chapter

User-based evaluations

Author:

Joseph S. DumasAuthors Info & Claims

The human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications

January 2002

Pages 1093 - 1117

Published: 01 January 2002 Publication History

Abstract

No abstract available.

References

[1]

Abelow, D. (1992). Could usability testing become a built-in product feature? Common Ground, 2, 1-2.

Google Scholar

[2]

Andre, T., Williges, R., & Hartson, H. (1999). The effectiveness of usability evaluation methods: Determining the appropriate criteria. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43rd Annual Meeting (pp. 1090-1094). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[3]

Baber, C., & Stanton, N. (1996). Observation as a technique for usability evaluation. In P. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. Weerdmeester, & I. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 85-94). London: Taylor & Francis.

Google Scholar

[4]

Bailey, R. W. (1993). Performance vs. preference. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37th Annual Meeting (pp. 282-286). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[5]

Bailey, R. W., Allan, R. W., & Raiello, P. (1992). Usability testing vs. heuristic evaluation: A head-to-head comparison. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 409-413). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[6]

Barker, R. T., & Biers: D. W. (1994). Software usability testing: Do user self-consciousness and the laboratory environment make any difference? Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 38th Annual Meeting (pp. 1131-1134). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Google Scholar

[7]

Bauersfeld, K., & Halgren, S. (1996). "You've got three days!" Case studies in field techniques for the time-challenged. In D. Wixon & J. Ramey (Eds.), Field methods casebook for software design (pp. 177-196). New York: John Wiley.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[8]

Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1997). Contextual design: Designing customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[9]

Bias, R. (1994). The pluralistic usability walkthrough: Coordinated empathies. In J. Nielsen & R. Mack (Eds.), Usabilily inspection methods (pp. 63-76). New York: John Wiley.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[10]

Boren, M., & Ramey, J. (2000, September). Thinking aloud: Reconciling theory and practice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 1-23.

Google Scholar

[11]

Bowers, V., & Snyder, H. (1990). Concurrent versus retrospective verbal protocols for comparing window usability. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 1270-1274). Santa Mouica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[12]

Bradburn, N. (1983). Response effects. In R. Rossi, M. Wright, & J. Anderson (Eds.), The handbook of survey research (pp. 289-328). New York: Academic Press.

Google Scholar

[13]

Branaghan, R. (1997). Ten tips for selecting usability test participants. Common Ground, 7, 3-6.

Google Scholar

[14]

Branaghan, R. (1998). Tasks for testing documentation usability. Common Ground, 8, 10-11.

Google Scholar

[15]

Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. Weerdmeester, & I. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189-194). London: Taylor & Francis.

Google Scholar

[16]

Cantani, M. B., & Biers, D. W. (1998). Usability evaluation and prototype fidelity: Users and usability professionals. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1331-1335). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Google Scholar

[17]

Chignell, M. (1990). A taxonomy of user interface terminology. SIGCHI Bulletin, 21, 27-34.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[18]

Chin, J. P., Diehl, V. A., & Norman, K. L. (1988). Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems '88, 213-218.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[19]

Desurvire, H. W. (1994). Faster, cheaper! Are usability inspection methods as effective as empirical testing? In J. Nielsen & R. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 173-202). New York: John Wiley.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[20]

DeVries, C., Hartevelt, M., & Oosterholt, R. (1996). Private camera conversation: A new method for eliciting user responses. In P. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. Weerdmeester, & I. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 147-156). London: Taylor & Francis.

Google Scholar

[21]

Dobroth, K. (1999, May). Practical guidance for conducting usability tests of speech applications. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Voice I/O Society (AVIOS). San Diego, CA.

Google Scholar

[22]

Doll, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1988). The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction. MIS Quarterly, 12, 259-374.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[23]

Dumas, J. (1998a). Usability testing methods: Using test participants as their own controls. Common Ground, 8, 3-5.

Google Scholar

[24]

Dumas, J. (1998b). Usability testing methods: Subjective measures Part I-Creating effective questions and answers. Common Ground, 8, 5-10.

Google Scholar

[25]

Dumas, J. (1998c). Usability testing methods: Subjective measures Part II-Measuring attitudes and opinions. Common Ground, 8, 4-8.

Google Scholar

[26]

Dumas, J. (1999). Usability testing methods: When does a usability test become a research experiment? Common Ground, 9, 1-5.

Google Scholar

[27]

Dumas, J. (2000). Usability testing methods: The fidelity of the testing environment. Common Ground, 10, 3-5.

Google Scholar

[28]

Dumas, J. (2001). Usability testing methods: Think-aloud protocols. In R. Branghan (Ed.), Design by people for people: Essays on usability. Chicago: Usability Professionals' Association.

