skip to main content
research-article

Automated Usability Evaluation of Virtual Reality Applications

Published:24 April 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Virtual reality (VR) and VR applications have reached the end-user and, hence, the demands on usability, also for novel applications, have increased. This situation requires VR usability evaluation methods that can be applied quickly, even after a first release of an application. In this article, we describe such an approach, which is fully automated and does not ask users to perform predefined tasks in a fixed test setting. Instead, it works on recordings of the actual usage of a VR application from which it generates task trees. Afterwards, it analyzes these task trees to search for usability smells, i.e., user behavior indicating usability issues. Our approach provides detailed descriptions of the usability issues that have been found and how they can be solved. We performed a large case study to evaluate our approach and show that it is capable of correctly identifying usability issues. Although our approach is applicable for different VR interaction modalities, such as gaze, controller, or hand interaction, it also has limitations. For example, it can detect diverse issues related to user efficiency, but specific misunderstandings of users cannot be uncovered.

References

  1. 1998. ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) -- Part 11: Guidance on usability (ISO 9241-11:1998).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2018. VRTK - Virtual Reality Toolkit. Retrieved 1, 2018 from https://vrtoolkit.readme.io/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Diogo Almeida, José Creissac Campos, João Saraiva, and João Carlos Silva. 2015. Towards a catalog of usability smells. In Proceedings of the Volume I: Artificial Intelligence and Agents, Distributed Systems, and Information Systems (ACM SAC’15). ACM, 175--181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Saleema Amershi, Jalal Mahmud, Jeffrey Nichols, Tessa Lau, and German Attanasio Ruiz. 2013. LiveAction: Automating web task model generation. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 3, 3, Article 14 (Oct. 2013), 23 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Richard Atterer. 2008. Usability Tool Support for Model-Based Web Development. dissertation. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:19-92963.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Fiora T. W. Au, Simon Baker, Ian Warren, and Gillian Dobbie. 2008. Automated usability testing framework. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Australasian User Interface - Volume 76 (AUIC’08). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 55--64. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1378337.1378349. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Rebecca Baker. 2014. Remote Usability Testing: Thinking Outside the Lab. Retrieved 11, 2017 from http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2014/04/remote-usability-testing-thinking-outside-the-lab.php.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. S. Baker, F. Au, G. Dobbie, and I. Warren. 2008. Automated usability testing using HUI analyzer. In Proceedings of the 19th Australian Conference on Software Engineering (ASWEC’08). 579--588. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Aurora Bedford. 2015. Don’t Prioritize Efficiency Over Expectations. Retrieved 9, 2017 from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/efficiency-vs-expectations/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Aurora Bedford. 2015. No More Pogo Sticking: Protect Users from Wasted Clicks. Retrieved 9, 2017 from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/pogo-sticking/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Daniel J. Benjamin, James O. Berger, Magnus Johannesson, Brian A. Nosek, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Richard Berk, Kenneth A. Bollen, Björn Brembs, Lawrence Brown, Colin Camerer, et al. 2017. Redefine statistical significance. Nat. Hum. Behav. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Nicholas Benson. 2017. Interaction Engine. Retrieved 9, 2017 from https://github.com/leapmotion/UnityModules/wiki/Interaction-Engine.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Bootstrap core team and contributors. 2017. Bootstrap. Retrieved 11, 2017 from https://getbootstrap.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Doug A. Bowman, Joseph L. Gabbard, and Deborah Hix. 2002. A survey of usability evaluation in virtual environments: Classification and comparison of methods. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 11, 4 (Aug. 2002), 404--424. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Paolo Burzacca and Fabio Paternò. 2013. Remote usability evaluation of mobile web applications. In Human-Computer Interaction. Human-Centred Design Approaches, Methods, Tools, and Environments, Masaaki Kurosu (Ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8004. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 241--248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Tonio Carta, Fabio Paternò, and Vagner Santana. 2011. Support for remote usability evaluation of web mobile applications. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (SIGDOC’11). ACM, New York, NY, 129--136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Cátedra SAES de la Universidad de Murcia. 