International usability standards

Dzida, Wolfgang

doi:10.1145/234313.234386

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the usability community although ISO standards such as ISO 9241 1995 exist, there is lack of consensus with respect to the conformance methods. Dzida [18] notes, "If a product is claimed to meet a standard, the procedure used in testing the product against the requirements should be specified to guarantee reproducibility of results. Some standards prescribe a certain test method, some recommend a method, and some inform the reader that the procedure used in testing is a matter of negotiation between the parties involved".…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Convenience Trumps Security: Defining Objectives for Security and Usability of Systems

Dhillon

Oliveira

Susarapu

et al. 2012

IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Security and usability of systems continues to be an important topic for managers and academics alike. In this paper we propose two instruments for assessing security and usability of systems. These instruments were developed in two phases. In Phase 1, using the value-focused thinking approach and interviews with 35 experts, we identified 16 clusters of means and 8 clusters of fundamental objectives. In phase 2 drawing on a sample of 201 users we administered a survey to purify, ensure reliability, and unidimensionality of the two instruments. This resulted in 15 means objectives, organized into four categories (minimize system interruptions and licensing restrictions, maximize information retrieval, maximize system aesthetics, and maximize data quality) and 12 fundamental objectives grouped into four categories (maximize standardization and integration, maximize ease of use, maximize system capability, and enhance system related communication). Collectively the objectives offer a useful basis for assessing the extent to which security and usability has been achieved in systems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Convenience Trumps Security: Defining Objectives for Security and Usability of Systems

Dhillon

Oliveira

Susarapu

et al. 2012

IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, evaluation of an e-portfolio depends on the experience intended end-users have with the system. This approach involves usability evaluation to determine the degree to which the system is effective and efficient in helping the user complete intended tasks (Dzida, 1996;Laxman, 2010). Usability evaluation normally focuses on the user experience of the technology features of the educational technology system.…”

Section: The Usability Evaluation Of E-portfolio Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating, Comparing, and Best Practice in Electronic Portfolio System Use

Jose

2017

Journal of Educational Technology Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electronic portfolios (e-portfolios) are commonly positioned to show evidence of student learning with formative and summative assessment benefits. At the University of Auckland teacher education program, two e-portfolio systems were adopted to document preservice teacher's course work and to attest to the Graduating Teacher Standards. This article seeks to (a) evaluate e-portfolio systems, (b) compare the MyPortfolio (Mahara) and Google Sites systems, and (c) provide recommendations for best practice in system use. The software system comparison between the MyPortfolio (Mahara) and Google Sites system was based on the essential technology features for system use. User satisfaction and usability data were obtained through self-reported surveys ( N = 192). Open-ended questions ( N = 192) and semistructured interviews with a sample of course participants ( N = 12) ascertained the best practice approach for system use. Mean scores were higher for the MyPortfolio (Mahara) system. One-way analysis of variance indicated that the differences were statistically significant.

show abstract

“…Implementing international standards (Blanchard, 1997;Dzida, 1996;Schrier, Williams, MacDonell, Peterson, Strijland, Wichansky, et al, 1992) is an example of internationalization. Dzida (1996) differentiates between standard user interfaces and standards for user interfaces.…”

Section: Cultural Interface Design Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dzida (1996) differentiates between standard user interfaces and standards for user interfaces. The first derives from consensus in an industry.…”

Section: Cultural Interface Design Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interface design and culture

Callahan

2005

Annual Review Info Sci & Tec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIt is common knowledge that computer interfaces in different cultures vary. Interface designers present information in different languages, use different iconography to designate concepts, and employ different standards for dates, time, and numbers. These manifest differences beg the question of how easily an interface designed in one country can be used in and transferred to another country. Are the challenges involved in adaptation merely cosmetic or are they shaped by more profound forces? Do all cultures respond to interfaces in similar ways, or does culture itself shape user comprehension? If culture is a factor in explaining varied user reactions to comparable interfaces, what specific cultural dimensions are responsible for the divergences? Do differences reside mainly at the level of national cultures, or do they depend on other vanables such as class, gender, age, education, and expertise with technology? In the face of a potentially large number of explanatory variables, how do we delimit a workable concept of culture and yet remain cognizant of other factors that might shape the results of culture and interface research?Questions such as these have been asked in the ergonomics community since the early 1970s, when the industrialization of developing countries created a need for more research on cultural differences (Honold, 1999), resulting in an increased interest in the universal applicability of ergonomic principles. This trend continued after the reunification of Germany and the emergence of market economies in Eastern Europe (Nielsen, 1990). In the mid-l990s, as markets outside the U.S. rapidly expanded, it became necessary to develop appropriate user interfaces for non-Western cultures in order to facilitate international cooperation. This fresh impetus for research led to the development of practical guidelines and a body of case studies and examples of possible solutions. Most recently we have seen attempts to provide a theoretical foundation for cross-cultural usability engineering and experimental comparison studies (Honold, 1999).The literature on international issues in human-computer interaction consists of three major types: 1) design guidelines, pointing out 258 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology issues of which designers should be aware when creating an interface for use in a foreign country, 2) theoretical works on cultural differences, which attempt to evaluate how cultural models from other fields can be applied to interface design, and 3) empirical research, dealing with various aspects of interface design in selected countries.Design guidelines are the largest group and concentrate on culturally acceptable screen elements such as date and time formats, text flow, collating sequences, and numeric formats. These elements, if not used appropriately, may impair understanding of the interface features and functions. But design guidelines do not provide much understanding of how users from different cultures interact with computers, or any similarities and di...

show abstract

International usability standards

Cited by 11 publications

References 1 publication

When Convenience Trumps Security: Defining Objectives for Security and Usability of Systems

When Convenience Trumps Security: Defining Objectives for Security and Usability of Systems

Evaluating, Comparing, and Best Practice in Electronic Portfolio System Use

Interface design and culture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About