1978
DOI: 10.1109/tse.1978.231511
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

User-Perceived Quality of Interactive Systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0
1

Year Published

1979
1979
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 120 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
17
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Amongst others, the dialogue design criteria in part standard ISO 9241-110 (ISO 2006) trace back to an empirical study in which usability was broken down by means of this method for the purpose of identifying different dimensions (Dzida et al 1978). The distinction between formative and reflective measurement challenges the appropriateness of this approach, as it is argued that the application of factor analysis is reserved exclusively to reflective constructs.…”
Section: Implications For Theory and Practicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Amongst others, the dialogue design criteria in part standard ISO 9241-110 (ISO 2006) trace back to an empirical study in which usability was broken down by means of this method for the purpose of identifying different dimensions (Dzida et al 1978). The distinction between formative and reflective measurement challenges the appropriateness of this approach, as it is argued that the application of factor analysis is reserved exclusively to reflective constructs.…”
Section: Implications For Theory and Practicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…They have examined the auditing and inference control of statistical databases [8], the quality of interactive systems as perceived by its users [11], and the feasibility of future developments of certain SMS system features and their relation to the user [35]. Much like the present study, surveys of SMS techniques have been conducted, although they fell short of rigorous, empirical, and comprehensive coverage of SMS user satisfaction.…”
Section: Statistical/mathematical Software Practice and Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This way of classifying users has yielded a large collection of names. Examples, in alphabetical order, are: casual users (Martin, 1973), computer professionals , dedicated users (Martin, 1973), discretionary users (Bennett, 1979), experienced users (Shackel, 1981), familiar users (Ledgard et al, 1981), first-time users (Al-Awar et al, 1981), the general public (Shackel, 1981), general users (Miller and Thomas, 1977), inexperienced users (Dzida et al, 1978), naive users (Thompson, 1969), noncomputer specialists (Shackel, 1981), nonprogrammers (Martin, 1973), occasional users (Hammond et , 1980), programmers (Martin, 1973), regular users (Dzida et al, 1978), and untrained users (Martin, 1973). Another way of categorizing users has focused more on the nature of the user's job.…”
Section: Usersmentioning
confidence: 99%