Mixed prototypes for the evaluation of usability and user experience: simulating an interactive electronic device

Faust, Fernanda Gomes; Catecati, Tiago; Sierra, Isabella de Souza; Araujo, Fernanda Steinbruch; Ramírez, Alejandro Rafael García; Nickel, Elton Moura; Ferreira, Marcelo Gitirana Gomes

doi:10.1007/s10055-018-0356-1

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Found Papers Initial Papers (Park et al, 2009;Verlinden et al, 2003) Citation Traversal Aromaa and Väänänen, 2016;Barbieri et al, 2013;Bordegoni, Polistina, et al, 2010;Bruno et al, 2012;Bruno et al, 2011;Faust et al, 2018;Huang et al, 2012;Kim and Nam, 2015;Lee et al, 2011;Lee et al, 2009;Lin et al, 2019;Park and Moon, 2013;Simon et al, 2012) Keyword Search (Arrighi and Mougenot, 2019;Fröhlich et al, 2018;Funk et al, 2014;He et al, 2019;Heun et al, 2013;Ibanez et al, 2015;Kelly et al, 2018;Lucas et al, 2018;Maurya et al, 2018;Mora et al, 2016;Peng et al, 2018;Zhang and Kwok, 2018) From the first corpus of 30 papers, 72 augmentation labels were defined. After familiarisation, labels were grouped into like categories as part of the thematic analysis process described in Section 2.3, leading to the dimensions of value shown in Section 3.3.…”

Section: Search Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixed reality in design prototyping: A systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Search Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mixed reality in design prototyping: A systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Mixed Prototype evaluation (MP) is also an area of research addressed in [50]. The users evaluated objective aspects of MP related to its performance (time to complete tasks and number of errors) and usability, as well as subjective aspects (time to complete the task; ease of use; and feeling after performing the task) related to satisfaction and user experience.…”

Section: Ux Quality Metrics In Armentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of Quality Attributes to Evaluate the User Experience in Augmented Reality

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study proposes a characterization of quality attributes for applications that use augmented reality. This classification is done from the perspective of the user experience. The attribute identification was based on primary studies of the IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and ACM repositories. From an initial set of 1165 papers, 101 documents were selected. The document proposes two categories: objective and subjective. In the objective category 4 subcategories and 40 attributes were found, and in the subjective one 5 subcategories and 54 attributes were found. This is the first time that all these criteria are presented in a single document, which is the input for designing a comprehensive quality assurance tool for user experience in augmented reality.INDEX TERMS Augmented reality (AR), category, quality attributes, user experience (UX), user interface (UI).

show abstract

“…MR means a physical object was altered with virtual attributes. For example, in a study on the usability of a projector system, an abstracted physical form was created—a plastic block ( Figure 2 , Faust et al, 2019 ). When a fiducial marker was added to the form, participants saw an AR image in the place of the block, where the block now appeared to be a fully functioning projector.…”

Section: Evaluation Of 3d Objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Reprinted stimuli from Faust et al (2019) . Left image shows the plastic model of the projector with no AR overlay to make it appear to be a projector.…”

Section: Evaluation Of 3d Objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mail system has been utilized in some user experience testing (Diamantidis et al, 2015). The product being tested was electronic and shown online (a medication inquiry system); however, the inputs to the test were pill Faust et al (2019). Left image shows the plastic model of the projector with no AR overlay to make it appear to be a projector.…”

Section: Website or Other Flat Interfacementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating Medical Devices Remotely: Current Methods and Potential Innovations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective We present examples of laboratory and remote studies, with a focus on studies appropriate for medical device design and evaluation. From this review and description of extant options for remote testing, we provide methods and tools to achieve research goals remotely. Background The FDA mandates human factors evaluation of medical devices. Studies show similarities and differences in results collected in laboratories compared to data collected remotely in non-laboratory settings. Remote studies show promise, though many of these are behavioral studies related to cognitive or experimental psychology. Remote usability studies are rare but increasing, as technologies allow for synchronous and asynchronous data collection. Method We reviewed methods of remote evaluation of medical devices, from testing labels and instruction to usability testing and simulated use. Each method was coded for the attributes (e.g., supported media) that need consideration in usability studies. Results We present examples of how published usability studies of medical devices could be moved to remote data collection. We also present novel systems for creating such tests, such as the use of 3D printed or virtual prototypes. Finally, we advise on targeted participant recruitment. Conclusion Remote testing will bring opportunities and challenges to the field of medical device testing. Current methods are adequate for most purposes, excepting the validation of Class III devices. Application The tools we provide enable the remote evaluation of medical devices. Evaluations have specific research goals, and our framework of attributes helps to select or combine tools for valid testing of medical devices.

show abstract

Mixed prototypes for the evaluation of usability and user experience: simulating an interactive electronic device

Cited by 12 publications

References 24 publications

Mixed reality in design prototyping: A systematic review

Mixed reality in design prototyping: A systematic review

Characterization of Quality Attributes to Evaluate the User Experience in Augmented Reality

Evaluating Medical Devices Remotely: Current Methods and Potential Innovations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About