Master usability scaling: magnitude estimation and master scaling applied to usability measurement

ABSTRACT

Master Usability Scaling (MUS) is a measurement method for developing a universal usability continuum based on magnitude estimation and master scaling. The universal usability continuum allows true ratio comparisons, potentially between all items measurable by the construct of usability (attributes, tasks, or products -- software or hardware) that have contributed to the meta-set by following the procedures prescribed. This paper describes the background for MUS, data reduction, and cases studies in software usability assessment.MUS is based on a new measurement method of usability, Usability Magnitude Estimation (UME) [9], where users estimate usability magnitude according to an objective definition of usability. UME allows all items measured within a single usability activity to be compared across one continuum. MUS utilizes UME to assess standard reference tasks across different usability activities to construct one meta-set of data. This meta-set of data can be represented as a universal usability continuum. MUS is simple to administer, easy to comprehend, and with advanced underlying calculations, powerful to use. The MUS continuum has the potential to be a widespread, robust, universal measurement scale of usability.

REFERENCES

• 1: Badia, P. and Runyon, R.P. (1982). Fundamentals of behavioral research. Random House.
• 2: Berglund, M.B. (1991). Quality assurance in environmental psychophysics. In S.J. Bolanowski, & G.A. Gescheider, (Eds.), Ratio scaling of psychological magnitude: In honor of the memory of S.S. Stevens. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
• 3: Brooke, J. (1996). A "quick and dirty" usability scale. In Jordan, P., Thomas, B., and Weerdmeester, B. (Eds.), Usability Evaluation in Industry. UK: Taylor and Francis.
• 4: Erik Frøkjær , Morten Hertzum , Kasper Hornbæk, Measuring usability: are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated?, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.345-352, April 01-06, 2000, The Hague, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/332040.332455]
• 5: Gescheider, G.A. (1997). Psychophysics: The Fundamentals, 3rd Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
• 6: Melody Y. Ivory , Marti A Hearst, The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.33 n.4, p.470-516, December 2001 [doi>10.1145/503112.503114]
• 7: Kirakowski, J. (1996). The software usability measurement inventory: Background and usage. In Jordan, P., Thomas, B., and Weerdmeester, B. (Eds.), Usability Evaluation in Industry. UK: Taylor and Francis.
• 8: Lund, A. (1998). The need for a standardized set of usability metrics. Proc. HFES, 42nd Annual Meeting, 688--691.
• 9: McGee, M. (2003). Usability magnitude estimation. Proc. HFES, 47th Annual Meeting, (691--695).
• 10: McGee, M. (1998). Assessing negative side effects in virtual environments. Masters Thesis. Virginia Tech.
• 11: Medlock, M.C., Wixon, D., Terrano, M., Romero, R.L., and Fulton, B. (2002). Using the RITE method to improve products: A definition and a case study. Proc. Usability Professionals Association.
• 12: Jakob Nielsen, Usability Engineering, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1993
• 13: NIST. (2001). Common industry format for usability reports. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
• 14: Snow, M.P. and Williges, R.C. (1998). Empirical models based on free-modulus magnitude estimation of perceived presence in virtual environments. Human Factors, 40(3), 386--402.
• 15: Stevens, S.S. (1971). Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological Review, 78(5), 426--45.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Evaluation/methodology

General Terms:
Experimentation, Human Factors, Measurement

Keywords:
definition, master, scale, universal, usability