chapter

Inspection-based evaluations

Authors:

Gilbert Cockton,

Darryn Lavery,

Alan WoolrychAuthors Info & Claims

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

January 2002

Pages 1118 - 1138

Published: 01 January 2002 Publication History

Abstract

No abstract available.

References

[1]

Apple Computer, I. (1992). Macintosh human interface guidelines. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[2]

Bastien, J. M. C., & Scapin, D. L. (1995). Evaluating a user interface with ergonomic criteria. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 105-121.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[3]

Bellotti, V. M. E. (1990). A framework for assessing applicability of HCI techniques. In D. Diaper, D. Gilmore, G. Cockton, & B. Shackel (Eds.), Proceedings of IFIP INTERACT '90: Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 213-218). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[4]

Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[5]

Cockton, G., & Lavery, D. (1999). A framework for usability problem extraction. In M. A. Sasse & C. Johnson (Eds.), IFIP INTERACT "99: Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 344-352). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Google Scholar

[6]

Cockton, G., & Woolrych, A. (2001). Understanding inspection methods: Lessons from an assessment of heuristic evaluation. In A. Blandford & J. Vanderdonckt (Eds.), People and computers XV (pp. 171-192). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Google Scholar

[7]

Connell, I. W., & Hammond, N. V. (1999). Comparing usability evaluation principles with heuristics: Problem instances vs. problem types. In M. A. Sasse & C. Johnson (Eds.), IFIP INTERACT '99: Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 621-629). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Google Scholar

[8]

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Google Scholar

[9]

Cuomo, D. L., & Bowen, C. D. (1992). Stages of user activity model as a basis for user-system interface evaluations. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 1254-1258). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[10]

Cuomo, D. L., & Bowen, C. D. (1994). Understanding usability issues addressed by three user-system interface evaluation techniques. Interacting with Computers, 6, 86-108.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[11]

deSouza, F.D., & Bevan, N. (1990). The use of guidelines in menu interface design: Evaluation of a draft standard. In D. Diaper, D. Gilmore, G. Cockton, & B. Shackel (Eds.), Proceedings of IFIP INTERACT '90: Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 435-440). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[12]

Desurvire, H. W., Kondziela, J. M., & Atwood, M. E. (1992). What is gained and lost when using evaluation methods other than empirical testing. In A. Monk, D. Diaper, & M. D. Harrison (Eds.) Proceedings of the HCI '92 Conference on People and Computers VII (pp. 89-102). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[13]

Dutt, A., Johnson, H., & Johnson, P. (1994). Evaluating evaluation methods. In G. Cockton, S. W. Draper, & G. R. S. Weir (Eds.), People and computers IX. Proceedings of BCS HCI 94 (pp. 109-121). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[14]

Franzke, M. (1995). Turning research into practice: Characteristics of display-based interaction. In I. Katz, R. Mack, & L. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI '95 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 421-428). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[15]

Gram, C., & Cockton, G. (1996). Design principles for interactive software. London: Chapman & Hall.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[16]

Gray, W. D., John, B. E., & Atwood, M. E. (1992). The precis of Project Ernestine, or, an overview of a validation of GOMS. In P. Bauersfeld, J. Bennett, & G. Lynch (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI '92 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 307-312). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[17]

Gray, W. D., & Salzman, M. (1998). Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 203-261.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[18]

Green, T. R. G., & Petre, M. (1996). Usability analysis of visual programming environments: A "cognitive dimensions" framework. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 7, 131-174.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[19]

Jeffries, R. (1994). Usability problem reports: Helping evaluators communicate effectively with developers. In J. Nielsen & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 273-294). New York: John Wiley.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[20]

Jeffries, R., Miller, J. R., Wharton, C., & Uyeda, K. M. (1991). User interface evaluation in the real world: A comparison of four techniques. In S. P. Robertson, G. M. Olson, & J. S. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI '91 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 119-124). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[21]

John, B. E., & Marks, S.J. (1997). Tracking the effectiveness of usability evaluation methods. Behaviour and Information Technology, 16, 188-202.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[22]

John, B. E., & Mashyna, M. M. (1997). Evaluating a multimedia authoring tool.Journal of the American Society of Information Systems, 48, 1004-1022.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[23]