2014. OHT Plus: An application framework for non-intrusive usability testing tools. Retrieved 6, 2014 from http://www.catedrasaes.org/wiki/OHTPlus.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Selem Charfi, Houcine Ezzedine, Christophe Kolski, and Faouzi Moussa. 2011. Towards an automatic analysis of interaction data for HCI evaluation: Application to a transport network supervision system. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Design and Development Approaches - Volume Part I (HCII’11). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 175--184. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2022384.2022407. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. HTC Corporation. 2017. Vive. Retrieved 9, 2017 from https://www.vive.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Allen Cypher. 1991. EAGER: Programming repetitive tasks by example. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’91). ACM, New York, NY, 33--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Vagner Figuerêdo de Santana and Maria Cecília Calani Baranauskas. 2015. WELFIT: A remote evaluation tool for identifying Web usage patterns through client-side logging. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Studies 76 (2015), 40--49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Deloitte. 2016. Head Mounted Displays in deutschen Unternehmen - Ein Virtual, Augmented und Mixed Reality Check. Retrieved 11, 2017 from http://www2.deloitte.com/de/de/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/head-mounted-displays-in-deutschen-unternehmen.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Alexiei Dingli and Justin Mifsud. 2011. USEFul: A framework to mainstream web site usability through automated evaluation. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2, 1 (2011), 10--30. http://cscjournals.org/csc/manuscript/Journals/IJHCI/volume2/Issue1/IJHCI-19.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Ralf Dörner, Wolfgang Broll, Paul Grimm, and Bernhard Jung (Eds.). 2013. Virtual und Augmented Reality (VR / AR): Grundlagen und Methoden der Virtuellen und Augmentierten Realität. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Arianna D’Ulizia, Fernando Ferri, and Patrizia Grifoni. 2011. A survey of grammatical inference methods for natural language learning. Artif. Intell. Rev. 36, 1 (Jun. 2011), 1--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Sebastian Feuerstack, Marco Blumendorf, Maximilian Kern, Michael Kruppa, Michael Quade, Mathias Runge, and Sahin Albayrak. 2008. Automated usability evaluation during model-based interactive system development. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Human-Centered Software Engineering and 7th International Workshop on Task Models and Diagrams (HCSE-TAMODIA’08). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 134--141. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. FFsplit. 2017. FFSPLIT. Retrieved 9, 2017 from http://www.ffsplit.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Software Engineering for Distributed System. 2017. AutoQUEST -- Testing, Analysing, and Observing Event-driven Software. Retrieved 9, 2017 from https://autoquest.informatik.uni-goettingen.de/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Peter Géczy, Noriaki Izumi, Shotaro Akaho, and Kôiti Hasida. 2007. Usability analysis framework based on behavioral segmentation. In E-Commerce and Web Technologies, Giuseppe Psaila and Roland Wagner (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4655. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 35--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Steven Gomez and David Laidlaw. 2012. Modeling task performance for a crowd of users from interaction histories. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’12). ACM, New York, NY, 2465--2468. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Google. 2017. Google Analytics. Retrieved 12, 2017 from http://www.google.com/analytics/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Google. 2018. Test auf Optimierung für Mobilgeräte. Retrieved 1, 2018 from https://search.google.com/test/mobile-friendly.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Google LLC. 2017. Android Developers. Retrieved 11, 2017 from https://developer.android.com/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Julián Grigera, Alejandra Garrido, and José Matías Rivero. 2014. A tool for detecting bad usability smells in an automatic way. In Web Engineering, Sven Casteleyn, Gustavo Rossi, and Marco Winckler (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8541. Springer International Publishing, 490--493.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Julián Grigera, Alejandra Garrido, José Matías Rivero, and Gustavo Rossi. 2017. Automatic detection of usability smells in web applications. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Studies 97 (2017), 129--148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Karl Grooves. 2007. The Limitations of Server Log Files for Usability Analysis. Retrieved 6, 2015 from http://boxesandarrows.com/the-limitations-of-server-log-files-for-usability-analysis/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Patrick Harms. 