ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Applying user testing data to UEM performance metrics
Full text PdfPdf (139 KB)
Source Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems archive
CHI '04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems table of contents
Vienna, Austria
SESSION: Late breaking result papers table of contents
Pages: 1119 - 1122  
Year of Publication: 2004
ISBN:1-58113-703-6
Authors
Jarinee Chattratichart  London Metropolitan University, London, UK
Jaqueline Brodie  Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
Sponsors
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 10,   Downloads (12 Months): 77,   Citation Count: 4
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/985921.986003
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The lack of standard assessment criteria for reliably comparing usability evaluation methods (UEMs) is an important gap in HCI knowledge. Recently, metrics for assessing thoroughness, validity, and effectiveness of UEMs, based on user data, have been proposed to bridge this gap. This paper reports our findings of applying these proposed metrics in a study that compared heuristic evaluation (HE) to HE-Plus (an extended version of HE). Our experiment showed better overlap among the HE-Plus evaluators than the HE evaluators, demonstrating greater reliability of the method. When evaluation data, from testing the usability of the same website, was used in calculating the UEM performance metrics, HE-Plus was found to be a superior method to HE in all assessment criteria with a 17%, 39%, and 67% improvement in the aspects of thoroughness, validity, and effectiveness, respectively. The paper concludes with a discussion concerning the limitations of the effectiveness of the UEM from which the real users' data was obtained.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Chattratichart, J. and Brodie, J. Extending the heuristic evaluation method through contextualisation. Proc. HFES2002, HFES (2002), 641--645.
2
 
3
Gray, W. D. and Salzman, M. C. Damaged Merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human-Computer Interaction, 13 (1998), 203--261.
 
4
Hartson, H. R., Andre, T. S. and Williges, R. C. Criteria for evaluating usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 1 (2003), 145--181.
 
5
Hertzum, M. and Jacobsen, N. E. The evaluator effect: A chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 1 (2003), 183--204.
6
 
7


Collaborative Colleagues:
Jarinee Chattratichart: colleagues
Jaqueline Brodie: colleagues