John, B. E., &Packer, H. (1995). Learning and using the cognitive walk-through method: A case study approach. In I. Katz, R. Mack, & L. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI '95 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 429-436). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[24]

Johnson, H. (1997). Generating user requirements from discount usability evaluations. In D. Harris (Ed.), Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics (Vol. 2, pp. 339-357). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

Google Scholar

[25]

Karat, C., Campbell, R., & Fiegel, T. (1992). Comparison of empirical testing and walkthrough methods in user interface evaluation. In P. Bauersfeld, J. Bennett, & G. Lynch (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI '92 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 397-404). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[26]

Lavery, D., & Cockton, G. (1997a). Cognitive Walkthrough: Usability evaluation materials (Technical Report TR-1997-20). Department of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, Scotland.

Google Scholar

[27]

Lavery, D., & Cockton, G. (1997b). Representing predicted and actual usability problems. In H. Johnson, P. Johnson, & E. O'Neill (Eds.), Proceedings of International Workshop on Representations in Interactive Software Development (pp. 97-108). London: Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London.

Google Scholar

[28]

Lavery, D., Cockton, G., & Atkinson, M. (1996a). Analytic usability evaluation materials. Retrieved May 2002 from http://www.cet. sunderland.ac.uk/~csOgco/asp.htm

Google Scholar

[29]

Lavery, D., Cockton, G., & Atkinson, M. (1996b). Cognitive dimensions: Usability evaluation materials (Technical Report TR-1996-17). Department of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, Scotland.

Google Scholar

[30]

Lavery, D., Cockton, G., & Atkinson, M. (1996c). Heuristic evaluation for software visualisation: Usability evaluation materials (Technical Report TR-1996-16). Department of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, Scotland.

Google Scholar

[31]

Lavery, D., Cockton, G., & Atkinson, M. (1996d). Heuristic evaluation: Usability evaluation materials (Technical Report TR-1996-15). Department of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, Scotland.

Google Scholar

[32]

Lavery, D., Cockton, G., & Atkinson, M. (1997). Comparison of evaluation methods using structured usability problem reports. Behaviour and Information Technology, 16, 246-266.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[33]

Lewis, C., Polson, P., Wharton, C., & Rieman, J. (1990). Testing a walk-through methodology for theory-based design of walk-up-and-use interfaces. In J. Carrasco & J. Whiteside (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI '90 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 235-242). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[34]

Lewis, C., & Wharton, C. (1997). Cognitive walkthroughs. In M. Helander, T. K. Landauer, & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (2nd ed., pp. 717-732). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Google Scholar

[35]

Mack, R., & Montaniz, F. (1994). Observing, predicting and analyzing usability problems. In J. Nielsen & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 295-339). New York: John Wiley.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[36]

Martin, J., Chapman, K. K., & Leben, J. (1991). Systems application architecture: Common user access. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[37]

Microsoft Corp. (1999). Microsoft Windows user experience. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[38]

Molich, R., & Nielsen, J. (1990). Improving a human-computer dialogue. Communications of the ACM, 33, 338-342.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[39]

Muller, M. J., McClard, A., Bell, B., Dooley, S., Meiskey, L., MesKill, J. A., Sparks, R., & Tellam, D. (1995). Validating an extension to participatory heuristic evaluation: Quality of work and quality of life. In I. Katz, R. Mack, & L. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI '95 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Conference Companion) (pp. 115-116). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[40]

Nielsen, J. (1990). Paper versus computer implementations as mockup scenarios for heuristic evaluation. In D. Diaper, D. Gilmore, G. Cockton, & B. Shackel (Eds.), Proceedings of IFIP INTERACT '90: Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 315-320). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[41]

Nielsen, J. (1992). Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. In P. Bauersfeld, J. Bennett, & G. Lynch (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI '92 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 373-380). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[42]

Nielsen, J. (1993a). Iterative user-interface design. IEEE Computer, 26, 32-41.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[43]

Nielsen, J. (1993b). Usability engineering. New York: Academic Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[44]

Nielsen, J. (1994). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. In B. Adelson, S. Dumais, & J. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI '94 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 152-158). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[45]

Nielsen, J. (1995). Getting usability used. in K. Nordby, P. Helmersen, D. Gilmore, & S. Arnesen (Eds.), Proceedings of INTERACT '95: IFIP TC13 Fifth International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 3-12). London: Chapman & Hall.

