Skip to main content

Performance Rather than Capability Problems. Insights from Assessments of Usability Engineering Processes

  • Conference paper
Product Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES 2005)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 3547))

  • 1480 Accesses

Abstract

Improving the performance and effectiveness of usability engineering in software and product development in companies is perceived as a true challenge by many usability professionals. Findings from interviews and observations in eleven assessments of usability engineering processes indicate that usability engineering include typically problems such as poor impact of usability activities in product designs; limited skills and knowledge on usability among the designers and management; unawareness on various activities of usability engineering life-cycle; inappropriately used usability methods; even political games around usability. On the other hand, issues such as project and configuration management, and process performance measures are not the key problems of usability. It is concluded other kinds of methods but standard process assessment should be considered for revealing the problems of usability engineering. The problems identified in the assessment should be clearly communicated to the management, but for developers an assessment should aim for a constructive training occasion on usability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering, p. 358. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego (1993)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. ISO/IEC, 13407 Human-Centred Design Processes for Interactive Systems. 1999: ISO/IEC 13407: 1999 (E)

    Google Scholar 

  3. ISO/IEC, 9241-11 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT)s - Part 11 Guidance on usability. 1998: ISO/IEC 9241-11: 1998 (E)

    Google Scholar 

  4. ANSI, Common Industry Format for Usability Test Reports.. 2001: NCITS 354-2001

    Google Scholar 

  5. Axtell, C.M., Waterson, P.E., Clegg, C.W.: Problems integrating user participation into software development. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (47) (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wilson, S., Bekker, M., Johnson, P., Johnson, H.: Helping and Hindering User Involvement. InInvolvement - A Tale of Everyday Design. In: Proceedings of CHI 1997. ACM Press, New York (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bloomer, S., Wolf, S.: Successful Strategies for Selling Usability into Organizations. In: CHI 1999, Pittsburgh, USA (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rosenbaum, S., Rohn, J., Humburg, J., Bloomer, S., Dye, K., Nielsen, J., Rinehart, D., Wixon, D.: What Makes Strategic Usability Fail? Lessons Learned from the Field. A panel. In: CHI 1999 Extended Abstracts. ACM, Pittsburgh (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Anderson, R.: Organisational Limits to HCI. Conversations with Don Norman and Janice Rohn. Interactions 7(2), 36–60 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rosenbaum, S., Rohn, J.A., Humburg, J.: A Toolkit for Strategic Usability: Results from Workshops, Panels, and Surveys. In: CHI 2000 Conference Proceedings. ACM, The Hague (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  11. John, B.E., Bass, L., Kazman, R., Chen, E.: Identifying Gaps between HCI, Software Engineering and Design, and Boundary Objects to Bridge Them. In: CHI 2004 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Harning, M.B., Vanderdonckt, J.: Closing the Gaps: Software Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction. In: Workshop in Ninth IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 2003), Zürich, Switzerland (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Henderson, A.: The Innovation Pipeline. Design Collaborations between Research and Development. ACM interactions 12(1) (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Coallier, F., McKenzie, R., Wilson, J., Hatz, J.: Trillium Model for Telecom Product Development & Support Process Capability, Release 3.0. Internet edition, Bell Canada (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Flanagan, G.A.: Usability Leadership Maturity Model (Self-assessment Version). Delivered in a Special Interest Group session. In: Katz, I., et al. (eds.) CHI 1995: Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, USA (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Taylor, B., Gupta, A., Hefley, W., McLelland, I., Van Gelderen, T.: HumanWare Process Improvement - institutionalising the principles of user-centred design. In: Tutorial PM14 H Human-centred processes and their impact. in Human-Computer Interaction Conference on People and Computers XIII. Sheffield Hallam University (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Eason, K., Harker, S.D.: User Centred Design Maturity. Internal working document. Department of Human Sciences, Loughborough University: Loughborough (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Earthy, J.: Usability Maturity Model: Processes. INUSE/D5.1.4(p), EC INUSE (IE 2016) final deliverable (version 0.2). Lloyd’s Register, London (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Earthy, J.: Usability Maturity Model: Human Centredness Scale. INUSE Project deliverable D5.1.4(s). Version 1.2. Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, London (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  20. ISO/IEC, 18529 Human-centred Lifecycle Process Descriptions. 2000: ISO/IEC TR 18529: 2000 (E)

    Google Scholar 

  21. ISO/IEC, 18152 A specification for the process assessment of human-system issues. 2003: ISO/PAS 18152 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  22. DATech, DATech-Prüfbaustein. Usability-Engineering-Prozess, Version 1.2. 2002, Deutsche Akkreditierungsstelle Technik e.V.: Frankfurt/Main, p. 70

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kurosu, M., Ito, M., Horibe, Y., Hirasawa, N.: Diagnosis of Human-Centeredness of the Design Process by the SDOS. In: Proceedings of UPA 2000, Usability Professionals Association, Asheville, North Carolina (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jokela, T.: The KESSU Usability Design Process Model. Version 2.1, p. 22. Oulu University (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jokela, T., Siponen, M., Hirasawa, N., Earthy, J.: A Survey of Usability Capability Maturity Models: Implications for Practice and Research. Behaviour & Information Technology (accepted 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jokela, T.: Assessment of user-centred design processes as a basis for improvement action. An experimental study in industrial settings. In: Jokisaari, J. (ed.) Acta Universitatis Ouluensis, p. 168. Oulu University Press, Oulu (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Flanaghan, G.A.: Usability Management Maturity. Part 1 Self Assessment - How Do You Stack Up? SIGCHI Bulletin 28(4) (October 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bevan, N., Earthy, J.: Usability process improvement and maturity assessment. In: IHM-HCI 2001. Cépaduès-Editions, Toulouse, Lille (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ease. of Use Roundtable, Why the PC Industry Must Improve New Technology’s Quality and Ease of Use (2004), http://www.eouroundtable.com/

  30. Jokela, T., Abrahamsson, P.: Usability Assessment of an Extreme Programming Project: Close Co-Operation with the Customer Does Not Equal to Good Usability. In: Bomarius, F., Iida, H. (eds.) PROFES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3009, pp. 393–407. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Jokela, T.: Evaluating the user-centredness of development organisations: conclusions and implications from empirical usability capability maturity assessments. Interacting with Computers 16(6), 1095–1132 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K.: Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems, p. 472. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hackos, J.T., Redish, J.C.: User and Task Analysis for Interface Design. Wiley Computer Publishing, Chichester (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kuutti, K., Jokela, T., Nieminen, M., Jokela, P.: Assessing human-centred design processes in product development by using the INUSE maturity model. In: Proceedings of the 7th IFAC/IFIP/IFORS/IEA Symposium on Analysis, Design and Evaluation of Man-Machine Systems – MMS 1998. IFAC, Kyoto (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jokela, T., Iivari, N., Nieminen, M., Nevakivi, K.: Developing A Usability Capability Assess-ment Approach through Experiments in Industrial Settings. In: Joint Proceedings of HCI 2001 and IHM 2001. Springer, London (2001)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Jokela, T. (2005). Performance Rather than Capability Problems. Insights from Assessments of Usability Engineering Processes. In: Bomarius, F., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds) Product Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3547. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11497455_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11497455_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-26200-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31640-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics