The UX Book 2012
DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-385241-0.00022-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

UX Design Guidelines

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
63
0
8

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
63
0
8
Order By: Relevance
“…User Experience (UX) draws heavily on both design and information visualisation, combining evidence and drawing new conclusions with relevance to the UX domain. Hartson and Pyla (2012) recommend Tufte's approach: "Don't let affordances for new users be performance barriers to experienced users", whilst suggesting to "Accommodate different levels of expertise/experience with preferences". Hartson and Pyla's guidelines for UX cover a wide field.…”
Section: User Experience Guidelinesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…User Experience (UX) draws heavily on both design and information visualisation, combining evidence and drawing new conclusions with relevance to the UX domain. Hartson and Pyla (2012) recommend Tufte's approach: "Don't let affordances for new users be performance barriers to experienced users", whilst suggesting to "Accommodate different levels of expertise/experience with preferences". Hartson and Pyla's guidelines for UX cover a wide field.…”
Section: User Experience Guidelinesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We realized the AR HUD Interface using the UX lifecycle proposed by Hartson & Pyla (2012), which consists of analysis, design, prototyping, and evaluation phases. Through our study, we sought to answer the following research questions: (1) What are the difficulties that novice international drivers may face while driving in the US?…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…17 participants preferred collaborating in symmetric environments (16 in PC-PC and 1 in VR-VR), and 7 participants preferred asymmetric collaboration more than symmetric settings. We further analyzed the reasons from their qualitative feedback using affinity diagramming [23]. We denoted P1-24 as the 24 participants and G1-12 as the 12 pairs.…”
Section: Preferencementioning
confidence: 99%