1

Usability Engineering: Review of Previous Literature

Usability practitioners have been sharing a common objective which is to develop the most potential

tool or application with given resources and deadline, let alone the ways of achieving that objective.

Compared to the technological scenario three decades ago, today numerous promising frameworks

and efficient heuristics have emerged. Wixon (2011) gives an overview on the history of Usability

Engineering and presents an effective argument stating that only a few of the framework’s

deliverables were lost in translation while the field evolved. However, his study assures that a few of

those lost components may serve the Information Technology (IT) industry well today. In addition,

Wixon (2011) views frameworks of usability engineering and user experience complementing one

another and believes that the missing elements of usability engineering could aid in accomplishing

improved user experience. The term ‘Engineering’ can be referred to as a process of application of

limited resources to accomplish a desired result. With this definition as a starting point for describing

usability engineering, the insight of this framework is that usability can be defined as the ease of use

and acceptability of a tool for a specific group of users performing particular tasks in a particular

environment. Good usability has an impact on the end-user’s performance and their satisfaction,

where as acceptability impacts whether or not the tool is used. Therefore, it is extremely crucial that

software practitioners are mindful of various usability techniques, as well as being able to promptly

identify the most suitable method to be applied in every situation within a software system.

Holzinger’s (2005) work is based on how the human-computer interaction (HCI)

arrangement attempts to enhance the acceptance and awareness of established techniques

amongst software engineers. He asserts that in human-computer interaction, usability of the system

must be taken into account prior to the prototyping process starts. Methods like usability context

analysis are meant for facilitating such early focus and dedication. Holzinger (2005) suggests that

usability testing or inspection method must not be conducted when the design cycle ends, to avoid

difficulty in implementation when the UI is modified. He further suggests that that user interface

design must be referred to as User Interface (UI) development, representing software development,

because the designing process involves the synthesis phases, while user interface elements comprise

of “metaphors, mental frameworks, interaction, navigation, appearance and usability” (Holzinger,

2005: 72). To ascertain that a software system is inclusive of usability characteristics like learn-

ability, efficiency, memorability, low error rate and satisfaction, Holzinger (2005: 72) recommends

methods divided into inspection methods and test methods. The former is without end users,

whereas the later is with end users.

2

Inspection methods are applied to identify usability issues and to improve the usability of an

interface design by comparing it with established standards. Heuristic evaluation, action analysis and

cognitive explanations are involved in the inspections methods. On the other hand, usability test

methods involves testing with end users, since it gives direct guidance about how users are using the

system and what issues they are facing with a certain interface. Most popular methods include

thinking aloud, questionnaires and field reflection. Throughout the last 20 years, the HCI community

has devised a broad array of methods for collecting, defining and evaluation usability prerequisites,

such as user characteristics, workplace environment, along with usability objectives like efficiency,

and end user satisfaction. However, even though software practitioners are aware of the importance

of these methods, they are still not cost-effectively incorporated into methodologies of software

engineering. For this purpose, Seffah, Djouab and Antunes (2001) have introduced the principle for

their ACUDUC (or Approach Centred on Usability) approach as a means to identify the various

concerns for enhancement of the use case-driven software requirements approach using RESPECT

(REquirements SPECification in Telemetics), which is among the most sophisticated models for user-

centred requirements. Apart from use cases and RESPECT, research conducted by Seffah, et al.

(2001) aim at reconcilling user-centred and use case-driven R.E. along with cross-pollinating the

concepts of software engineering and usability engineering.

The researchers investigate methods of how issues of usability can be integrated into the software

development cycle. There are numerous definitions for the term ‘usability’ and models for usability

engineering, which make usability somewhat a confusing idea.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defined two distinct usability definitions

under its ISO 9241 and ISO 9126 standards:

1. “The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals

with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use” (ISO 9241-11).

The first definition suggests Usability as a superior quality objective and a process-based

approach to usability by which usable interactive arrangements can be attained as an

outcome of a human-centred design procedure. Furthermore, the ISO 9241-11 standard

involves the following actions pertaining to the user-centred design phase:

a. Defining usability objective and metrics along with assessment against aforesaid

requirements.

b. Specifying activities required in the development lifecycle in order to achieve

optimal quality in usage. The standard gives a model for the application of human-

centred design and evaluation methods and aims at supplementing current lifecycle

frameworks.

