skip to main content
10.1145/3148456.3148508acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesihcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Challenges for evaluating mobile systems with moving users

Published: 03 November 2015 Publication History

Abstract

The major challenge for usability tests on mobile systems is to reproduce the context in which they are used. This paper points out some of the main difficulties encountered in the evaluation of such mobile systems, considering the real context of the user. Considering the need to assess such applications on the user's context, it was conducted a field study to evaluate an urban mobility system and, for this purpose, it was proposed a collection instrument, which can be used by the observer to take notes related to the evaluation, enabling various forms of content (observations, important points of the environment, user's verbal utterances, etc.). Through the field study, it was evaluated the benefits of using the proposed instrument, as well as identifying some of the difficulties faced in this type of study, i.e., evaluation of mobile systems on the move.

References

[1]
Leon Barnard, Ji Soo Yi, Julie A Jacko, and Andrew Sears. 2005. An empirical comparison of use-in-motion evaluation scenarios for mobile computing devices. Int. J. of Human-Computer Studies 62, 4 (2005), 487--520.
[2]
Catherine Courage and Kathy Baxter. 2004. Understanding Your Users: A Practical Guide to User Requirements Methods, Tools, and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
[3]
Constantinos K Coursaris and Dan J Kim. 2011. A meta-analytical review of empirical mobile usability studies. Journal of usability studies 6, 3 (2011), 117--171.
[4]
Thomas A. Dingus, Melissa C. Hulse, Jonathan F. Antin, and Walter W. Wierwille. 1989. Attentional demand requirements of an automobile moving-map navigation system. Transportation Research Part A: General 23, 4 (1989), 301--315.
[5]
Henry Been-Lirn Duh, Gerald C. B. Tan, and Vivian Hsueh-hua Chen. 2006. Usability Evaluation for Mobile Device: A Comparison of Laboratory and Field Tests. In Proc. 8th MobileHCI. 181--186.
[6]
Jesper Kjeldskov and Connor Graham. 2003. A review of mobile HCI research methods. In Proc. MobileHCI. Springer, 317--335.
[7]
Jesper Kjeldskov and Jan Stage. 2004. New techniques for usability evaluation of mobile systems. Int. J. of human-computer studies 60, 5 (2004), 599--620.
[8]
Nikki Knox. 2014. How to Use Persona Empathy Mapping. (jun 2014). http://uxmag.com/articles/how-to-use-persona-empathy-mapping
[9]
Fatih Nayebi, Jean-Marc Desharnais, and Alain Abran. 2012. The state of the art of mobile application usability evaluation. In CCECE. 1--4.
[10]
Jeffrey Rubin and Dana Chisnell. 1994. Handbook of usability testing. NY: John Wiley (1994).
[11]
Marika Tähti and Marketta Niemelä. 2006. 3e-expressing emotions and experiences. In Proc. Workshop Human-Machine Interaction Network on Emotion (HUMAINE). Citeseer.
[12]
Waze. 2015. Waze. (julho 2015). https://www.waze.com/pt-BR

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
IHC '15: Proceedings of the 14th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems
November 2015
514 pages
ISBN:9781450353625
DOI:10.1145/3148456
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 03 November 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. mobile
  2. usability
  3. user experience

Qualifiers

  • Short-paper

Conference

IHC 2015

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 331 of 973 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 75
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 19 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media