Integration of Subjective and Objective Usability Evaluation Based on IEC/IEC 15939: A Case Study for Traffic Supervision Systems

Defining an Indicator for Navigation Performance Measurement in VE Based on ISO/IEC15939

“…The second way deals with the definition of an algorithm or a model which specifies the measures associated of the indicator without effective aggregation of data and by keeping the raw data. In this same direction and based on ISO/IEC 15939, a more recent proposal about the specification of usability indicators in the field of Human-Computer Interaction has been proposed [26] [27]. These indicators mainly allow evaluating the quality of user interfaces of interactive systems, applied into traffic supervision field, with integrating effectively measures results extracted from both subjective and objective evaluation tools.…”

“…Their main purpose is to prove how these indicators can support evaluators in the detection of usability problems considering effectively both the two sides of the evaluation (subjective and objective). In fact, this proposal describes how to define an indicator that performs effective integration with complementary and consistent manner [26] [27]. Furthermore, it proposed a strong basis for interpreting indicator results and supporting the decisionmaking in the evaluation via predefined decision criteria.…”

“…In this approach, the specification of a usability indicator involves three main steps [26]. The first is to identify the information need which bears on the main objective using the indicator.…”

“…The definition of a threshold has been used as a useful means of data analysis. This threshold allows indicating the acceptable results, which can be either above or below it [26] [27]. In addition, an indicator is represented graphically on the basis of the scatter plots (2D, 3D) graphs to effectively and concretely illustrate the integration between the combined measures.…”

“…Fig. 1 illustrates an example of a hypothetical indicator (instantiated as a pair of two measures M1 and M2) with the defined rules for the decision criteria (see [26]). In this work, as presented in the Fig.…”