3

2. The second definition is a product-based approach, where usability is viewed as a relatively

individual part of software quality. The second definition is, “A set of attributes of an

interactive system that bear on the effort needed for use and on the individual assessment

of such use by a stated or implied set of users” (ISO-IEC 9126). The main aim of this

definition to define details of the layout, appearance, look and feel, and behaviour of the UI.

Seffah, et al. (2001: 132) devised ACUDUC is a process-driven model intended to merge:

1. The user-case based requirements process specified within the object-oriented software

engineering methodology and recently designed as part of the UP or Unified software

development Process, with

2. The user-centred requirements process specified in the RESPECT model. Seffah, et al. (2001)

illustrate the RESPECT framework as a concrete execution of the ISO 13407 standard that

defines the user-centred design process for interactive systems.

Studies and investigations presented by Seffah, et al. (2001) show that the idea of the use case-

based software development arrangement shows strong compatibility with the human-centred

requirements methods of usability engineering. The majority of these investigations advocate

specific and impactful improvements to the use case-driven software development approach.

Artim, et al. (1998) provides a user-centric perspective of a package of applications to focus on the

role of task analysis, and stress on use cases by associating every application with a technique of

studying user-system interaction and exploring system behaviour. According to Jarke (1999),

scenarios are applied in software engineering as intermediate design models in an elaborated goal-

oriented change procedure. They allow for task-driven design disintegration to be usable for several

situations, including iterative development, usability trade-off, as well as achievable software design

object frameworks. On the other hand, Mayhew (1999) illustrates the entire usability engineering

lifecycle and throws light on some issues that need to be resolved for its efficient consolidation into

the object-oriented (OO) software engineering method introduced by Jacobson (1994). Furthermore,

according to Constantine and Lockwood (1999), use case designers develop lightweight use case

model illustrations which are void of any inexplicit UI decisions. After that, the UI designer can

employ these crucial use cases as input in order to generate the user interface that does not involve

any implicit decisions. The study carried out by Nunes (1999) advocates the annotation of use cases

be done via non-functional requirements at the abstraction phase where they must be regarded.

Rosson (1999) chooses to combine the designing of OO models and tasks involved that are seen a

refined version of speedy modelling and an extended tail of scenario-driven analysis. As introduced

4

by Krutchen (1999), a use case storyboard is referred to as a conceptual and coherent illustration of

the way a use case is provided by the UI, highlighting how the actors interact with the system.

In another renowned article written by Pimenta and Barthet (1996), a profound study is

presented on the requirements of organisational context modelling in a usability-based approach to

interactive systems requirements engineering. By analysing users’ independent tasks, task

frameworks normally generated during the requirements engineering phase are derived. Further,

the article discusses that some chief usability concerns within interactive tasks performance

originate from shortage of organisational context prototyping. Pimenta and Barthet (1996: 316)

propose the TOCO or Task Organisational Context framework and present an effective example of

context modelling with TOCO. Software engineering as well as the HCI communities are both

unanimous in realising that usability is termed as a quality standard equal in importance to utility for

interactive systems, presently. In this context, utility entails the adequacy that exists amongst

system functions and the end users’ tasks, whereas usability implies the adequacy that exists in how

a specific user and the user’s cognitive profile conduct an interactive task. Several task frameworks

have been applied for representing the task analysis outcomes, and every framework focuses on one

aspect of examining the way people perform their tasks. For instance, TKS (Task-related Knowledge

Structures), ATOM (Analysis for Task Object Modeling), and MAD (Method for Task Description), lay

emphasis respectively on task breakdown, training needed to perform tasks and the relationships of

actors-object-actions linked to tasks. Nonetheless, even though emphasising on varying areas, many

user task analysis approaches focus on individual views in tasks performing and the associated task

frameworks are deduced by analysing the users’ individual tasks. Nevertheless, as opposed to

processes implemented by machines, tasks are present in social organisational contexts.

Organisations comprise of social actors cooperating to attain a common objective that they would

not unable to accomplish in isolation. Each actor relies on fellow actors for portions of their tasks,

and therefore they are not free anymore to select their individual goals or ways in which their job

can be conducted. As a matter of fact, instead of human performance issues, evaluated normally in

terms of error and speed quantities, usability issues in interactive computerised systems should be

determined as unsatisfactory fulfilment of organisational and user goals. Simply put, one cannot

measure usability by analysing a product in isolation since usability is represented by the relation

that exists between users and system that is only identifiable in a context, and it’s not a property of

the system. Practically, ‘context’ cannot be defined easily and many all-purpose definitions are

insufficient. Some experts see context modelling as an estimation of the conceptual modelling, in

other words estimation of modelling the end user’s concepts. Dowell and Long suggest that the real

world wherein the interaction takes place must be modelled for assisting the development of