Google Scholar

[46]

Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In J. Carrasco & J. Whiteside (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI '90 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 249-256). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[47]

Norman, D. A. (1986). Cognitive engineering. In D. A. Norman & S. W. Draper (Eds.), User centered system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction (pp. 31-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[48]

Polson, P. G., & Lewis, C. H. (1990). Theory-based design for easily learned interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 191-220.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[49]

Polson, P. G., Lewis, C., Rieman, J., & Wharton, C. (1992). Cognitive Walkthroughs: A method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36, 741-773.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[50]

Reed, P., Holdaway, K., Isensee, S., Buie, E., Fox, J., williams, J., & Lund, A. (1999). User interface guidelines and standards: Progress, issues, and prospects. Interacting With Computers, 12, 119-142.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[51]

Rieman, J., Davies, S., Hair, D. C., Esemplare, M., Polson, P., & Lewis, C. (1991). An automated Cognitive Walkthrough. In S. P. Robertson, G. M. Olson, & J. S. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI '91 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 427-428). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[52]

Rosenbaum, S., Rohn, J. A., & Humburg, J. (2000). A toolkit for strategic usability: Results from workshops, panels, and surveys. In R. Little & L. Nigay (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 337-344). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[53]

Rowley, D. E., & Rhoades, D. G. (1992). The Cognitive Jogthrough: A fast-paced user interface evaluation procedure. in P. Bauersfeld, J. Bennett, & G. Lynch (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI '92 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 389-395). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[54]

Sawyer, P., Flanders, A., & Wixon, D. (1996). Making a difference-the impact of inspections. In M. J. Tauber (Ed.), Proceedings of ACM CHI '96 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems-Conference Companion (pp. 376-282). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[55]

Sears, A. (1997). Heuristic Walkthroughs: Finding the problems without the noise. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 213-234.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[56]

Sears, A., & Hess, D. (1999). Cognitive Walkthroughs: Understanding the effect of task description detail on evaluator performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 11, 185-200.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[57]

Smith, S. L., & Mosier, J. N. (1986). Guidelines for designing user interface software (Technical Report ESD-TR-86-278). Bedford, MA: MITRE Corporation.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[58]

Spencer, R. (2000). The streamlined Cognitive Walkthrough method, working around social constraints encountered in a software development company. In R. Little & L. Nigay (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 353-359). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[59]

van Schaik, P., Edwards, J., & Petrie, H. (1995). SATURN Project. Deliverable 3c: An initial evaluation of an existing ATM. Technical Report, Psychology Division, University of Hertfordshire, England

Google Scholar

[60]

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 (pp. 309-313). Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[61]

Wharton, C. (1992). Cognitive Walkthroughs: Instructions, forms and examples (Technical Report CU-ICS-#92-17). Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Google Scholar

[62]

Wharton, C., Bradford, J., Jeffries, R., &Franzke, M. (1992). Applying Cognitive Walkthroughs to more complex user interfaces: Experiences, issues, and recommendations. In P. Bauersfeld, J. Bennett. & G. Lynch (Eds.), Proceedings of ACM CHI '92 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 381-388). New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[63]

Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C., & Polson, P. (1994). The Cognitive Walkthrough: A practitioner's guide. In J. Nielsen & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods(pp. 105-140). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Bourgos NChroni AKounalaki MPapadopoulou ESkarmitzos ATriantafilli AZagota ISintoris CAvouris N(2021)On evaluating online teaching and learning experience: A usability evaluation study of synchronous teaching platformsCHI Greece 2021: 1st International Conference of the ACM Greek SIGCHI Chapter10.1145/3489410.3489435(1-7)Online publication date: 25-Nov-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3489410.3489435
Thewes FHerrmann TKluge A(2019)Validating a Heuristic Evaluation Method An Application TestProceedings of Mensch und Computer 201910.1145/3340764.3344465(593-597)Online publication date: 8-Sep-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3340764.3344465
Schmettow MBach CScapin DFitton DHorton MRead JSim G(2014)Optimizing Usability Studies by Complementary Evaluation MethodsProceedings of the 28th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference on HCI 2014 - Sand, Sea and Sky - Holiday HCI10.14236/ewic/hci2014.12(110-119)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.14236/ewic/hci2014.12
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

