Model mismatch analysis: Towards a deeper explanation of users' usability problems

Sutcliffe﻿, Alistair; Ryan, Michele B.; Doubleday, Ann; Springett, Mark

doi:10.1080/014492900118786

Cited by 39 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The data from the user task model analysis is used to ascertain the extent of task compatibility mismatches. Sutcliffe et al (1996) suggest that systems provide better task support when the users' model is compatible with the original system model. In addition, Sutcliffe et al use the user task model analysis to discover if system actions are being learned.…”

Section: Model-mismatch Analysis Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2) rejection of a feature, (3) accidents/manipulation, and (4) unsatisfactory result. Both the work by Sutcliffe et al (1996) and Springett provide a systematic way of initially placing observations into top-level categories derived from Norman's theory of action model.…”

Section: Model-mismatch Analysis Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Possible explanations are explored through a walkthrough process leading to heuristics the evaluator can select as the most likely cause (e.g., inadequate feedback, mode error, missing functionality, etc.). Sutcliffe et al (1996) use Norman's model with an error correction and non-goal directed exploration sub-cycles to fully exploit possible explanations for phenotype observations.…”

Section: Model-mismatch Analysis Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because of its basis in user interaction activities, several researchers have used Norman's model to help describe and explain problems identified using various methods. Two noteworthy efforts covered here include Cuomo and Bowen's (1994) stages of user activity analysis and Sutcliffe, Ryan, Springett, and Doubleday's (1996) ModelMismatch Analysis method. Cuomo and Bowen (1992) used Norman's (1986 theory of action model to assess the usability of graphical, direct-manipulation interfaces with some success.…”

Section: Model-based Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Determining the Effectiveness of the Usability Problem Inspector: A Theory-Based Model and Tool for Finding Usability Problems

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need for cost-effective usability evaluation has led to the development of methodologies to support the usability practitioner in finding usability problems during formative evaluation. Even though various methods exist for performing usability evaluation, practitioners seldom have the information needed to decide which method is appropriate for their specific purpose. In addition, most methods do not have an integrated relationship with a theoretical foundation for applying the method in a reliable and efficient manner. Practitioners often have to apply their own judgment and techniques, leading to inconsistencies in how the method is applied in the field. Usability practitioners need validated information to determine if a given usability evaluation method is effective and why it should be used instead of some other method. Such a desire motivates the need for formal, empirical comparison studies to evaluate and compare usability evaluation methods. In reality, the current data for comparing usability evaluation methods suffers from a lack of consistent measures, standards, and criteria for identifying effective methods.The work described here addresses three important research activities. First, the User Action Framework was developed to help organize usability concepts and issues into a knowledge base that supports usability methods and tools. From the User Action Framework, a mapping was made to the Usability Problem Inspector; a tool to help practitioners conduct a highly focused inspection of an interface design. Second, the reliability of the User Action Framework was evaluated to determine if usability practitioners could use the framework in a consistent manner when classifying a set of usability problems. Third, a comprehensive comparison study was conducted to determine if the Usability Problem Inspector, based on the User Action Framework, could produce results just as effective as two other inspection methods (i.e., the heuristic evaluation and the cognitive walkthrough). The comparison study used a new comparison approach with standards, measures, and criteria to prove the effectiveness of methods. Results from the User Action Framework reliability study showed higher agreement scores at all classification levels than was found in previous work with a similar classification iii tool. In addition, agreement using the User Action Framework was stronger than the results obtained from the same experts using the heuristic evaluation. From the inspection method comparison study, results showed the Usability Problem Inspector to be more effective than the heuristic evaluation and consistent with effectiveness scores from the cognitive walkthrough.iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to gratefully acknowledge many individuals that helped make my graduate experience very rewarding. First, I am indebted to my wife (Debbie) and my two children (Jennifer and Brian). Graduate school can be a very lonely endeavor, but I am so thankful I was able to share the experience with my family....

show abstract

Section: Model-mismatch Analysis Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Model-mismatch Analysis Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Model-mismatch Analysis Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Model-based Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Determining the Effectiveness of the Usability Problem Inspector: A Theory-Based Model and Tool for Finding Usability Problems

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…UEMs can be categorized in different ways, but there are essentially three main types of methods : inspection (or expert), evaluation (e.g. heuristic evaluation, Hvannberg et al, 2007;Nielsen, 1992 and cognitive walkthrough Chikhaoui and Pigot, 2010;Langdon et al, 2010;Lewis et al, 1990;Mahatody et al, 2010), model evaluation Sutcliffe et al, 2000) and user evaluation (e.g. usability testing Nørgaard and Hornbaek, 2006).…”

Section: Hci Evaluation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formative Evaluation of IT-based Services: A Case Study of a Meal Planning Service

Blomkvist

Åberg

Holmlid

2013

Interacting with Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluating the effectiveness of visual user interfaces for information retrieval

Sutcliffe

Ennis

2000

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model mismatch analysis: Towards a deeper explanation of users' usability problems

Cited by 39 publications

References 7 publications

Determining the Effectiveness of the Usability Problem Inspector: A Theory-Based Model and Tool for Finding Usability Problems

Determining the Effectiveness of the Usability Problem Inspector: A Theory-Based Model and Tool for Finding Usability Problems

Formative Evaluation of IT-based Services: A Case Study of a Meal Planning Service

Evaluating the effectiveness of visual user interfaces for information retrieval

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About