5

human-computer interaction. In their article, there is limited scope of ‘context’ and it adopts an

organisational specific-role definition. According to the approach adopted by Pimenta and Barthet

(1996), usability is regarded as existing within two interlinked contexts, namely individual context

and organisational context. The former considers only the conditions for task performing of every

user, while the latter considers both the organisational process of an enterprise with specific

category of users. In point of fact, the identification of the organisational context is seen as a

composite task and it cannot be determined from individual contexts. Therefore, Pamenta and

Barthet (1996) suggest that the idea of enterprise must be understood in a broad sense, signifying

either a restricted field of activity of the organisation or the entire organisation of concern.

Heiskari, Kauppinen, Runonen and Mannisto (2009) attempted to bridge the gap between

usability and requirements engineering. They state that usability and requirement engineering are

mechanisms through which users’ needs are discovered, analyzed, and fulfilled (Heiskari et. al,

2009:303). Requirement Engineering (R.E.) and usability engineering may have substantial economic

effects in software development applications. The foremost part of developing a software project is

to get the requirements right, while requirements issues are fatal and costly to majority of systems

and software product companies. Usability engineering is not just beneficial for the end user;

enhancing usability also decreases the cost of training, development, software documentation,

support and maintenance. For successfully delivering from the processes, requirements as well as

usability engineering domains are associated with their own group of practices and activities.

In practical applications, separate management and control of user-driven design and

system development processes is a tough task. An array of approaches have been proposed

regarding how improvements in usability must be prepared or applied for integrating it into the

system development phase. One such strategy is to devise an individual usability function which is

tightly coordinated to and powerfully dedicated to the product organisations. Moreover, while

incorporating usability within the system design phase, experts suggest prior emphasis to be placed

on end users and tasks, iterative design rationales, and empirical calculations. Even so, this

integration process is not a simple task and involves several challenges. Firstly, from the beginning

itself insertion of additional methods within a software development organisation is a delicate issue.

Secondly, user-driven design methods are reported to remain the area of interest for individual

usability sections, visionaries, software developers, and large companies, instead of the daily

practice of software practitioners. When infixing usability within a product development company,

one must chiefly behave as a change agent. The role of usability experts is highly crucial whether the

aim is to resolve the challenges or to introduce usability within an organisation.

6

By means of a case study carried out in two software firms, Heiskari, et al. (2009) aim to present the

primary job and responsibilities of usability experts in the requirements engineering process or RE.

Individual usability teams are either functioning in development projects or giving technical guidance

and support for the complete development organisation. RE is seen as a field with more foresighted

traditions in the two companies engaged in the study. From the collected evidence in the research,

Heiskari, et al. (2009) detected a gap between the requirements and usability engineering functions

within the two firms. They found that usability experts do not hold a pivotal position in the R.E.

process. Based on the explored tasks of usability experts, Heiskari, et al. (2009) present discussions

and solutions on how this gap can be bridged so as “to bring usability an integrated part of the

overall system development” (Heiskari et al., 2009: 303). This urges one to view usability as a more

comprehensive feature of a product rather than only a UI design. It was concluded that giving

appropriate usability training to the entire development organisation was an ultimate approach to

accomplish this goal; however, extra mechanisms of supporting the overlap of requirements and

usability engineering in real world are necessary. Looije, Brake and Neerincx (2007) suggest usability

engineering as a technique to develop maps for mobile applications. Several mobile phone

applications have in-built maps; however, since interaction amongst these maps could get

labourious, using the applications become difficult. The researchers review the previous study

conducted to resolve out environmental, technical and societal obstacles for mobile map usage.

They also talk about interaction, adaptive user support, and visualisation for maps on mobile

devices. Usually, mobile map applications are coded and tested on desktop computers due to the

troubles of testing in real world settings. In-depth usability testing is essential due to the fact that

the environment wherein mobile devices are used is very intricate. The success of services and

products that are developed on information and communication technology is determined by

usability to some extent. According to Looije, et al (2007: 536), Usability engineering is said to be a

way of developing software applications that are usable, efficient, and impactful, and is supportive of

three primary principles:

1. Early and consistent emphasis on end user and tasks

2. Empirical measurement

3. Iterative design

Usability engineering is an excellent design approach for a usable map on mobiles. It is indispensable

to do mobile testing particularly while the end user is not stationary, which adds more challenges to

the evaluation. According to the task and application, usability may be different for different

situations and operational environments. Therefore, the choice amongst field experiment or

laboratory experimentation is far from essential for mobile devices. Interestingly, the task of using

7

the mobile map comes secondary while the primary task is of route planning or searching for a

nearby mall. This primary task shapes the way of using the map application. The device needs to

have a higher level of fidelity and the simulation of the primary task must be realistic manner too.

