CFP last date
20 January 2025
Call for Paper
February Edition
IJCA solicits high quality original research papers for the upcoming February edition of the journal. The last date of research paper submission is 20 January 2025

Submit your paper
Know more
The week's pick
Responsive image
SFLA-Based Line Balancing and Task Optimization in Master-Slave Controlled Hanger Transportation Systems for Garment Production

Duc Hoang Nguyen
Random Articles
Reseach Article

Analytical Comparison of usability Measurement Method

by Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Ajay Rana, Mridu
journal cover thumbnail

International Journal of Computer Applications
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Volume 39 - Number 15
Year of Publication: 2012
Authors: Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Ajay Rana, Mridu
10.5120/4895-7414

Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Ajay Rana, Mridu . Analytical Comparison of usability Measurement Method. International Journal of Computer Applications. 39, 15 ( February 2012), 11-18. DOI=10.5120/4895-7414

@article{ 10.5120/4895-7414,
author = { Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Ajay Rana, Mridu },
title = { Analytical Comparison of usability Measurement Method },
journal = { International Journal of Computer Applications },
issue_date = { February 2012 },
volume = { 39 },
number = { 15 },
month = { February },
year = { 2012 },
issn = { 0975-8887 },
pages = { 11-18 },
numpages = {9},
url = { https://ijcaonline.org/archives/volume39/number15/4895-7414/ },
doi = { 10.5120/4895-7414 },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
}
%0 Journal Article
%1 2024-02-06T20:26:52.801310+05:30
%A Sanjay Kumar Dubey
%A Ajay Rana
%A Mridu
%T Analytical Comparison of usability Measurement Method
%J International Journal of Computer Applications
%@ 0975-8887
%V 39
%N 15
%P 11-18
%D 2012
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Abstract

Usability plays very important role in fulfilling the quality requirements of a software system as it expresses the relationship between the software and its application domain. If the software system is usable then it is more productive, useful and thus it satisfies user’s expectations. Inspite of such importance of usability there are no explicit criteria to measure it because usability can be measured with the help of usability experts, industry experts, research scholars and end users. This paper provides analytical view about various usability evaluation methodologies with their comprehensive structure.