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

Recommendations

Perspective-based Usability Inspection: An Empirical Validationof Efficacy

Inspection is a fundamental means of achieving software usability. Past research showed that the current usability inspection techniques were rather ineffective. We developed perspective-based usability inspection, which divides the large variety of ...
SUE inspection: an effective method for systematic usability evaluation of hypermedia

SUE inspection is a novel usability evaluation method for hypermedia, which falls into the category of inspection methods. Its primary goal is to favor a systematic usability evaluation (SUE), for supplying hypermedia usability inspectors with a ...
Crowdsourcing-based multimedia subjective evaluations: a case study on image recognizability and aesthetic appeal
CrowdMM '13: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM international workshop on Crowdsourcing for multimedia

Research on Quality of Experience (QoE) heavily relies on subjective evaluations of media. An important aspect of QoE concerns modeling and quantifying the subjective notions of 'beauty' (aesthetic appeal) and 'something well-known' (content ...

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

24
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

Bourgos NChroni AKounalaki MPapadopoulou ESkarmitzos ATriantafilli AZagota ISintoris CAvouris N(2021)On evaluating online teaching and learning experience: A usability evaluation study of synchronous teaching platformsCHI Greece 2021: 1st International Conference of the ACM Greek SIGCHI Chapter10.1145/3489410.3489435(1-7)Online publication date: 25-Nov-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3489410.3489435
Thewes FHerrmann TKluge A(2019)Validating a Heuristic Evaluation Method An Application TestProceedings of Mensch und Computer 201910.1145/3340764.3344465(593-597)Online publication date: 8-Sep-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3340764.3344465
Schmettow MBach CScapin DFitton DHorton MRead JSim G(2014)Optimizing Usability Studies by Complementary Evaluation MethodsProceedings of the 28th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference on HCI 2014 - Sand, Sea and Sky - Holiday HCI10.14236/ewic/hci2014.12(110-119)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.14236/ewic/hci2014.12
Fernandez AAbrahão SInsfran E(2011)A web usability evaluation process for model-driven web developmentProceedings of the 23rd international conference on Advanced information systems engineering10.5555/2026716.2026730(108-122)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2026716.2026730
Følstad AHornbæk K(2010)Work-domain knowledge in usability evaluationJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2010.02.02683:11(2019-2030)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jss.2010.02.026
Følstad AAnda BSjøberg D(2010)The usability inspection performance of work-domain expertsInteracting with Computers10.1016/j.intcom.2009.09.00122:2(75-87)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.intcom.2009.09.001
de Menezes Ldo Nascimento Mde Queiroz JFechine JShin SOssowski S(2009)Expert system for supporting conformity inspections of software application interfaces to the ISO 9241Proceedings of the 2009 ACM symposium on Applied Computing10.1145/1529282.1529305(110-115)Online publication date: 8-Mar-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1529282.1529305
Bernonville SKolski CLeroy NBeuscart-Zéphir M(2009)First experimentation of the ErgoPNets method using dynamic modeling to communicate usability evaluation resultsProceedings of the 7th FIP WG 13.5 international conference on Human Error, Safety and Systems Development10.1007/978-3-642-11750-3_7(81-95)Online publication date: 23-Sep-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-11750-3_7
Schmettow MVietze WCzerwinski MLund ATan D(2008)Introducing item response theory for measuring usability inspection processesProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/1357054.1357196(893-902)Online publication date: 6-Apr-2008
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1357054.1357196
Frøkjær EHornbæk K(2008)Metaphors of human thinking for usability inspection and designACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/1314683.131468814:4(1-33)Online publication date: 19-Jan-2008
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1314683.1314688
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

Perspective-based Usability Inspection: An Empirical Validationof Efficacy

SUE inspection: an effective method for systematic usability evaluation of hypermedia

Crowdsourcing-based multimedia subjective evaluations: a case study on image recognizability and aesthetic appeal

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