Abstract
This paper presents views on how quantitative multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches may be applied to certain aspects of user experience design and evaluation (D&E) methods identification, emphasizing its strengths and weaknesses for this task. Often D&E methods need to be applied in contexts different of those they had been applied before and as such must be transferred to those new contexts. This work presents a model for the quantitative method matching step of the transfer process, describes how different MCDM methods can be applied to this task, and discusses the results of an experience that tried to apply a couple of MCDM procedures to method selection.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amir, A., Chencinski, E., Iliopoulos, C., Kopelowitz, T., Zhang, H.: Property matching and weighted matching. Theo. Comp. Sci. 395(2–3), 298–310 (2008). doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2008.01.006
Belton, V., Pictet, J.: A framework for group decision using a MCDA model: sharing, aggregating or comparing individual information? J. Decis. Syst. 6, 283–303 (1997)
Brans, J.P., Vincke, P., Mareschal, B.: How to select and how to rank projects: the promethee method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 24(2), 228–238 (1986). doi:10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0377221786900445
Card, S., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.O.: The Psychology of Human Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London (1986)
Edwards, W.: How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decisionmaking. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 7(5), 326–340 (1977)
Ehrgott, M., Gandibleux, X., (eds.): Multiple Criteria Optimization: State of the Art Annotated Bibliographic Surveys. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2002)
Ferre Grau, X., Bevan, N.: Usability planner: a tool to support the process of selecting usability methods. In Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) 13th IFIP TCI3 International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction–Interact 2011, pp. 652–655. Springer, Lisbon (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23768-3_105
Figueira, J.R., Mousseau, V., Roy, B.: Electre methods. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 133–162. Springer, New York (2005)
Ghomari, L., Ghomari, A.R.: A comparative study: syntactic versus semantic matching systems. In: IEEE International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems (2009). doi:10.1109/CISIS.2009.75. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5066864
Kujala, S., Roto, V., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Sinnelä, A.: Identifying hedonic factors in long-term user experience. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces–DPPI’11, 1. ACM Press, New York (2011). doi:10.1145/2347504.2347523. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2347504.2347523
Lahdelma, R., Salminen, P.: SMAA-2: stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. Oper. Res. 49(3), 444–454 (2001). doi:10.1287/opre.49.3.444.11220. http://or.journal.informs.org/content/49/3/444
Law, C.M., Yi, J.S., Choi,Y.S., Jacko, J.A.: A systematic examination of universal design resources: part 1, Heuristic Evaluation. Univers Access Inf. Soc. 7(1–2), 31–54 (2007). doi:10.1007/s10209-007-0100-1. http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10209-007-0100-1
Law, E.L.-C., Springett, M., Winckler, M.: Maturation of Usability Evaluation Methods: Retrospect and Prospect Final Reports of MAUSE. IRIT Press, Toulouse (2009)
Mareschal, B., De Smet, Y.: Visual PROMETHEE: developments of the PROMETHEE & GAIA multicriteria decision aid methods. In: 2009 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, pp. 1646–1649 (2009). doi:10.1109/IEEM.2009.5373124. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=5373124
Medaglia, A.L., Fang, S.C.: A genetic-based framework for solving (multi-criteria) weighted matching problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 149(1), 77–101 (2003). doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00484-8. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221702004848
Miettinen, K., Makela, M.: On scalarizing functions in multiobjective optimization. OR Spectrum 24(2), 193–213 (2002).doi:10.1007/s00291-001-0092-9. http://www.springerlink.com/Index/10.1007/s00291-001-0092-9
Nielsen, J.: Usability inspection methods. In: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems–CHI’94, pp. 413–414. ACM Press, New York (1994). doi:10.1145/259963.260531. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=259963.260531
Nielsen, J., Molich, R.: Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems empowering people–CHI’90, pp. 249–256. ACM Press, New York (1990). doi:10.1145/97243.97281. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=97243.97281
Nielsen, J., Sano, D.: SunWeb: user interface design for sun microsystem’s internal web. Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst. 28(1–2), 179–188 (1995). doi:10.1016/0169-7552(95)00109-7. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0169755295001097
Norman, G.: Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘laws’ of statistics. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. Theory Pract. 15(5), 625–32 (2010). doi:10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20146096
Silva, C.F., Cunha, P.R., Ghodous, P., Melo, P.: The semantic side of service-oriented architectures. In: Mentzas, G., Friesen, A (eds.) Semantic enterprise application Integration for business processes service oriented frameworks, pp. 90–104. IGI Global. (2010). doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-804-8.ch005. http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/chapter.aspx?TitleId=37934
Siskos, Y., Grigoroudis, E., Matsatsinis, N.: UTA Methods. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 297–344. Springer, New York (2005)
Stroulia, E., Wang, Y.: Structural and semantic matching for assessing web-service similarity. Int. J. Cooperat. Inform. Syst. 14(4), 407–437 (2005). doi:10.1142/S0218843005001213. http://www.worldscinet.com/ijcis/14/1404/S0218843005001213.html
Wixon, D., Holtzblatr, K., Knox, S.: Contextual design: an emergent view of system design. In: Carrasco. J., Whiteside. J., Seattle W.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 90 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference (1990)
Woolrych, A., Hornbæk, K., Frøkjær, E., Cockton, G.; Ingredients and meals rather than recipes: a proposal for research that does not treat usability evaluation methods as indivisible wholes. Int. J. Human Comput. Interact. 27(10), 940–970 (2011). doi:10.1080/10447318.2011.555314. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10447318.2011.555314
Yarbus, A.L.: Eye Movements and Vision. Plenum Press, New York (1967)
Acknowledgements
This work has been partially supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology under project grant[s] PEst-OE/ EEI/UI308/2014.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Melo, P., Jorge, L. Quantitative support for UX methods identification: how can multiple criteria decision making help?. Univ Access Inf Soc 14, 215–229 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-013-0341-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-013-0341-0