Google Scholar

[29]

Dumas, J., & Redish, G. (1993). A practical guide to usability testing. NJ: Ablex.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[30]

Dumas, J., & Redish, G. (1999). A practical guide to usability testing (Rev. ed.). London: Intellect Books.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[31]

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Google Scholar

[32]

Fisher, R. A., & Yates, F.(1963). Statistical tables for biological, agricultural and medical research. Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver & Boyd.

Google Scholar

[33]

Frokjaer, E., Hertzum, M., & Hornbaek, K. (2000). Measuring usability: Are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems '2000, 45-52.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[34]

Fu, L., Salvendy, G., & Turley, L. (1998). Who finds what in usability evaluation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1341-1345). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[35]

Gaba, D. M. (1994). Human performance in dynamic medical domains. In M. S. Bogner (Ed.), Human error in medicine (pp. 197-224). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Google Scholar

[36]

Gage, N., & Berliner, D. (1991). Educational psychology (5th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Google Scholar

[37]

Goldberg, J. H. (2000). Eye movement-based interface evaluation: What can and cannot be assessed? Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress (44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society) (pp. 625-628). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[38]

Gray, W., & Salzman, M. (1998). Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability methods {Special Issue}. Human-Computer lnteraction, 13, 203-261.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[39]

Grouse, E., Jean-Pierre, S., Miller, D., & Goff, R. (1999). Applying usability methods to a large intranet site. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43rd Annual Meeting (pp. 782-786). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[40]

Ground, C., & Ensing, A. (1999). Apple pie a-la-mode: Combining subjective and performance data in human-computer interaction tasks. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43rd Annual Meeting (pp. 1085-1089). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[41]

Hackman, G. S., & Biers, D. W. (1992). Team usability testing: Are two heads better than one? Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 1205-1209). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[42]

Hartson, H. R., Castillo, J. C., Kelso, J., Kamler, J., & Neale, W. C. (1996). Remote evaluation: The network as an extension of the usability laboratory. Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems '96, 228-235.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[43]

Hassenzahl, M. (1999). Usability engineers as clinicians. Common Ground, 9, 12-13.

Google Scholar

[44]

Hughes, M. (1999). Rigor in usability testing. Technical Communication, 46, 488-494.

Google Scholar

[45]

Igbaria, M., & Parasuraman, S. (1991). Attitudes towards microcomputers: Development and construct validation of a measure. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 553-573.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[46]

Jacobsen, N., & John, B. (1998). The evaluator effect In usability studies: Problem detection and severity judgments. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1336-1340). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[47]

Jeffries, R., Miller, J., Wharton, C., & Uyeda, K. (1991). User interface evaluation in the real world: A comparison of four techniques. Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems '91, 119-124.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[48]

Kantner, L. (20Ola). Following a fast-moving target: Recording user behavior in Web usability testing, in R. Branaghan (Ed.), Design by people for people: Essays on usability (pp. 235-244). Chicago: Usability Professional's Association.

Google Scholar

[49]

Kantner, L. (2001b). Assessing Web site usability from server log files. In R. Branaghan (Ed.), Design by people for people: Essays on usability (pp. 245-261). Chicago: Usability Professional's Association.

Google Scholar

[50]

Karat, C. M., Campbell, R., & Fiegel, T. (1992). Comparison of empirical testing and walk-through methods in user-interface evaluation. Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems '92, 397-404.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[51]

Kennedy, S. (1989). Using video in the BNR usability lab. SIGCHI Bulletin, 21, 92-95.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[52]

Kirakowski, J. (1996). The software usability measurement inventory (SUMI): Background and usage. In P. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. Weerdmeester, & I. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 169-177). London: Taylor & Francis.

Google Scholar

[53]

Kirakowski, J., & Corbett, M. (1988). Measuring user satisfaction. In D. Jones & R. Winder (Eds.), People and computers (Vol. IV, pp. 189-217). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[54]

Landauer, T. K. (1995). The trouble with computers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[55]

Landay, J. A., & Myers, B. (1995). Interactive sketching for the early stages of user interface design. Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems '95, 43-50.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[56]

Law, C. M., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (2000). Reducing sample sizes when user testing with people who have, and who are simulating disabilities-experiences with blindness and public information kiosks. Proceedings of the IDEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress, 4, 157-160. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[57]

Ledgard, H. (1982). Evaluating text editors. Proceedings of Human Factors in Computer System, 135-156.

