;Lecerof and Paterno 1998). Others extend this set to also include efficiency and emotion (Kim and Moon 1998;Agarwal and Venkatesh 2002;Lindgaard and Dudek 2002).…”

Section: From Intranets To Usabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%