2016. Automated Field Usability Evaluation Using Generated Task Trees. Ph.D. Dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-1735-0000-0028-8684-1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Patrick Harms and Jens Grabowski. 2014. Usage-based automatic detection of usability smells. In Human-Centered Software Engineering, Stefan Sauer, Cristian Bogdan, Peter Forbrig, Regina Bernhaupt, and Marco Winckler (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8742. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 217--234. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Patrick Harms and Jens Grabowski. 2015. Consistency of task trees generated from website usage traces. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on System Design Languages (SDL’15). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Patrick Harms, Steffen Herbold, and Jens Grabowski. 2014. Extended trace-based task tree generation. Int. J. Adv. Intel. Syst. 7, 3, 4 (Dec. 2014), 450--467. http://www.iariajournals.org/intelligent_systems/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Patrick Harms, Steffen Herbold, and Jens Grabowski. 2014. Trace-based task tree generation. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions (ACHI’14). XPS - Xpert Publishing Services, 6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. N. Harrati, I. Bouchrika, A. Tari, and A. Ladjailia. 2015. Automating the evaluation of usability remotely for web applications via a model-based approach. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on New Technologies of Information and Communication (NTIC’15). 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Marcus Hegner. 2003. Methoden zur Evaluation von Software. IZ, InformationsZentrum Sozialwiss. http://books.google.de/books?id=NhnMHAAACAAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. David M. Hilbert and David F. Redmiles. 2000. Extracting usability information from user interface events. ACM Comput. Surv. 32, 4 (Dec. 2000), 384--421. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Yosef Hochberg. 1988. A sharper bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. 75 (Dec. 1988), 800--802.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Scott E. Hudson, Bonnie E. John, Keith Knudsen, and Michael D. Byrne. 1999. A tool for creating predictive performance models from user interface demonstrations. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’99). ACM, New York, NY, 93--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Melody Y. Ivory and Marti A. Hearst. 2001. The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces. ACM Comput. Surv. 33, 4 (Dec. 2001), 470--516. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Anthony Jameson, Angela Mahr, Michael Kruppa, Andreas Rieger, and Robert Schleicher. 2007. Looking for unexpected consequences of interface design decisions: The MeMo workbench. In Task Models and Diagrams for User Interface Design, Marco Winckler, Hilary Johnson, and Philippe Palanque (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4849. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 279--286. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Kasper Løvborg Jensen and Lars Bo Larsen. 2007. Evaluating the usefulness of mobile services based on captured usage data from longitudinal field trials. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Mobile Technology, Applications, and Systems and the 1st International Symposium on Computer Human Interaction in Mobile Technology (Mobility’07). ACM, New York, NY, 675--682. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Bonnie E. John. 2015. CogTool. Retrieved 6, 2015 from http://cogtool.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Bonnie E. John, Konstantine Prevas, Dario D. Salvucci, and Ken Koedinger. 2004. Predictive human performance modeling made easy. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’04). ACM, New York, NY, 455--462. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Christos Katsanos, Nikolaos Tselios, and Nikolaos Avouris. 2006. InfoScent evaluator: A semi-automated tool to evaluate semantic appropriateness of hyperlinks in a web site. In Proceedings of the 18th Australia Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Design: Activities, Artefacts and Environments (OZCHI’06). ACM, New York, NY, 373--376. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Jun H. Kim, Daniel V. Gunn, Eric Schuh, Bruce Phillips, Randy J. Pagulayan, and Dennis Wixon. 2008. Tracking real-time user experience (TRUE): A comprehensive instrumentation solution for complex systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’08). ACM, New York, NY, 443--452. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Ralph Krimmel. 2014. Improving Automatic Task Tree Generation With Alignment Algorithms.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Inc. Leap Motion. 2017. Unity. Retrieved 9, 2017 from https://developer.leapmotion.com/unity/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Andreas Lecerof and Fabio Paternò. 1998. Automatic support for usability evaluation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24, 10 (Oct. 1998), 863--888. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Quentin Limbourg, Jean Vanderdonckt, Benjamin Michotte, Laurent Bouillon, Murielle Florins, and Daniela Trevisan. 