Google Scholar

[58]

Lesaigle, E. M., &Biers, D. W. (2000). Effect of type of information or real-time usability evaluation: Implications for remote usability testing. Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress, 6, 585-588. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[59]

Lewis, J. (1991). Psychometric evaluation of an after-scenario questionnaire for computer usability studies: The ASQ. SICCHI Bulletin, 23, 78-81.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[60]

Lewis, J. (1994). Sample size for usability studies: Additional considerations. Human Factors, 36, 368-378.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[61]

Lewis, J. R. (1995). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human-Computer lnteraction, 7, 57-78.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[62]

Lister, M. (2001). Usability testing software for the Internet. Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems 2001, 3, 17-18.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[63]

Lund, A. M. (1998). The need for a standardized set of usability metrics. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 688-691). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Crossref

Google Scholar

[64]

Meister, D. (1999). The history of human factors and ergonomics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Google Scholar

[65]

Mitropoulos-Rundus, D., & Muzak, J. (1997). How to design and conduct a consumer in-home usability test. Common Ground, 7, 10-12.

Google Scholar

[66]

Molich, R., Bevan, N., Curson, I., Butler, S., Kindlund, E., Miller, D., & Kirakowski, J. (1998). Comparative evaluation of usability tests. Proceedings of the Usability Professionals'Association (pp. 1-12). Dallas, TX: Usability Professionals' Association.

Google Scholar

[67]

Molich, R., Kindlund, E., Seeley, J., Norman, K., Kaasgaard, K., Karyukina, B., Schmidt, L., Ede, M., van Oel, W., & Kahmann, R. (2002). Comparative usability evaluation. In press.

Google Scholar

[68]

Nielsen, J. (1992). Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems '92 (pp. 373-380).

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[69]

Nielsen, J., & Phillips, V. L. (1993). Estimating the relative usability of two interfaces: Heuristic, formal, and empirical methods compared. Proceedings of the Association of Computerized Machinery INTERCHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 214-221). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[70]

Olson, G., & Moran, R. (1998). Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability methods {Special Issue}. Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 203-261

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[71]

Orne, M. (1969). Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. In R. Rosenthal & R. Rosnow (Eds.), Artifact in behavioral research (pp. 143-179). New York: Academic Press.

Google Scholar

[72]

Perkins, R. (2001). Remote usability evaluation over the Internet. In R. Branaghan (Ed.), Design by people for people: Essays on usability (pp. 153-162). Chicago: Usability Professional's Association.

Google Scholar

[73]

Philips, B., & Dumas, J. (1990). Usability testing: Functional requiremerits for data logging software. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 295-299). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Google Scholar

[74]

Rubin, J. (1994). Handbook of usability testing. New York. John Wiley.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[75]

Scholtz, J., & Bouchette, D. (1995). Usability testing and group-based software: Lessons from the field. Common Ground, 5, 1-11.

Google Scholar

[76]

Shneiderman, B. (1987). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human computer interaction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[77]

Shneiderman, B. (1992). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human computer interaction (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[78]

Shneiderman, B. (1997). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human computer interaction (3rd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[79]

Skinner, B. F.(1956). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11, 221-233.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[80]

Spenkelink, G., Beuijen, K., & Brok, J. (1993). An instrument for measurement of the visual quality of displays. Behaviour and Information Technology, 12, 249-260.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[81]

Thomas, B. (1996). Quick and dirty usability tests. In P. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. Weerdmeester, & I. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 107-114). London: Taylor & Francis.

Google Scholar

[82]

Virzi, R. A. (1990). Streamlining the design process: Running fewer subjects. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 291-294). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[83]

Virzi, R. A. (1992). Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough? Human Factors, 34, 457-468.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[84]

Virzi, R. A., Sokolov, J. L., & Karis, D. (1996). Usability problem identification using both low and high fidelity prototypes. Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems '96, 236-243.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[85]

Virzi, R. A., Sorce, J. F., & Herbert, L. B. (1993). A comparison of three usability evaluation methods: Heuristic, think-aloud, and performance testing. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37th Annual Meeting, 309-313.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[86]

Vora, P. (1994). Using teaching methods for usability evaluations. Common Ground, 4, 5-9.

Google Scholar

[87]

Waters, S., Carswell, M., Stephens, R., & Selwitz, A. (2001). Research ethics meets usability testing. Ergonomics in Design, 9, 14-20.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[88]

Wichansky, A. (2000). Usability testing in 2000 and beyond. Ergonomics, 43, 998-1006.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[89]

Wiklund, M., Dumas, J., & Thurrott, C. (1992). Does the fidelity of software prototypes affect the perception of usability? Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 1207-1212). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[90]

Wilson, C. E., & Coyne, K. P. (2001). Tracking usability issues: To bug or not to bug? Interactions, 8, 15-19.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[91]

Wolf, C. G. (1989). The role of laboratory experiments in HCI: Help, hindrance or ho-hum? Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems '89, 265-268.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[92]

