Usability Information Management: Prototype for Result Exploration Based on an Empirical Analysis of Use Cases
Article No.: 53, Pages 1 - 10
Abstract
Empirical usability results from user research and usability evaluations are valuable as an information resource beyond the scope of the project for which they were originally collected [22]. This study presents the results of interviews with usability practitioners (n = 8) to describe existing use cases for this type of information. Based on the use cases, an information structure for usability information has been created. Its application was discussed in focus groups in two organizations. As a result, an information management system for usability information was implemented and evaluated with users in a qualitative study (n = 11). The results indicate the diversity of existing use cases. These include direct application to current design questions, exploration of results with the aim of learning and devising generalized internal guidelines, and analyzing results to support tracking of implementation, controlling, and reporting. Aspects of the product and the respective context of use appear to be essential to support exploration of usability results. In addition, information that helps to make judgements about their reliability is necessary to enable systematic reuse.
References
[1]
Andre, T.S., Hartson, R. and Williges, R.C. Determining the effectiveness of the usability problem inspector: a theory-based model and tool for finding usability problems. Human Factors 45, 3 (2003), 455--482.
[2]
Blandford, A., Attfield, S. Interacting with Information. San Rafael, Morgan & Claypool, 2010.
[3]
Carroll, J.M., Singley, M.K., Rosson. M.B. Integrating theory development with design evaluation. Behaviour & Information Technology 11, 5 (1992), 247--255.
[4]
Chilana, P.K., Wobbrock, J.O., Ko, A.J. Understanding usability practices in complex domains. SIGCHI 2010, ACM (2010), 2337--2346. http://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753678
[5]
Følstad, A., Law, E.L.-C., Hornbæk, K. Analysis in practical usability evaluation: a survey study. SIGCHI 2012, ACM (2012), 2127--2136. http://doi.org/10.1145/2208276.2208365
[6]
Furniss, F., Blandford, A., Curzon, P. Usability work in professional website design: insights from practitioners' perspectives. In Maturing Usability, Law, E.L.-C., Hvannberg, E.T., Cockton, G. (eds.), Springer, London, 2008, pp. 144--167.
[7]
Grigoreanu, V., Mohanna, M. Informal cognitive walkthroughs (ICW): paring down and pairing up for an agile world. SIGCHI 2013, ACM (2013), 3093--3096. http://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466421
[8]
Ham, D.H. A model-based framework for classifying and diagnosing usability problems. Cognition, Technology & Work (2013), 1--16.
[9]
Haynes, S.R., Carroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B. Integrating user-centered design knowledge with scenarios. In Human-Centered Software Engineering -- Integrating Usability in the Software Development Lifecycle, Gulliksen, J., Seffah, A. (eds.). Springer, Dordrecht, 2005, pp. 269--286.
[10]
Heo, J., Ham, D.H., Park, S., Song, C., Yoon, W.C. A framework for evaluating the usability of mobile phones based on multi-level, hierarchical model of usability factors. Interacting with Computers 21, 4 (2009), 263--275.
[11]
Hornbæk, K., Frøkjær, E. Comparison of techniques for matching of usability problem descriptions. Interacting with Computers 20, 6 (2008), 505--514.
[12]
Howarth, J.R., Smith-Jackson, T., Hartson, R. Supporting novice usability practitioners with usability engineering tools. International Journal of Human and Computer Studies 67, 6 (2009), 533--549.
[13]
Hughes, M. A pattern language approach to usability knowledge management. Journal of Usability Studies 1, 2 (2006), 76--90.
[14]
Hughes, M., Reeves, T. Team learning in usability testing. In Qualitative research in technical communication, Conklin, J. Hayhoe, G.F. (eds.). Routledge, New York, NY {u.a.}, 2011, pp. 331--345.
[15]
International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC TR 25060 -- Common Industry Format (CIF) for usability -- General framework for usability-related information, 2010.
[16]
Laugwitz, B., Held, T., Schrepp, M. Construction and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire. HCI and Usability for Education and Work, Springer, 2008, pp. 63--76.
