A case study of three software projects: can software developers anticipate the usability problems in their software?

Høegh, Rune Thaarup; Jensen, Janne Jul

doi:10.1080/01449290701766358

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This rational argument has received support from a number of published case studies and a few early experiments (G. Bailey, 1993;R. W. Bailey, Allan, & Raiello, 1992;Gould et al, 1987;Høegh & Jensen, 2008;Lewis, 1996;Marshall et al, 1990). Published cost-benefit analyses (Bias & Mayhew, 1994) have demonstrated the value of usability LEWIS engineering processes that include usability testing, with costbenefit ratios ranging from 1:2 for smaller projects to 1:100 for larger projects (Karat, 1997).…”

Section: One Point Of Viewmentioning

confidence: 84%

Usability: Lessons Learned … and Yet to Be Learned

Lewis¹

2014

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction

242

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The philosopher of science J. W. Grove (1989) once wrote, "There is, of course, nothing strange or scandalous about divisions of opinion among scientists. This is a condition for scientific progress" (p. 133). Over the past 30 years, usability, both as a practice and as an emerging science, has had its share of controversies. It has inherited some from its early roots in experimental psychology, measurement, and statistics. Others have emerged as the field of usability has matured and extended into user-centered design and user experience. In many ways, a field of inquiry is shaped by its controversies. This article reviews some of the persistent controversies in the field of usability, starting with their history, then assessing their current status from the perspective of a pragmatic practitioner. Put another way: Over the past three decades, what are some of the key lessons we have learned, and what remains to be learned? Some of the key lessons learned are:• When discussing usability, it is important to distinguish between the goals and practices of summative and formative usability. • There is compelling rational and empirical support for the practice of iterative formative usability testing-it appears to be effective in improving both objective and perceived usability. • When conducting usability studies, practitioners should use one of the currently available standardized usability questionnaires. • Because "magic number" rules of thumb for sample size requirements for usability tests are optimal only under very specific conditions, practitioners should use the tools that are available to guide sample size estimation rather than relying on "magic numbers."

show abstract

Section: One Point Of Viewmentioning

confidence: 84%

Usability: Lessons Learned … and Yet to Be Learned

Lewis¹

2014

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction

242

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thirdly, similarly on the part of the developers, previous research has observed that developers see users as similar to themselves (Bader and Nyce 1998), and that developers have an inadequate sense of usability of their own software (Høegh and Jensen 2008); and further that usability evaluations can debunk developers' erroneous assumptions of usability (Høegh and Jensen 2008). Our findings suggest that the effect of usability evaluation may not be realized.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 50%

“…More specific observations include: little or no user involvement in software development projects (Vredenburg, Mao et al 2002;Vukelja, Müller et al 2007); usability issues being handled by software developers despite their limited understanding of usability work (Gulliksen, Boivie et al 2004;Vukelja, Müller et al 2007); and the disparity between their mental models and that of users (Høegh and Jensen 2008). Hence, usability work is ad hoc and unsystematic and there is a wide gap between what organizations acknowledge usability work to be and what they actually do (Venturi and Troost 2004;Ji and Yun 2006;Vukelja, Müller et al 2007;Bygstad, Ghinea et al 2008;Zhou, Huang et al 2008).…”

Section: The Integration Of Usability Work In Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Apathy Towards the Integration of Usability Work: A Case of System Justification

Wale-Kolade

Nielsen

2015

Interact. Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we report from a case study of a software development organization and we study in particular the developers' and product managers' attitudes towards integrating usability work into software development. We offer explanations based on system justification theory illuminating what would-be integrators might be up against. The analysis shows how the developers only pay lip service to usability work and how they treat users superficially. It further shows how that leads to stereotyping of usability designers and users in order to preserve status quo, and how internalization of inequality between the developers and usability designers rationalizes the preservation of status quo. These findings will have significant implications for managers of software development.• Software developers may claim to adhere to the principles of usability design and evaluation while their practices show the contrary• Usability designers and users may become stereotyped and internalise a perception of inequality.• Developers may cling to status quo and seek to preserve it.• Managers of software development and usability work must pay attention to justification mechanisms to realise the challenges of integration.

show abstract

“…In line with Høegh and Jensen (2008), Hornbaek and Frøkjaer (2005), and Kjeldskov and Stage (2004), we classify problems as critical, serious, or minor. The following definitions are derived from Duh, Tan, and Chen (2006).…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Usability Issues for Personalization During Formative Evaluations: A Comparison of Three Methods

Velsen

Geest

Klaassen

2011

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A personalized system is one that generates unique output for each individual. As a result, personalization has transformed the interaction between the user and the system, and specific new usability issues have arisen. Methods used for evaluating personalized systems should be able to reveal the issues and problems specifically associated with personalization. Therefore this study evaluated three of the most common test methods used to detect usability problems in a personalized search engine. This was done by comparing the comments generated from thinking-aloud, questionnaires, and interviews. Questionnaires and interviews appear to be more useful for assessing specific usability issues for personalization, whereas thinkingaloud generates more comments on the usefulness of the system in the intended context of use and identifies the most critical and serious problems. Interviews, on the other hand, appear to yield a disproportionate number of positive comments. During the formative evaluation of a personalized system it is best to use a combination of thinking-aloud and questionnaires. This article concludes with a summary of implications for practitioners.

show abstract

A case study of three software projects: can software developers anticipate the usability problems in their software?

Cited by 9 publications

References 6 publications

Usability: Lessons Learned … and Yet to Be Learned

Usability: Lessons Learned … and Yet to Be Learned

Apathy Towards the Integration of Usability Work: A Case of System Justification

Identifying Usability Issues for Personalization During Formative Evaluations: A Comparison of Three Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About