Zhang and Adipat (2005) provide an insight into the challenges of usability testing for mobile devices

and state that they are similar to those of the design challenges for mobile applications, including:

1. Connectivity

2. Mobile context

3. Small screen size

4. Varying display resolution

5. Limited processing Power and capability

6. Varying data entry methods

A good example of such challenges is that low screen display resolutions are likely to have disastrous

consequences on a mobile application’s usability. Several frameworks and approaches have been

proposed for mobile device usability testing. Each of these frameworks is associated with a doubt

about whether the usability test will be done in the field or in the lab, and whether end users or

experts will be employed. Lab tests are ideal for enhancement of the UI design which necessitates

the use of the real device or an emulator. On the contrary, field-testing is more proper for testing of

the final application. Streefkerk, Esch-Bussemakers and Neerincx (2006) devised framework is an

extension of the framework of Zhang and Adipat (2005). The extended version not just provides

instructions about which experimental method mechanism to adopt, but also constraints on when to

use a chosen experimental method.

Webb, Balasubramanium, OBroin and Webb (2012) felt the need to communicate

information more efficiently and speedily to end-users. Their work involves creation and use of

Comics as user assistance, which are easy to develop using free and online applications. It was

observed that respondents of their study could grasp information more effectively via comic strips as

compared to the Powerpoint presentations. The scholars concluded that comics play a vital role in

creating information like participant study guidelines and can become an engaging tool for usability

professionals. Johnson and Henderson (2012) talk about how growing number companies are

developing poor interactive applications and services with negligible or no knowledge of how things

could be done better, in comparison to those seen thirty years ago. Certainly, the areas and domains

of HCI, usability and interaction design have dramatically advanced and matured over the years. UI

design is a thing of the past and is not practiced exclusively in the industrialised world. The

researchers claim that majority of software engineers concentrate chiefly on software technology.

8

They ignore the importance of interaction between users and technology and fail to consider

interaction as a vital part of design efforts. Hence, irrespective of the progress of the areas of HCI,

usability, and interaction design, the associated knowledge cannot be accessed by people who wish

to make their products usable.

Another study conducted by Kumin, et al. (2012), involved the evaluation of usability of multi-touch

tablet devices by persons with Down syndrome to be applied for workplace-linked activities. The

study, involving ten adults with Down syndrome, revealed that adults with Down syndrome could

easily perform office related tasks using multi-touch-screen devices. It was observed that respondent

performance was driven by formal computer training. However, password usability was an obstacle

for adults with Down syndrome. Computer literacy and Information technology has been highlighted

as key workplace skills for individuals having Down syndrome, and software practitioners must focus

on understanding how such adults use technology. Study presented by Ravendran, MacColl and

Dochert (2011) reported the results of a comparative usability evaluation of a tag-based UI and the

existing traditional interface applied to the Australian banking sector. The traditional interface

contains basic HTML objects like dropdown boxes, tables, and lists, with little customization facility,

while the tag-based interface employs user-defined tags to banking resources having various

customization options. The study involved 30 online banking participants who conducted a series of

tasks on both interfaces. The results indicated that the tag-based interface showed better

performance in efficiency, user satisfaction, and effectiveness, in mobile and online contexts. The

case study concluded that tag-based interface can play a crucial role in enhancing user satisfaction of

mobile and online banking.

A similar study was conducted by Siegenthaler, et al. (2012) which involved the study of how

usability of electronic reading devises was impacted by the touch-screen technology. The usability of

a device is a critical factor for perceived legibility. Ease of handling a device influences a user’s

overall reading experience, and the ‘touch-screen’ facility is one such crucial feature of a device. This

study compared three devices with varying specifications: two e-readers with e-ink display and one

tablet personal computer (PC) equipped with a backlit LCD (liquid crystal display). Siegenthaler, et al.