Young, R., & Barnard, P. (1987). The use of scenarios in HCI research: Turbo charging the tortoise of cumulative science. Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems '87, 291-296.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Han HKuai KFei G(2018)Player Experience Information Evaluation in 3D Virtual EnvironmentsProceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computer Animation and Social Agents10.1145/3205326.3205349(23-26)Online publication date: 21-May-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3205326.3205349
Eriksson CÅkesson MLund J(2016)Designing ubiquitous media servicesJournal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research10.4067/S0718-1876201600030000211:3(1-19)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4067/S0718-18762016000300002
Bahri LCarminati BFerrari E(2016)COIP—Continuous, Operable, Impartial, and Privacy-Aware Identity Validity Estimation for OSN ProfilesACM Transactions on the Web10.1145/301433810:4(1-41)Online publication date: 13-Dec-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3014338
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

User-based evaluations
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. HCI design and evaluation methods

Recommendations

Peer Evaluations: Evaluating and Being Evaluated
Peer evaluations place organizational members in a dual role: they evaluate their peers and are being evaluated by their peers. We theorize that when evaluating their peers, they anticipate how their evaluations will be perceived and adjust their ...
Heuristic evaluations at bell labs: analyses of evaluator overlap and group session
CHI EA '07: CHI '07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

In this paper we examined a set of seven heuristic evaluations with specific attention to issue identification overlap among professional heuristic evaluation reviewers. We also evaluated the effectiveness of conducting a group review.
Evaluations of user-driven ontology summarization
EKAW'10: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Knowledge engineering and management by the masses

Ontology Summarization has been found useful to facilitate ontology engineering tasks in a number of different ways. Recently, it has been recognised as a means to facilitate ontology understanding and then support tasks like ontology reuse in ontology ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

The human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications

January 2002

1310 pages

ISBN:0805838384

Editors:
Julie A. Jacko
Georgia Institute of Technology
,
Andrew Sears
UMBC

Publisher

L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 January 2002

Qualifiers

Chapter

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

26
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 17 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Han HKuai KFei G(2018)Player Experience Information Evaluation in 3D Virtual EnvironmentsProceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computer Animation and Social Agents10.1145/3205326.3205349(23-26)Online publication date: 21-May-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3205326.3205349
Eriksson CÅkesson MLund J(2016)Designing ubiquitous media servicesJournal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research10.4067/S0718-1876201600030000211:3(1-19)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.4067/S0718-18762016000300002
Bahri LCarminati BFerrari E(2016)COIP—Continuous, Operable, Impartial, and Privacy-Aware Identity Validity Estimation for OSN ProfilesACM Transactions on the Web10.1145/301433810:4(1-41)Online publication date: 13-Dec-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3014338
Hermann FSchuller AThiel SKnecht CScerri S(2013)The di.me User InterfaceProceedings, Part III, of the 15th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Users and Contexts of Use - Volume 800610.5555/2959924.2959929(29-38)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2959924.2959929
Gujrati SVasserman EBertino ESandhu RBauer LPark J(2013)The usability of truecrypt, or how i learned to stop whining and fix an interfaceProceedings of the third ACM conference on Data and application security and privacy10.1145/2435349.2435360(83-94)Online publication date: 18-Feb-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2435349.2435360
Moczarny Ide Villiers Mvan Biljon JKroeze Jde Villiers R(2012)How can usability contribute to user experience?Proceedings of the South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference10.1145/2389836.2389862(216-225)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2389836.2389862
Schoonewille HHeijstek WChaudron MKühne TProtopsaltis ASpyratos NCosta CMeghini C(2011)A cognitive perspective on developer comprehension of software design documentationProceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on Design of communication10.1145/2038476.2038517(211-218)Online publication date: 3-Oct-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2038476.2038517
Adebesin FKotzé PGelderblom HKotzé Pvan der Merwe AGerber A(2010)The complementary role of two evaluation methods in the usability and accessibility evaluation of a non-standard systemProceedings of the 2010 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists10.1145/1899503.1899504(1-11)Online publication date: 11-Oct-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1899503.1899504
Babaian TLucas WXu JTopi H(2010)Usability through system-user collaborationProceedings of the 5th international conference on Global Perspectives on Design Science Research10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_27(394-409)Online publication date: 4-Jun-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-13335-0_27
Drachen ACanossa AKapralos BHogue AMahoney RRaynovitch J(2009)Analyzing user behavior via gameplay metricsProceedings of the 2009 Conference on Future Play on @ GDC Canada10.1145/1639601.1639613(19-20)Online publication date: 12-May-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1639601.1639613
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Login options

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

Abstract

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Peer Evaluations: Evaluating and Being Evaluated

Heuristic evaluations at bell labs: analyses of evaluator overlap and group session

Evaluations of user-driven ontology summarization

Comments

Information

Published In

Publisher

Publication History

Qualifiers

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View options

Login options

Full Access

Figures

Other

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations