Tag Archives: methodology
Russo, J.E., Johnson, E.J. and Stephens, D.L. (1989) The validity of verbal protocols. Memory & Cognition. Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 759-769.
Russo et al. listed several factors that could damage the validity of verbal protocols, and made experimental studies to show possible conflicts in Ericsson and Simon’s thinking-aloud model. They name two forms of protocol invalidity: reactivity and nonveridicality. Reactivity means … Continue reading
GOULD, J.D., BOIES, S.J., AND LEWIS, C. 1991. Making usable, useful, productivity-enhancing computer applications. Communications of the ACM 34, 1, 74
Gould, Boies and Lewis (1991) elaborate on their own rules by emphasizing the need to act out the design for usability principles as a process, and by adding a fourth rule “Integrated design”. With integrated design the authors reach towards … Continue reading
GOULD, J.D. AND LEWIS, C. 1985. Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM 28, 3, 300-311
Legends of UCD Gould and Lewis reported their famous Key principles for Design. These were later extended and adapted to most of our standards etc. I’d say a truly seminal work, and a solid start for any historic reminiscence. Three … Continue reading
Dicks, R.S. (2002) Mis-usability: on the uses and misuses of usability testing. In Proceedings of the 20th annual international conference on Computer documentation (SIGDOC ’02). pp. 26-30
DOI=10.1145/584955.584960 http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/584955.584960 Dicks discusses on the problems that he has noticed in testing practices and in teaching usability testing. At first, he reminds what characteristics are requited to call some testing a usability test. Dumas&Redish (1994; see references from the … Continue reading
Greenberg, S. & Buxton, B. (2008) Usability Evaluation Considered Harmful (Some of the Time). In CHI 2008 Proceedings, pp. 111-120.
Greenberg and Buxton have listed in their paper a number of problems related to usability testing, and situations where usability evaluation can even be harmful ”if naively done ’by rule’ rather than ’by thought’”. Their main message is: ”the choice … Continue reading
Hornbæk, K 2010, Dogmas in the assessment of usability evaluation methods, Behaviour & Information Technology, 29, 1, pp. 97-111, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=49152358&site=ehost-live Kasper Hornbæk has gathered seven assumptions that seem to hold in most of the assessments and comparisons made to usability … Continue reading