Usability attributes revisited: a time-framed knowledge map

Weichbroth, Paweł

doi:10.15439/2018f137

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the study, introduced by Weichbroth [18], show that over time the definition of usability has evolved. In 1991 the Organization for Standardization (ISO), in response to the emergence of the need of the software community to standardize some facets of software products, publicized the 9126 standard, which defines usability as ''a set of attributes of software which bear on the effort needed for use, and on an individual assessment of such use, by a stated or implied set of users'' [19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While some argue that it is the most recognizable definition [18], others maintain that ''a generally accepted usability definition still does not exist, as its complex nature is hard to describe in one definition'' [22], [23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the inception of the first official usability definition, one might argue that a great plethora of usability attributes have been taken into consideration regarding the ability to use particular software products, ranging from monolithic systems to lightweight web pages. Having said that, based on the literature search and analysis, in view of usability attributes that contribute to the quality in use of the desktop software, the latest study [18] shows that the most frequent are efficiency, satisfaction, learnability and effectiveness. The least frequent are understandability and operability, memorability, errors, attractiveness and accessibility.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Usability of Mobile Applications: A Systematic Literature Study

Weichbroth

2020

IEEE Access

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the release of the first mobile devices, the usability of on-board applications has been the concern not only of software vendors but hardware manufacturers as well. The academia community later willingly joined the discussion on usability in terms of theory and empirical measurement, having experience and knowledge in desktop settings. At first sight, such a background should guarantee a solid foundation to conduct research on software usability in a new setting. However, a preliminary study on the subject matter revealed methodological disorder in contemporary literature. As a matter of fact, a need emerged to review existing usability definitions, attributes and measures to recognize all associated aspects. In order to fill this void, we conducted a systematic literature review on usability studies indexed by the Scopus database and devoted to mobile applications. The input volume covers 790 documents from 2001 to 2018. The data analysis shows that the ISO 9241-11 usability definition has been adopted in an unchanged form and popularized as the standard by the HCI community. Secondly, in total, 75 attributes were identified and analysed. The most frequent are efficiency (70%), satisfaction (66%) and effectiveness (58%), which directly originate from the above definition. Subsequently, the less frequent are learnability (45%), memorability (23%), cognitive load (19%) and errors (17%). The last two concern simplicity (13%) and ease of use (9%). Thirdly, in the evaluation of usability, controlled observation and surveys are two major research methods applied, while eye-tracking, thinking aloud and interview are hardly used and serve as complementary to collect additional data. Moreover, usability evaluations are often confused with user experience dimensions, covering not only application quality characteristics, but also user beliefs, emotions and preferences. All these results indicate the need for further research on the usability of mobile applications, aiming to establish a consensus in the theory and practice among all interested parties.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Usability of Mobile Applications: A Systematic Literature Study

Weichbroth

2020

IEEE Access

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sampai saat ini belum ada metode yang tepat untuk menganalisa seluruh masalah yang berkaitan dengan evaluasi usability (Horsky et al, 2010). Penelitian sebelumnya banyak berkaitan dengan definisi usability dan atribut yang digunakan untuk evaluasi usability (Abran et al, 2003;Seffah et al, 2006;Weichbroth, 2018). Pada bidang sistem informasi yang berkaitan dengan kesehatan tinjauan sistematis yang pernah dilakukan berkaitan dengan evaluasi metode terkait penggunaan dengan tambahan metrik usability dari setiap metode yang ditinjau (Wronikowska et al, 2021).…”

Section: Pendahuluanunclassified

Systematic Review of the Usability Evaluation Methodology of Health Information Systems

Kristina

Yulianto

Widayanti

2022

JFSP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A good information system will support the implementation of the tasks and functions of the organization. This systematic review aims to identify and characterize the methods and attributes in usability evaluation and identify measurement techniques in usability evaluation. This systematic review uses the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. The search was carried out using two databases, namely PubMed and Science Direct, by limiting information systems related to health published from 2015 to 2021. Articles that met the criteria were evaluated for methods, attributes, measurement techniques, and usability criteria used. Article quality was assessed using a modified Downs and Black checklist. The search identified 132 articles. The results of abstract screening and duplication-checking obtained 128 articles. The screening was carried out through a complete review of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, obtained 9 articles that met the criteria. There are five methods used for usability evaluation, namely Think aloud (TA), Heuristic evaluation (HE), System Usability Scale (SUS), User viewpoint, and Cognitive Walkthrough Method. Six problem definitions used in usability evaluation are ISO, Nielsen, user-based, TAUCHI, 19 item usability questions, and successful completion of scenarios. The measurement technique is done by qualitative and quantitative analysis. Effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction are criteria that are always assessed from almost all articles reviewed. The heuristic evaluation method with quantitative measurement techniques using an evaluator in evaluating usability based on scenarios then proceeding with qualitative measurement techniques to deepen problems and provide solutions is the most ideal usability evaluation measurement technique.

show abstract

“…11 Previous studies have focused on usability definitions and attributes. [12][13][14][15][16][17] Systematic reviews in this field often present a list of usability evaluation methods 18 and usability metrics 19 with additional information on the barriers and/or facilitators to system implementation. 20,21 However many of these are restricted to a single geographical region, 22 type of illness, health area, or age group.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of applied usability metrics within usability evaluation methods for hospital electronic healthcare record systems

Wronikowska

Malycha

Morgan

et al. 2021

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives: Electronic healthcare records have become central to patient care. Evaluation of new systems include a variety of usability evaluation methods or usability metrics (often referred to interchangeably as usability components or usability attributes). This study reviews the breadth of usability evaluation methods, metrics, and associated measurement techniques that have been reported to assess systems designed for hospital staff to assess inpatient clinical condition.Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, we searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Open Grey from 1986 to 2019. For included studies, we recorded usability evaluation methods or usability metrics as appropriate, and any measurement techniques applied to illustrate these. We classified and described all usability evaluation methods, usability metrics, and measurement techniques. Study quality was evaluated using a modified Downs and Black checklist. Results:The search identified 1336 studies. After abstract screening, 130 full texts were reviewed. In the 51 included studies 11 distinct usability evaluation methods were identified. Within these usability evaluation methods, seven usability metrics were reported.The most common metrics were ISO9241-11 and Nielsen's components. An additional "usefulness" metric was reported in almost 40% of included studies. We identified 70 measurement techniques used to evaluate systems. Overall study quality was reflected in a mean modified Downs and Black checklist score of 6.8/10 (range 1-9) 33% studies classified as "high-quality" (scoring eight or higher), 51% studies "moderate-quality" (scoring 6-7), and the remaining 16% (scoring below five) were "low-quality." Conclusion:There is little consistency within the field of electronic health record systems evaluation. This review highlights the variability within usability methods, metrics,

show abstract

Usability attributes revisited: a time-framed knowledge map

Cited by 11 publications

References 8 publications

Usability of Mobile Applications: A Systematic Literature Study

Usability of Mobile Applications: A Systematic Literature Study

Systematic Review of the Usability Evaluation Methodology of Health Information Systems

Systematic review of applied usability metrics within usability evaluation methods for hospital electronic healthcare record systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About