skip to main content
article

Evaluating usability methods: why the current literature fails the practitioner

Published:01 July 2003Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Practitioners who deal in the business world must find ways to keep up-to-date with best practices in the field and must apply them to their work in cost-effective ways. Research should help to define best practices, but often the worlds of research and of practice can seem too dichotomous. Recently, for instance, the fields of usability and user-centered design generally have seen considerable controversy about the relative effectiveness of different methodologies. In this column, Dennis Wixon argues that we need to look at whether we are evaluating methods by the appropriate criteria. He considers the growing body of literature on evaluation of methods unhelpful, or even irrelevant, to the practitioner. He argues that consideration of the factors that determine success of usability efforts in product development organizations will fundamentally change the terms of the debate. ---David A. Siegel

References

  1. Cook , T. D., and Campbell, D. T. Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Rand McNally, Chicago, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Gray, W. D. , John, B.E., and Atwood, M. E. Project Ernestine: Validating a GOMS analysis for predicting and explaining real world performance. Human Computer Interaction 8, (1993), pp. 23-309.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Gray, W.D. and Saltzman, M. C. Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human Computer Interaction 13, (1998), 203-261. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Jefferies, R. Miller, J. Wharton, C. and Udea, K.M. User Interface Analysis in the Real World; A comparison of four techniques. Proceedings of the ACM CHI'91. Conference in Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, 1991), pp.119-124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Lewis, J.R. Sample sizes for usability studies: additional considerations. Human Factors 36, (1994), pp. 368-378;Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Mayhew, D. and Bias, R. Cost Justifying Usability. Academic Press, Boston, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Ramey, J. and Wixon, D. Field Method s Casebook for Software Design. John Wiley, New York, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Rudisill, M. Lewis, C. Polson, P. and McKay, T. Human Computer Interface Design: Success Cases, Emerging Methods, and Real-World Context. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Spencer, R. (2000) The Streamlined Cognitive Walkthrough Method, Working Around Social Constraints Encountered in a Software Development Company. Proceedings of ACM CHI'2000. Conference in Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, 2000), pp. 119-124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Virzi. R. A. Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough? Human Factors, 34, (1992), pp. 457-468. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Whiteside, J. Bennett, J. and Holtzblatt, K. (1988). Usability engineering: Our experience and evolution. In M. Helander (ed,) Handbook of Human Computer Interaction, (1988), North Holland, New York, pp. 791-817.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Evaluating usability methods: why the current literature fails the practitioner

      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 Interactions
        Interactions  Volume 10, Issue 4
        The digital muse: HCI in support of creativity
        July + August 2003
        57 pages
        ISSN:1072-5520
        EISSN:1558-3449
        DOI:10.1145/838830
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2003 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 1 July 2003

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • article

      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