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.

Bookmark and Share

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

Posted in Journal article | Tagged , | Leave a comment

GOULD, J.D., BOIES, S.J., AND LEWIS, C. 1991. Making usable, useful, productivity-enhancing computer applications. Communications of the ACM 34, 1, 74

Bookmark and Share

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

Posted in Journal article | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

GOULD, J.D. AND LEWIS, C. 1985. Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM 28, 3, 300-311

Bookmark and Share

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

Posted in Journal article | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

Bookmark and Share

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

Posted in Conference article | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Greenberg, S. & Buxton, B. (2008) Usability Evaluation Considered Harmful (Some of the Time). In CHI 2008 Proceedings, pp. 111-120.

Bookmark and Share

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

Posted in Conference article | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Hornbæk, K 2010, Dogmas in the assessment of usability evaluation methods

Bookmark and Share

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

Posted in Journal article | Tagged , | Leave a comment