(2012) observed participants who were asked to complete use-case scenarios for every device, and

rate them in terms of their usability of design, navigation, and user-friendliness. It was found that

the touch-screen feature of a device permits the user to interact more easily and intuitively and

navigation of a touch-screen device was seen to be enhanced than those without a touch-screen

feature. Wentz and Lazar (2011) evaluated usability of web-based and desktop email applications

used by blind end-users. To determine usability barriers facing blind users using email applications,

15 blind participants were asked to test seven commonly utilized email applications. The results

9

identified many ways of improving email applications to enable blind users to use them with ease.

The findings of the study must be undertaken by employers while deciding on the type of email

application they will employ in the company. On similar lines, Lazar, Olalere and Wentz (2012)

investigated the usability and accessibility of job portals for blind users. The experts stated that

previous research involved automated tools or expert reviews for assessing the accessibility of

online job applications. 16 blind, screen-reader users attempted to apply for employment on

websites. Overall 32 applications were submitted, two for every 16 companies in United States.

Similar to the previous study, this study revealed that several online job application processes were

inaccessible to disabled or blind users, and when faced with accessibility problem, the users would

seek expert assistance. Only 28.1% of successful application submission was recorded. The report

explains the barriers of usability testing, and details the most common issues for blind users and

those linked to usability. The report suggests introduction of features like clear hyperlink text, well-

structured website layout, logical series of queries, accessibly feedback, distinctly named data

format, etc. in core website development of companies for ensuring that online job application can

be accessed and used by disabled applicants as well. According to Henderson and Harris (2012), with

shrinking of development cycles and communication with end-users becoming easier and more

enhanced, the user experience community are likely to build devices and products as a result of

collaboration amongst developers and users. Open source software, blogs, social media, wikis are

already established products based on such collaboration. The scholars believed that changes in

product development must change the current role of the designer in that they ought to collaborate

with end-users to support and curate changes, and above all, furnish the means for end-users to

collectively achieve enough convergence to be able to fulfil their interacting prerequisites.

Moreover, Henderson and Harris (2012: 54) advocated that the “role of design is to accelerate

evolution” and while evolution occurs in all directions, the designer must accelerate the coordination

of those directions, in order to bring coherence where needed.

McLellan, Muddimer and Peres (2012) studied the ways in which user experience has an effect on

System Usability Scale (SUS) ratings. The researchers note that long-term studies involve testing over

time and consider a product’s earlier user experiences. Nonetheless, conducting these forms of

studies is no longer easy. Hence, there is limited literature on instances of actual impact of user

experience on “user satisfaction metrics” within industry-standard study tools. McLellan, et al.

(2012) led research in 2009 made use of a cross-sectional technique to observe the effects of user

profiles on commercial product ratings which employed one such tool, the System Usability Scale or

SUS. Based on this finding, their latest research study reported that variations in user ratings might

be based on the level of a user’s previous experience with an IT system, a website visited or the use

10

of a desktop application. The study involved data collection from 262 end-users from various

geographic locations to test two linked oilfield product versions, one desktop-based and one web-

based. The study identified that end-users who had broader experience with a product provided

better SUS ratings over users of limited or no experience with the same product; similar to the

results of previous testing studies.

The changing role of HCI practitioners working in industry since the last 25 years was depicted in the

article written by Karat and Karat (2011). The article is a personal perspective of the researchers who

peek into the future of HCI research, determine emerging trends in the industrial HCI research

environment, and offer insight into their personal experiences on work in IT research and

development, which included being team members to collaborate on HCI research projects at IBM

(International Business Machines Corporation) research through 15 years.

Article developed by Bergstrom, et al. (2011) illustrates the challenges and benefits of working in

collaboration with engineers and designers while carrying out iterative usability testing while

designing a Website. The course of usability testing was conducted four times with the help of

elements of increasing reality to depict the UI of a government website, i.e. 1st iteration: low-fidelity

paper prototypes; 2nd iteration: medium-fidelity, non-clickable HTML images; 3rd and 4th iteration:

high-fidelity, partially-clickable Web pages. Usability increased in the first three rounds of testing,

but declined in the fourth iteration. Through iterative testing, evaluators could gather qualitative

and quantitative data from end-users, tackle usability problems, and test new and advanced designs

in the design process. Usability evaluators/ testers ought to include several iterations in their test

agenda since iterative testing is an effective and productive instrument to identify usability problems

and address them efficiently.