References
  1. Abran, A., Khelifi, A. and Suryn,W. (2003). Usability Meanings and Interpretations in ISO Standards, Software Quality Journal, 11, 315-338.
  2. Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1994). The survey research handbook: Guidelines and strategies for conducting a survey(2nd). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
  3. Arms, William Y. 2000. Digital libraries. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.
  4. Bevan, N., 1995. Measuring usability as quality of use. Software quality journal 4,115-150.
  6. Bevan, N. and Curson, I., 1997. Methods for Measuring Usability. National Physical Laboratory, Usability Services Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 0LW, UK
  7. Bias, R. , 1994. The Pluralistic Usability Walkthrough: Coordinated Empathies:. In Nielsen, J. and Mack, R. Usability Inspection Methods, Chapter 3, page 63-67, John Wiley.
  8. Blandford, A., & Buchanan, G. (2002). Workshop report: Usability of digital libraries @ JCDL '02.
  9. Boehm et al. ,1978. Characteristics of Software Quality. North Holland Publishing, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
  10. Clairmont, Michelle, Ruth Dickstein, and Vicki Mills. 1999. Testing of usability in the design of a new information gateway.
  11. Dromey, 1995. A model for software product quality. IEEE transactions on software engineering.
  12. Dromey, R. G. Concerning the Chimera [software quality]. IEEE Software, 1996; 13:33-43
  13. Dumas et al., 1993. Practical Guide to usability testing, Ablex Publishing Norwood NJ, Ablex Publishing Co.
  14. Dumas, J. S. and Redish, J. C. (1994): A practical guide to usability testing, Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation
  15. Furtado, Elizabeth, et al. 2003. Improving usability of an online learning system by means of multimedia, collaboration, and adaptation resources. In Usability evaluation of online learning programs, ed. Claude Ghaoui, 69–86. Hershey, Pa.: Information Science Publication.
  16. Gluck, Myke. 1997. A descriptive study of the usability of geospatial metadata. Annual Review of OCLC Research.
  17. Grady, R. B. Practical Software Metrics for Project Management and Process Improvement. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1992.
  18. Guillemette, R. A. (1995). The evaluation of usability in interactive information systems. In: J. M. Carey (Ed.), Human factors in information systems: Emerging theoretical bases, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 207-221.
  19. Hix, D. and Hartson H. R. (1993): Developing user interfaces: Ensuring usability through product & process. New York, John Wiley
  20. Hartson, H.R., Castillo, J.C., Kelso, J., Kamler, J., Neale. W.C., 1996. Remote Evaluation: The Network as an Extension of the usability laboratory. Proceedings of CHI’96 Human Factors in computing systems, 228-235.
  21. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (1990). IEEE standard glossary of software engineering technology, IEEE std. 610.12-1990. Los Alamitos, CA: Author.
  22. International Organization for Standardization/ International Electrotechnical Commission. (1991). ISO/IEC 9126:1991, Software product evaluation - Quality characteristics and guidelines for their use.
  23. International Organization for Standardization. (1998). ISO 9241-11:1998, Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs), Part 11: Guidance on usability. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
  24. International Organization for Standardization/ International Electrotechnical Commission. (2001). ISO/ IEC 9126-1:2001, Software engineering, product quality, Part 1: Quality model. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
  25. Kengeri, Rekha, et al. 1999. Usability study of digital libraries: ACM, IEEE-CS, NCSTRL, NDLTD. International Journal on Digital Libraries 2: 157–69.
  26. Kim, Kyunghye. 2002. A model of digital library information seeking process (DLISP model) as a frame for classifying usability problems. PhD diss., Rutgers Univ.Keng.
  27. Lamb, R. 1995. Using online resources: Reaching for the *.*s. In Digital Libraries’95, ed. F. M. Shipman, R. Furuta, and D. M. Levy, 137–46. Austin, TX: Department of Computer Science, Texas A&M University.
  28. Lindgaard, G. (1994). Usability testing and system evaluation, London: Chapman & Hall.
  29. Löwgren, J. (1993): Human-computer interaction, Student literature, Lund, Sweden
  30. Macleod M and Renggr R. (1993): The Development of DRUM: A software tool for video assisted usability evaluation.
  31. McCall, J. A., Richards, P. K., Walters, G. F. Factors in Software Quality, Volumes I, II, and III. US Rome Air Development Center Reports, US Department of Commerce, USA, 1977
  32. Nielsen, J., 1993. Usability Engineering. Academic Press, San Diego, CA
  33. Nielsen, J., 1994. Heuristic Evaluation. In Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L., Eds. Usability Inspection methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
  34. Oulanov, A. and Edmund F. Y. P. (2002): CUNY+ Web: Usability study of the Web-based GUI version of the bibliographic database of the City University of New York (CUNY), The Electronic Library, Vol. 20 (6), pp. 481–87.
  35. Porteous, M.; Kirakowsky, J. and Corbett, M. (1993). SUMI user handbook. Human Factors Research Group, University College Cork.
  36. Quesenbery, W., 2001. What does usability mean: Looking beyond “ease of use” Proceedings of the 18th Annual conference society for technical communications.
  37. Quesenbery, W. (2003). Dimensions of Usability. In M. J. Albers & B. Mazur (Eds.), Content & complexity : information design in technical communication. Mahwah, N.J. ; London: Lawrence Erlbaum
  38. Quesenbery. W., 2004. Balancing the 5E’s Usability,Cutter IT Journal.
  39. Rowley, D.E. & Rhoades, D.G. (1992). The Cognitive Jogthrough: A FastPaced User Interface Evaluation Procedure. Proceedings CHIU92. Monterey, C A , ACM, NY.
  40. Rubin, J. 1994. Testing two participants at a time. Handbook of Usability Testing. John Wiley and Sons.
  41. Seffah et al. (2006): Usability measurement and metrics: A consolidated model of software quality control.
  42. Shackel, B. (1986): Ergonomics in design for usability. In Harrison, M. D. and Monk, A. F., editors, People and computers, Proc. second conf. of the BCS HCI specialist group, pp. 45–64, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  43. Soken, N., Reinhart, B., Vora, P., Metz, S., 1993. Methods for Evaluating Usability ( Section 5B), Honeywell, Dec.1993.
  44. Spool, J. M., et al. 1999. Web site usability: A designer’s guide. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
  45. Shackel, B. (1991) Usability - Context, Framework, Definition, Design and Evaluation. In B. Shackel and S. Richardson (eds.) Human Factors for Informatics Usability (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 21-38.
  46. Thomas, Rita Leigh. 1998. Elements of performance and satisfaction as indicators of the usability of digital spatial interfaces for information-seeking: Implications for ISLA. PhD diss., Univ. of Southern California.
  47. Turner, S. (2002). The HEP test for grading Web site usability.Computers in Libraries, 22(10), 37-39.
  48. Vora, P., Helander. M., 1995. A Teaching Method as an alternative to the concurrent think-aloud method for usability testing.
  49. Wixon, D., Jones, S., Tse, L., and Casaday, G. (1994). Inspections and design reviews: Framework, history, and reflection. In Nielsen, J., and Mack, R.L. (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 79-104.
  50. Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C. and Polson, P., 1994. The cognitive walkthrough: A practitioner’s guid. In Nielsen.J., and Mack. R.L. , Eds Usability Inspection Methods John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
  51. Zhang, Z et al., 1998-1. An empirical study of perspective- based usability inspection. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd annual meeting Chicago.
  52. Zhang, Z. et al., 1998-2. Perspective-based usability inspection. Proceedings of the Usability Professionals’ Association Conference.. Washington DC.
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences

Keywords

Quality Usability Model Measurement Software system

Powered by PhDFocusTM