2004. UsiXML: A user interface description language for context-sensitive user interfaces. In Proceedings of the ACM AVI’2004 Workshop “Developing User Interfaces with XML: Advances on User Interface Description Languages,” 55--62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Matomo.org. 2018. Matomo -- Liberating Analytics. Retrieved 1, 2018 from https://matomo.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. David Maulsby. 1997. Inductive task modeling for user interface customization. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI’97). ACM, New York, NY, 233--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Thomas Memmel. 2009. User Interface Specification for Interactive Software Systems - Process-, Method- and Tool-Support for Interdisciplinary and Collaborative Requirements Modelling and Prototyping-Driven User Interface Specification. PhD thesis. University of Konstanz.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Microsoft. 2018. Das neue Windows Mixed Reality. Retrieved 1, 2018 from https://www.microsoft.com/de-de/windows/windows-mixed-reality.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. C. Moser. 2012. User Experience Design: Mit erlebniszentrierter Softwareentwicklung zu Produkten, die begeistern. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Donald A. Norman. 2002. The Design of Everyday Things (1. basic paperback ed., {repr..} ed.). Basic Books, {New York, NY}. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Oculus. 2018. oculus rift. Retrieved 1, 2018 from https://www.oculus.com/rift/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. 2006. The Research-Based Web Design 8 Usability Guidelines, Enlarged/Expanded edition. Retrieved 7, 2017 from http://guidelines.usability.gov/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Gary M. Olson, James D. Herbsleb, and Henry H. Rueter. 1994. Characterizing the sequential structure of interactive behaviors through statistical and grammatical techniques. Hum-Comput. Interact. 9 (1994), 427--472. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Oracle. 2017. Trail: Creating a GUI With JFC/Swing. Retrieved 11, 2017 from https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/uiswing/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Fabio Paternò. 2003. ConcurTaskTrees: An engineered notation for task models. In The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human Computer Interaction, Dan Diaper and Neville Stanton (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 483--503.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Fabio Paternò. 2003. Tools for remote web usability evaluation. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction., Vol. 1. Erlbaum, 828--832. http://giove.isti.cnr.it/attachments/publications/2003-A2-95.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Fabio Paternò, Cristiano Mancini, and Silvia Meniconi. 1997. ConcurTaskTrees: A diagrammatic notation for specifying task models. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT’97). Chapman 8 Hall, Ltd., London, UK, 362--369. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Fabio Paternò, Angela Piruzza, and Carmen Santoro. 2005. Remote usability analysis of MultiModal information regarding user behaviour. InInternational COST 294 Workshop on User Interface Quality Models, pp. 15--22. http://giove.isti.cnr.it/attachments/publications/2005-A2-134.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Fabio Paternò, Angela Piruzza, and Carmen Santoro. 2007. Remote web usability evaluation exploiting multimodal information on user behavior. In Computer-Aided Design of User Interfaces V, Gaëlle Calvary, Costin Pribeanu, Giuseppe Santucci, and Jean Vanderdonckt (Eds.). Springer Netherlands, 287--298.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Fabio Paternò, Andrea Russino, and Carmen Santoro. 2007. Remote evaluation of mobile applications. In Task Models and Diagrams for User Interface Design, Marco Winckler, Hilary Johnson, and Philippe Palanque (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4849. Springer, Berlin, 155--169. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Fabio Paternò, Antonio Giovanni Schiavone, and Antonio Conti. 2017. Customizable automatic detection of bad usability smells in mobile accessed web applications. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI’17). ACM, New York, NY, Article 42, 11 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Michael Quade, Marco Blumendorf, and Sahin Albayrak. 2010. Towards model-based runtime evaluation and adaptation of user interfaces. In User Modeling and Adaptation for Daily Routines: Providing Assistance to People with Special and Specific Needs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Neil Ramsay, Stuart Marshall, and Alex Potanin. 2008. Annotating UI architecture with actual use. In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Australasian User Interface -- Volume 76 (AUIC’08). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, 75--78. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1378337.1378351. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Karen Renaud and Phil Gray. 2004. Making sense of low-level usage data to understand user activities. In Proceedings of the Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries (SAICSIT’04). South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, Republic of South Africa, 115--124. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1035053.1035067. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Michael Richter and Markus D. Flückiger. 2013. Usability Engineering kompakt: Benutzbare Software gezielt entwickeln. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Joy Robinson, Candice Lanius, and Ryan Weber. 2017. The past, present, and future of UX empirical research. Commun. Des. Q. Rev 5, 3 (Nov. 2017), 10--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Stephanie Rosenbaum. 2008. The future of usability evaluation: Increasing impact on value. In Maturing Usability, Effie Lai-Chong Law, Ebba Thora Hvannberg, and Gilbert Cockton (Eds.). Springer, 344--378. http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/series/hci/LawHC08.html#Rosenbaum08.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Jean-David Ruvini et al. 2000. APE: Learning user’s habits to automate repetitive tasks. In Proceedings of the Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI’00). 229--232. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Dario D. Salvucci. 2009. Rapid prototyping and evaluation of in-vehicle interfaces. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 16, 2, Article 9 (June 2009), 33 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Florian Sarodnick and Henning Brau. 2006. Methoden der Usability Evaluation: Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen und praktische Anwendung (1st ed.). Huber, Bern.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Andrew Sears. 1995. AIDE: A step toward metric-based interface development tools. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface and Software Technology (UIST’95). ACM, New York, NY, 101--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. Antonio C. Siochi and Roger W. Ehrich. 1991. Computer analysis of user interfaces based on repetition in transcripts of user sessions. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 9, 4 (Oct. 1991), 309--335. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  86. Antonio C. Siochi and Deborah Hix. 1991. A study of computer-supported user interface evaluation using maximal repeating pattern analysis. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’91). ACM, New York, NY, 301--305. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. Jenifer Tidwell. 2010. Designing Interfaces -- Patterns for Effective Interaction Design (2nd ed.). O’Reilly Media, Incorporated. http://books.google.de/books?id=5gvOU9X0fu0C. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. Thomas Tiedtke, Christian Märtin, and Norbert Gerth. 2002. AWUSA -- A Tool for Automated Website Usability Analysis. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on the Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems (DSV-IS’02).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. H. Trætteberg. 2002. Model-based User Interface Design. Information Systems Group, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Faculty of Information Technology, Mathematics and Electrical Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. Thomas Tullis and William Albert. 2008. Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. Unity Technologies. 2017. Unity 3D. Retrieved 9, 2017 from https://unity3d.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. Martijn Van Welie, Gerrit C. Van Der Veer, and Anton Eliëns. 1998. An ontology for task world models. In Proceedings of Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems (DSV-IS’98), Abingdon. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. Google VR. 2017. Google Cardboard. Retrieved 9, 2017 from https://vr.google.com/cardboard/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. Google VR. 2017. Google Daydream. Retrieved 9, 2017 from https://vr.google.com/daydream/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  95. VRgluv. 2018. VRgluv. Retrieved 1, 2018 from https://vrgluv.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. W3Schools. 2017. HTML5 Tutorial. Retrieved 11, 2017 from https://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. G. Wallner and S. Kriglstein. 2014. PLATO: A visual analytics system for gameplay data. Comput. Graph. 38 (2014), 341--356. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. Frank Wilcoxon. 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biomet. Bull. 1, 6 (1945), 80--83. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3001968.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  99. D. Zwillinger and S. Kokoska. 1999. CRC Standard Probability and Statistics Tables and Formulae. CRC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Automated Usability Evaluation of Virtual Reality Applications

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
            ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction  Volume 26, Issue 3
            June 2019
            254 pages
            ISSN:1073-0516
            EISSN:1557-7325
            DOI:10.1145/3328720
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2019 ACM

            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 the author(s) 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: 24 April 2019
            • Accepted: 1 December 2018
            • Revised: 1 October 2018
            • Received: 1 January 2018
            Published in tochi Volume 26, Issue 3

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format