Ryu, Koh, Ryu and Um (2011) evaluated the usability of a touch-less mouse or T-mouse for non-

contact action-based inputs into a computer system, via infrared proximity sensing technique. The T-

less mouse is a Human-Machine Interface (HMI) device, used by making only finger gestures without

making any contact with any surface or device. The T-less mouse was evaluated in accordance with

the testing procedures and standards for assessing computer pointing devices. It was compared to a

traditional mouse through data collection and statistical methods. The authors found the average

completion time was longer, and number of errors was not very high with T-less mouse, contrary to

traditional mouse. Most of the respondents stated that T-less mouse could be usable in special

situations where traditional mouse usage would prove useless.

On the other hand, work of Toivonen, Choi and Nevala (2011) involved the testing of the ergonomics

and usability of a mobile workstation prototype when applied in real work scenarios. To adhere to

11

the aim of this study, health care providers were made to test the mobile workstation during and

after hospital rounds where patient information was to be stored in electronic format effectively.

The study generated 19 requirements for a usable product. Additionally, the subjects marked screen

height, wheel operation, the mobility and adjustability of the terminal, as the best usability

characteristics of the prototype. However, the areas which needed improvement were the mouse

level, the keyboard positioning, and the installation of the machine into the terminal. The design

development was the result of the subjective outputs and judgements given by doctors and nurses

regarding the usability of a mobile workstation. Perry, et al. (2011) report on the outcomes of a

usability study involving 5 commercially accessible programmable thermostats (PTs). The study aims

at developing four new metrics to be applied in the evaluation of thermostat usability. Lack of

usability was detected in the current generation of PTs and the metric were correlated with each

other by complying with the qualitative outcomes of the study. The study was based on the fact 9%

of the energy usage of American residents were controlled by residential thermostats. There was

need to the installation of PTs due to their energy saving feature. However, many recent studies

indicate neither any significant energy saving nor higher energy usage in residents using PTs. Hence,

usability problems were revealed that led to improper energy use and wastage, which in turn

indicated the need for metrics applicable to PTs that PT manufacturers can use for evaluating their

products (Perry et al., 2011).

Keselman, et al. (2011) examined the ways of adaptation, expansion, and modification of current

Web measures of Internet performance, Internet usage, usability, and end-user feedback, for virtual

life or Second Life. Second Life is an online virtual world where users interact with each other and

the virtual environment through graphical characters. Several government and academic companies

build applications on the Second Life platform for supporting education and information outreach.

This gives rise to an increasing need for evaluation methods for Second Life applications. The area of

Web evaluation is advanced and has the potential to supply metric, techniques and instruments

adaptable to Second Life. The study utilized two facilitated expert board discussion, after which an

empirical pilot-test of the discussion outcomes were conducted (Keselman et al., 2011).

In another study, Faulkner and Hayton (2011) conducted an experiment conducted on the layout of

navigational panels or menus on a typical website. A group of students built a website, after which

two identical versions of the same site were developed- one with menus on the right and other with

menus on the left. Subjects were made to use one particular version of the site, and answer a short

survey hereafter. The second version was kept out of access. The study indicated that there was no

substantial time savings in applying the rule of positioning menus on the left-hand side of the

website, while there may be benefits of placing menus on the right hand of a website (Faulkner and

12

Hayton, 2011). Coursaris and Kim (2011) present an adapted usability evaluation model and apply it

to a mobile computing environment. A qualitative meta-analytical review was conducted via this

model, of over 100 empirical mobile usability studies. The outcomes of the qualitative study

included: contextual factors examined, and the core and peripheral dimensions evaluated. The result

also included primary findings in terms of a research plan for the next mobile usability research, such

as

1. Under-utilization of open and amorphous tasks

2. Further investigation needed in the field of interaction impact between complexity and

interactivity

3. With increase in research on accessibility, usability of services and products may be

improved

4. The study of new technology and environmental factors will offer in-depth contextual

mobile usability understanding

5. Knowledge of the hedonic factors affecting the aesthetic aspect of a mobile device or

service, as well as usability.

6. High scope of research in the area of neuroscience in mobile usability.

The article also discusses several other detailed findings (Coursaris and Kim, 2011).

Although usability testing and usability evaluation has emerged as a crucial instrument in artifact

assessment, there is very limited knowledge on what exactly happens to usability data when it

travels between usability session and usability report. Friess (2011) presents an ethnographic study

wherein he investigates various forms of languages utilized by usability evaluators in user-driven

usability testing sessions as against the language adopted by novice usability evaluators in oral

reporting of that usability testing session. The consistency and persistence of the usability testing

data is assessed, within the view of each tester undertaking “do-it-yourself” usability testing. With a

few participants, this case study advocates that the outcomes of oral usability reports might or might

not be confirmed in the evaluations themselves, that explicit biases could impact the presentation of

the report’s findings, and that more extensive investigations are warranted (with respect to both

methodologies and populations. Another contribution in the field of Usability Engineering was made

by Owens, Chaparro and Palmer (2011). Their research is based on banner blindness, the

phenomenon of website users who actively ignore web manners. The concept of banner blindness

was expanded to text advert blindness to analyze the effects of advert placement and search type on

the level of blindness. The study discovered that eye-tracking and performance analysis showed that

end-users missed information in text adverts on the right side of the webpage more commonly than

in text adverts placed at the top of the webpage. Performance and eye-tracking measures were also

13

affected by search types (semantic or exact). Respondent search criteria varied according to search

type and whether or not the top region of the webpage was considered as an advertisement or

relevant information (Owens et al., 2011).

Vaughan (2011) talks about how to ‘sell’ User Experience (UX) and gives a personalized view on their

experience on working for a mature user experience company. The article reveals how a company’s

sales department can greatly benefit from accurately positioning UX with clients. One needs to

understand customers’

purchase motivations

technical soundness

previous relation with the company

career aspirations, and

Organizational relations within their own enterprise. These dimensions play a pivotal role in

UX positioning.

In another such article, Turner (2011) presents a strategic approach to metrics for designers of UX.

UX designers made to warrant return-on-investment (ROI) for OX activities usually depend on

published ROI literature and UX metrics which fail to address concerns of decision makers. Even with

limited knowledge of business strategy and metrics, and by realizing their own value to a company,

UX designers can

1. Determine non-financial and financial metrics and goals influencing change in their company

2. Depict a clear picture to decision makers about the connection between their value and

organization goals, and

3. Establish a positive ROI in UX activities

Lastly, UX practitioners are recommended to use the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) approach to

understand the ways of aligning their activities to company goals.

Hocko (2011) presents a case study based on the contributions of the author to an enterprise-wide

implementation of Microsoft Sharepoint. In early 2008, the IT department of Hocko (2011) began to

consider development of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) products in place of traditionally

developed applications. This decision made it essential for the evolution of the responsibilities of

usability practitioners to participate in incorporating the user-centred design practices within both

COTS evaluation as well as COTS implementations. The case study demonstrates a few challenges

faced by the author and the lessons learned.

14

Bibliography

Artim, J., van Harmelen, M., Butler, K., Gulliksen, J., Henderson, A., Kovacevic, S., Lu, S., Overmyer, S.,

Reaux, R., Roberts, D, Tarby, J-C., and Linden, K.V. 1998. Incorporating work, process and task

analysis into industrial object-oriented systems development. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 30(4).

Bergstrom, J. R., Olmsted-Hawala, E. L., Chen, J. M. and Murphy, E. D. 2011. Conducting Iterative

Usability Testing on a Web Site: Challenges and Benefits. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(1), pp. 9-30.

Constantine, L.L. and Lockwood, L.A.D. 1999. Software for Use: A Practical Guide to the Models and

Methods of Usage-Centred Design. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Coursaris, K. C. and Kim, D. J. 2011. A Meta-Analytical Review of Empirical Mobile Usability Studies.

Journal of Usability Studies, 6(3), pp. 117-171.

Faulkner, X. and Hayton, C. 2011. When Left might Not Be Right. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(4),

pp. 245-256.

Friess, E. 2011. Discourse Variations Between Usability Tests and Usability Reports. Journal of

Usability Studies, 6(3), pp. 102-116.

Heiskari, J., Kauppinen, M., Runonen, M. and Mannisto, T. 2009. Bridging the Gap between Usability

and Requirements Engineering. 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp.

303-308.

Henderson, A. and Harris, J. 2012. Curating Evolution. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(2), pp. 51-55.

Holzinger, A. 2005. Usability Engineering Methods for Software Developers. Communications of the

ACM, 48(1), pp. 71-74.

15

Hocko, J. 2011. User-Centered Design in Procured Software Implementations. Journal of usability

studies, 6(2), pp. 60-74.

Jacobson, I. 1994. Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. Addison-

Wesley Object Technology Series. Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.

Jarke, M. 1999. Scenarios for Modelin. Communications of the ACM, 42(1).

Johnson, J. and Henderson, A. 2012. Usability of Interactive Systems: It will get worse before it gets

better. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(3), pp. 88-93.