[17]
Pyla, P.S., Howarth, J.R., Catanzaro, C., North, C. Vizability: a tool for usability engineering process improvement through the visualization of usability problem data. Proc. 44th Annu. ACM Southeast Regional Conf., ACM (2006), 620--625. http://doi.org/10.1145/1185448.1185584
[18]
Regli, W.C., Hu, X., Atwood, M.E., Sun, W. A survey of design rationale systems: Approaches, representation, capture and retrieval. Engineering with Computers 16, 3 (2000), 209--235.
[19]
Rice, S., Thaker, J., and Wichansky, A.M. ISO 25062 usability test planning for a large enterprise applications suite. DUXU 2011, Springer (2011), 185--192. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21675-6_22
[20]
Riege, A. Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management 9, 3 (2005), 18--35. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270510602746
[21]
Roschuni, C., Goodman, E., Agogino, A.M. Communicating actionable user research for human-centered design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 27, Special Issue 02 (2013), 143--154. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060413000048
[22]
Rosenbaum, R. The future of usability evaluation: increasing impact on value. In Maturing Usability, Law, E.L.-C., Hvannberg, E.T., Cockton, G. (eds.). Springer, London, 2008, pp. 344--378.
[23]
Rosson, M.B., Carroll, J.M. Usability Engineering: Scenario-Based Development of Human--Computer Interaction. San Francisco, Morgan Kaufmann, 2002.
[24]
Rosson, M.B., Maass, S., Kellogg, W.A. Designing for designers: an analysis of design practice in the real world. SIGCHI 1987, ACM (1987), 137--142. http://doi.org/10.1145/29933.30873
[25]
Sutcliffe, A. The domain theory: patterns for knowledge and software reuse. L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2002.
[26]
Venkatesh, V., Bala, H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences 39, 2 (2008), 273--315.
[27]
Vilbergsdottir, S.G., Hvannberg, E.T., Law, E.L.-C. Assessing the reliability, validity and acceptance of a classification scheme of usability problems (CUP). Journal of Systems and Software 87 (2014), 18--37.
[28]
Woolrych, A., Hornbæk, K., Frøkjær, E., Cockton, G. Ingredients and meals rather than recipes: a proposal for research that does not treat usability evaluation methods as indivisible wholes. International Journal of Human--Computer Interaction 27, 10 (2011), 940--970. http://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2011.555314
Index Terms
- Usability Information Management: Prototype for Result Exploration Based on an Empirical Analysis of Use Cases
Recommendations
A structured process for transforming usability data into usability information
Much research has been devoted to developing usability evaluation methods that are used in evaluating interaction designs. More recently, however, research has shifted away from evaluation methods and comparisons of evaluation methods to issues of how ...
Usability evaluation methods in practice: understanding the context in which they are embedded
ECCE '07: Proceedings of the 14th European conference on Cognitive ergonomics: invent! explore!Motivation -- To address a knowledge gap in why usability evaluation methods (UEMs) are adopted and adapted in professional usability practice.
Research approach -- The approach is qualitative. A grounded theory of usability practitioners is being ...
Interplay between Usability Evaluation and Software Development (I-USED 2009)
INTERACT '09: Proceedings of the 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Part IIThis workshop is aimed at bringing together researchers and practitioners from the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and Software Engineering (SE) fields to determine the state-of-the-art in the interplay between usability evaluation and software ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
October 2016
1045 pages
ISBN:9781450347631
DOI:10.1145/2971485
- General Chairs:
- Staffan Björk,
- Eva Eriksson,
- Program Chairs:
- Morten Fjeld,
- Susanne Bødker,
- Publications Chairs:
- Wolmet Barendregt,
- Mohammad Obaid
Copyright © 2016 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs International 4.0 License.
In-Cooperation
- Chalmers University of Technology
- SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 23 October 2016
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
NordiCHI '16
NordiCHI '16: 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction
October 23 - 27, 2016
Gothenburg, Sweden
Acceptance Rates
NordiCHI '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 58 of 231 submissions, 25%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 379 of 1,572 submissions, 24%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 421Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)41
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6
Reflects downloads up to 01 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in