Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring and improving the quality of development processes based on usability and accessibility

  • Long Paper
  • Published:
Universal Access in the Information Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Measurement of both usability and accessibility is an important concern in software development today. However, while a great amount of attention has been paid to product-based measurement, little attention has been paid to the process-based one. Our research is based on the following concerns: on the one hand, we detect a lack of previous work focusing on usability and accessibility together in order to evaluate process quality. On the other hand, it is possible to propose a model for evaluating the capability maturity considering usability and accessibility practices. Starting with the motivation and problem description, we have proposed conceptual hypotheses to conduct our research. This way, this paper describes the conception of a capability maturity model named MODECUA, which provides a framework to evaluate development processes centered on usability and accessibility. Together with a detailed description of MODECUA, we provide a study case to validate our approach. MODECUA includes seven improved processes that we have contributed with eight new activities, 11 adapted activities and processes, and 9 renamed activities. In addition, we have integrated 127 new work products. In addition, an evaluation accomplished in a real company has provided relevant results concerning the application of our approach. Our approach helps to determine the capability maturity of a development process focused on usability and accessibility. It ensures that software products are usable and accessible, increasing user satisfaction and psychological wellness. Besides, it promotes a user-centered approach in the organization, facilitating audits and minimizing costs, time and effort.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Veral, R., Macías, J.A.: Supporting user-perceived usability benchmarking through a developed quantitative metric. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 122, 184–195 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Macías, J.A.: Intelligent assistance in authoring dynamically generated web interfaces. World Wide Web 11(2), 253–286 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lacerda, T.C., von Wangenheim, C.G.: Systematic literature review of usability capability/maturity models. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 55, 95–105 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., Mattsson, M.: Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering (2008)

  5. Earthy, J.: Usability maturity model: processes. In: Proceedings of INTERACT (1999)

  6. ISO/TR 18529: Ergonomics—ergonomics of human-system interaction—human-centred lifecycle process descriptions (2000). https://www.iso.org/standard/33499.html. Accessed 25 Nov 2018

  7. ISO 9241-210: Ergonomics of human-system interaction—part 210: human-centred design for interactive systems (2019). https://www.iso.org/standard/77520.html. Accessed 25 Aug 2019

  8. ISO 9241-20: Ergonomics of human-system interaction—part 20: accessibility guidelines for information/communication technology (ICT) equipment and services (2008). https://www.iso.org/standard/40727.html. Accessed 25 Nov 2018

  9. ISO/IEC 15504: Information technology—process assessment, also termed Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination (SPICE) (2003). https://www.iso.org/standard/37458.html. Accessed 25 Nov 2018

  10. CMM: Software engineering institute. https://www.sei.cmu.edu (1993). Accessed 25 Nov 2018

  11. CMMI. CMMI institute. https://cmmiinstitute.com (2010). Accessed 25 Nov 2018

  12. ISO/IEC 33000: Information technology—process assessment (2015). http://www.spilab.co.za/iso-standards-watch/33-33000/69-isoiec-33000-series-on-process-assessment. Accessed 25 Nov 2018

  13. Nielsen, J.: Corporate Usability Maturity. Nielsen Norman Group (2006). https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ux-maturity-stages-1-4/. Accessed 25 Nov 2018

  14. ISO 13407: Human-centred design processes for interactive systems (1999). https://www.iso.org/standard/21197.html. Accessed 25 Nov 2018

  15. Van Tyne, S.: Corporate user-experience maturity model. In: International conference on human centered design, pp. 635–639. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Carraro, J.M.: How mature is your organization when it comes to UX? UX Mag. (2014). https://uxmag.com/articles/how-mature-is-your-organization-when-it-comes-to-ux. Accessed 25 Nov 2018

  17. Gulliksen, J., Harker, S., Vanderheiden, G.: Guidelines, standards, methods and processes for software accessibility. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 3, 1–5 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Velleman, E.M., Nahuis, I., van der Geest, T.: Factors explaining adoption and implementation processes for web accessibility standards within eGovernment systems and organizations. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 16, 173–190 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Business Disability Forum: Accessibility maturity model. Technology taskforce. https://technologytaskforce.org/accessible-technology-charter/accessibility-maturity-model/ (2013). Accessed 25 Nov 2018

  20. Juárez-Ramírez, R.: User-centered design and adaptive systems: toward improving usability and accessibility. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 16, 361–363 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mora, M.M., Denger, C.: Requirements Metrics: an Initial Literature Survey on Measurement Approaches for Requirements Specifications. Fraunhofer IESE, Kaiserslautern (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  22. ISO/IEC 25000: Software engineering—Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) (2014). https://www.iso.org/standard/64764.html. Accessed 25 Nov 2018

  23. W3C: Web content accessibility guidelines. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ (2008). Accessed 25 Nov 2018

  24. Cayola, L., Macías, J.A.: Systematic guidance on usability methods in user-centered software development. Inf. Softw. Technol. 97, 163–175 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Doran, G.: There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Manag. Rev. 70(11), 35–36 (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Philippe, K.: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction. Addison-Wesley, Boston, USA (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Macias, J.A.: Enhancing interaction design on the semantic web: a case study. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 42(6), 1365–1373 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Borges, C.R., Macías, J.A.: Feasible database querying using a visual end-user approach. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCHI symposium on engineering interactive computing systems (2010)

  29. Macías, J.A., Castells, P.: A generic presentation modeling system for adaptive web-based instructional applications. In: Proceedings of human factors in computing systems. ACM (2001)

  30. Macías, J.A., Granollers, T., Latorre, P.M.: New Trends on Human-Computer Interaction: Research, Development, New Tools and Methods. Springer, London, UK (2009)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the Spanish Government (grant number RTI2018-095255-B-I00) and the Madrid Research Council (grant number P2018/TCS-4314).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Tomás y Valiente 11, 28049, Madrid, Spain

    Clara Quintal & José A. Macías

Authors
  1. Clara Quintal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José A. Macías
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José A. Macías.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Quintal, C., Macías, J.A. Measuring and improving the quality of development processes based on usability and accessibility. Univ Access Inf Soc 20, 203–221 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00726-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00726-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation