Proposal and Preliminary Evaluation of a Usability and UX Multi-Touch Evaluation Technology
Pages 317 - 324
Abstract
Context: For multi-touch Information Systems (ISs) to reach the desired level of quality, it is necessary to have an evaluation of it. Two important quality aspects are usability and User eXperience (UX). A good assessment must take into account the specifics of the evaluated context. Problem: Through a Systematic Mapping Study (SMS), it was realized that no usability and UX evaluation technologies take into account the unique characteristics of the multi-touch context. Solution: To solve this gap, the User eXperience and Usability Multi-touch Evaluation Technology (UXUMEQ) was proposed. IS Theory: To fulfill this gap, UXUMEQ was based on Design Theory, which concerns the development and refinement of an artifact. Method: The usability and UX aspects and the evaluation technologies found in the SMS results were selected and evaluated to compose the UXUMEQ. The questions of evaluation technologies found considered relevant were filtered and adapted for the multi-touch context. Results: Therefore, the purpose of UXUMEQ takes into account the specifics of multi-touch, in the form of a modular questionnaire, covering the aspects of usability and UX. Moreover, a preliminary evaluation with three experts in Human-Computer Interaction provided improvements for the UXUMEQ. Contribution: In this way, the existence of usability and UX evaluation technology of ISs that uses multi-touch interaction can contribute to reaching a better quality of this kind of system.
References
[1]
Anonymous. 2022. blank. In nowhere. 1–12.
[2]
J. Brooke. 1996. SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In Usability evaluation in industry, P. W. JORDAN and et al. (Eds.). Taylor&Francis, London, 1–7.
[3]
Ashley Colley, Jani Väyrynen, and Jonna Häkkilä. 2015. In-car touch screen interaction: Comparing standard, finger-specific and multi-finger interaction. In Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on pervasive displays. 131–137.
[4]
Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2014. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications.
[5]
Sashikanth Damaraju, Jinsil Hwaryoung Seo, Tracy Hammond, and Andruid Kerne. 2013. Multi-tap sliders: advancing touch interaction for parameter adjustment. In Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. 445–452.
[6]
Statista Research Department. 2022. Global smartphone sales to end users since 2007.
[7]
Market Data Forecast. 2022. Smartphone market size and growth.
[8]
Chi-Wing Fu, Wooi-Boon Goh, and Junxiang Allen Ng. 2010. Multi-touch techniques for exploring large-scale 3D astrophysical simulations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2213–2222.
[9]
Alexander Giesler, Dimitar Valkov, and Klaus Hinrichs. 2014. Void shadows: multi-touch interaction with stereoscopic objects on the tabletop. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM symposium on Spatial user interaction. 104–112.
[10]
Antonio Carlos Gil. 2008. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. 6. ed. Ediitora Atlas SA.
[11]
Hejar Gürlük, Malte-Levin Jauer, and Maria Uebbing-Rumke. 2014. Design and evaluation of a multi-touch interaction language for approach controllers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aerospace. 1–4.
[12]
Sandra G Hart. 1986. NASA task load index (TLX). (1986).
[13]
Marc Hassenzahl. 2004. The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Human–Computer Interaction 19, 4 (2004), 319–349.
[14]
ISO 9241-210. 2019. Ergonomics of Human System Interaction - Part 210: Human-Centered Design for Interactive Systems. International Organization for Standardization.
[15]
ISO 9241-9. 2000. Ergonomics of Human System Interaction - Part 9: Requirements for non-keyboard input devices. International Organization for Standardization.
[16]
ISO/IEC 25010. 2011. Systems and Software Engineering - SquaRE - Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation: System and Software Quality Models). International Organization for Standardization.
[17]
Giulio Jacucci, Ann Morrison, Gabriela T Richard, Jari Kleimola, Peter Peltonen, Lorenza Parisi, and Toni Laitinen. 2010. Worlds of information: designing for engagement at a public multi-touch display. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2267–2276.
[18]
Seon Joo Kim, Hongwei Ng, Stefan Winkler, Peng Song, and Chi-Wing Fu. 2012. Brush-and-drag: A multi-touch interface for photo triaging. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services. 59–68.
[19]
Sari Kujala and Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila. 2009. Value of information systems and products: Understanding the users’ perspective and values. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA) 9, 4 (2009), 4.
[20]
Arnold M Lund. 2001. Measuring usability with the use questionnaire12. Usability interface 8, 2 (2001), 3–6.
[21]
Ankita Madan and Sanjay Kumar. 2012. Usability evaluation methods: a literature review. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology 4 (02 2012).
[22]
Niamh McNamara and Jurek Kirakowski. 2006. Functionality, usability, and user experience: three areas of concern. interactions 13, 6 (2006), 26–28.
[23]
Silvana M Melo. 2009. Inspeção de software. University of São Paulo: São Carlos, SP (2009).
[24]
Walid Merrad, Alexis Héloir, Christophe Kolski, and Antonio Krüger. 2022. RFID-based tangible and touch tabletop for dual reality in crisis management context. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces 16, 1 (2022), 31–53.
[25]
Thomas Muender, Sadaab Ali Gulani, Lauren Westendorf, Clarissa Verish, Rainer Malaka, Orit Shaer, and Seth Cooper. 2019. Comparison of mouse and multi-touch for protein structure manipulation in a citizen science game interface. Journal of Science Communication 18, 1 (2019), A05.
[26]
Jakob Nielsen. 2005. Ten usability heuristics.
[27]
Max Pfeiffer, Dagmar Kern, Johannes Schöning, Tanja Döring, Antonio Krüger, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2010. A multi-touch enabled steering wheel: exploring the design space. In CHI’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3355–3360.
[28]
Richard M Ryan and Edward L Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.American psychologist 55, 1 (2000), 68.
[29]
Richard M Ryan, C Scott Rigby, and Andrew Przybylski. 2006. The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and emotion 30, 4 (2006), 344–360.
[30]
Tim Schürmann, Christina Binder, Gesche Janzarik, and Joachim Vogt. 2015. Movement transformation on multi-touch devices: Intuition or instructional preparation?Applied Ergonomics 50 (2015), 251–255.
[31]
Ben Shneiderman. 1981. Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Easier and More Productive Use of Computer Systems.(Part-II): Human Interface and the User Interface-Volume 1981. 143.
[32]
Maria Uebbing-Rumke, Hejar Gürlük, Malte-Levin Jauer, Konrad Hagemann, and Andreas Udovic. 2014. Usability evaluation of multi-touch displays for TMA controller working positions. Proceedings of the 4th SESAR Innovation Days, Madrid, Spain (2014), 25–27.
[33]
Daniel Ullrich and Sarah Diefenbach. 2010. From magical experience to effortlessness: an exploration of the components of intuitive interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries. 801–804.
[34]
Peter Vorderer, Werner Wirth, Feliz Ribeiro Gouveia, Frank Biocca, Timo Saari, Lutz Jäncke, Saskia Böcking, Holger Schramm, Andre Gysbers, Tilo Hartmann, 2004. Mec spatial presence questionnaire. Retrieved Sept 18 (2004), 2015.
[35]
Jia Wang and Robert Lindeman. 2014. Coordinated 3D interaction in tablet-and HMD-based hybrid virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM symposium on Spatial user interaction. 70–79.
[36]
David Watson and Lee Anna Clark. 1994. The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. (1994).
[37]
Benjamin Wingert, Isabel Schöllhorn, and Matthias Bues. 2017. Prodesk: An interactive ubiquitous desktop surface. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces. 366–371.
[38]
Panagiotis Zaharias, Despina Michael, and Yiorgos Chrysanthou. 2013. Learning through multi-touch interfaces in museum exhibits: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 16, 3 (2013), 374–384.
Index Terms
- Proposal and Preliminary Evaluation of a Usability and UX Multi-Touch Evaluation Technology
Recommendations
A feasibility study of usability and UX evaluation technologies in multi-touch context: A quantitative and qualitative analysis
SBES '23: Proceedings of the XXXVII Brazilian Symposium on Software EngineeringThe use of multi-touch systems has been increasing in the last few years. These systems also need to pass through an evaluation to check their quality level. For this, usability and User Experience (UX) are two important aspects. Seeking to find out ...
A systematic mapping study on usability and user eXperience evaluation of multi-touch systems
IHC '22: Proceedings of the 21st Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing SystemsA significant increase in multi-touch interactions is notable with the expanded use of smartphones, tablets, and tabletops. Multi-touch systems are software that uses the user's fingers to perform some action. These systems need evaluation before being ...
Design and evaluation of interaction models for multi-touch mice
GI '10: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2010Adding multi-touch sensing to the surface of a mouse has the potential to substantially increase the number of interactions available to the user. However, harnessing this increased bandwidth is challenging, since the user must perform multi-touch ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
May 2023
490 pages
ISBN:9798400707599
DOI:10.1145/3592813
Copyright © 2023 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: 26 June 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
SBSI '23
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 181 of 557 submissions, 32%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 46Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)24
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 20 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format