Karat, C. and Karat, J. 2011. Industrial HCI Research: A Personal and Professional Perspective. Journal

of Usability Studies, 7(1), pp. 1-8.

Keselman, A., Cid, V., Perry, M., Steinberg, C., Wood, F. B. and Elliot, R. S. 2011. Adapting Web 1.0

Evaluation Techniques for E-govenment in Second Life. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(4), pp. 204-

225.

Krutchen, P. 1999. Use Case Storyboards in the Rational Unified Process. Workshop on Integrating

Human Factors in Use Case and 00 Methods. 12th European Conference on Object-Oriented

Programming. Lisbon, Portugal 14-20 June 1999.

Kumin, L., Lazar, J., Feng, J. H., Wentz, B. and Ekedebe, N. 2012. A Usability Evaluation of Workplace-

related Tasks on a Multi-Touch Tablet Computer by Adults with Down Syndrome. Journal of Usability

Studies, 7(4), pp. 118-142.

Lazar, J., Olalere, A. and Wentz. B. 2012. Investigating the Accessibility and Usability of Job

Application Web Sites for Blind Users. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(2), 68-87.

Looije, R., Brake, G. M. and Neerincx, M.A. 2007. Usability Engineering for Mobile Maps. Proc. of the

4th Intl. Conf. on Mobile Technology, Applications and Systems, pp. 532-539.

16

Mayhew, D.J. 1999. The Usability Engineering Lifecycle: A Practitioner’s Handbook for User Interface

Design. Morgan Kaufmanns Publishers.

McLellan, S., Muddimer, A. and Peres, S. C. 2012. The Effect of Experience on System Usability Scale

Ratings. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(2), pp. 56-67.

Nunes, N. 1999. A bridge too far: Can UML finally help bridge the gap?. Proceedings of INTERACT’99

Doctoral Consortium. Edinburgh, Scotland.

Owens, J., Chaparro, B. S. and Palmer, E. M. 2011. Text Advertising Blindness: The New Banner

Blindness?. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(3), pp. 172-197.

Pimenta, M. and Barthet, M. 1996. Context Modelling for a Usability Oriented Approach to

Interactive Systems Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 315-321.

Perry, D., Aragon, C., Meier, A., Peffer, T. and Pritoni, M. 2011. Making Energy Savings Easier:

Usability Metrics for Thermostats. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(4), pp. 226-244.

Ravendran, R., MacColl, I. and Docherty, M. 2011. Usability Evaluation of a Tag-based Interface.

Journal of Usability Studies, 7(4), pp. 143-160.

Rosson, M. B. 1999. Integrating Development of Tasks and Object Models. Communications of the

ACM, 42(1).

Ryu, Y., Koh, D. H., Ryu, D. and Um, D. 2011. Usability Evaluation of Touchless Mouse Based on

Infrared Proximity Sensing. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(1), pp. 31 – 39.

Seffah, A., Djouab, R. and Antunes, H. 2001. Comparing and Reconciling Usability-Centered and Use

Case-Driven Requirements Engineering Processes. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 132-139.

17

Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Wurtz, P., Schmid, L. and Bergamin, P. 2012. The Effects of Touch Screen

Technology on the Usability of E-Reading Devices. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(3), pp. 94-104.

Streefkerk, J. W., Esch-Bussemakers, M. P. and Neerincx, M. A. 2006. Designing personal attentive

user interfaces in the mobile public safety domain. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, pp. 749-770.

Toivonen, R., Choi, D. and Nevala, N. 2011. Ergonomics Product Development of a Mobile

Workstation for Health Care. Journal of Usability Studies, 7 (1), pp. 40-50.

Turner, C. W. 2011. A Strategic Approach to Metrics for User Experience Designers. Journal of

Usability Studies, 6(2), pp. 52-59.

Vaughan, M. W. 2011. Tough Sell: Selling User Experience. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(2), pp. 48-

51.

Wixon, D. 2011. The Unfulfilled Promise of Usability Engineering. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(4),

pp. 198-203.

Webb, E. N., Balasubramanian, G., OBroin, U. and Webb, J. M. 2012. Journal of Usability Studies,

7(3), 105-117.

Wentz, B. and Lazar, J. 2011. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(2), pp. 75-89.

Zhang, D. and Adipat, B. 2005. Challenges, Methodologies, and Issues in the Usability Testing of

Mobile Applications. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 18, pp. 293-308.