Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Putting Value into E-valu-ation

  • Chapter
Maturing Usability

Part of the book series: Human-Computer Interaction Series ((HCIS))

Abstract

Usability evaluation measures remain too close to what were originally dependent variables in factorial experiments. The basis for genuine usability problems in such variables is not guaranteed, but there has been little progress on finding replacements since HCI’s shift from the laboratory to field studies. As a result, the worth of much usability evaluation is questionable. Such doubts will persist until we can fully align the purpose of evaluation with the purpose of design, which is to create value in the world through innovative products and services, whether sold in markets, or provided free by either individuals or public and voluntary agencies. This chapter reviews issues with common usability measures and introduces a framework that can plausibly realign evaluation criteria with design purpose by adapting an approach from consumer psychology. This provides opportunities to deploy evaluation measures and instruments that meet the needs of design, rather than reflect skill sets from psychology and human factors. The current gap between design and usability evaluation narrows, but an exclusive usability focus in evaluation becomes impossible. Instead, the role of usability in delivering or degrading intended worth is placed in a wider worth systems context. The maturity of usability will thus be evidenced by its effective integration with a range of design and evaluation concerns. It can longer assume intrinsic importance, but has to demonstrate it in the context of achieved product value.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alderfer, C. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aschmoneit, P., & Heitmann, M. (2003). Consumers cognition towards communities: Customer-centred community design using the means-end chain perspective. In Proc. 36th Hawaii Int. Conference on System Sciences, IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1996). Contextual Design. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bødker, S. (2006). When Second Wave HCI meets Third Wave Challenges. In A.I. Mørch, K. Morgan, T. Bratteteig, G. Ghosh, & D. Svanæs (Eds.), Proceedings of NordiCHI 2006 (pp. 1–8).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. M., & Kellogg, W. A. (1989). Artifact as theory-nexus: hermeneutics meets theory-based design. In K. Bice & C. Lewis (Eds.), Proc. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 7–14). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catterall, B. J. (1990). The HUFIT functionality matrix. In D. Diaper, D.J. Gilmore, G. Cockton, & B. Shackel (Eds.), Proc. INTERACT’90 (pp. 377–338).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockton, G. (2005). A development framework for value-centred design. In C. Gale (Ed.), CHI 2005 Extended Abstracts (pp. 1292–1295). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockton, G. (2006a). Designing Worth is Worth Designing. In A.I. Mørch, K. Morgan, T. Bratteteig, G. Ghosh, & D. Svanæs (Eds.),Proceedings of NordiCHI 2006 (pp. 165–174). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockton, G. (2006b). Focus, fit and fervour: Future factors beyond play with the interplay. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 21(2), 239–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockton, G., & Lavery, D. (1999). A framework for usability problem extraction. In A. Sasse & C. Johnson (Eds.), Proceedings of INTERACT 99 (pp. 347–355).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockton, G., & Woolrych, A. (2001) Understanding inspection methods: Lessons from an assessment of heuristic evaluation. In A. Blandford, J. Vanderdonckt and P.D. Gray (Eds.), People and Computers XV (pp. 171–192). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockton, G., Woolrych, A., Hall, L. & Hindmarch, M. (2003). Changing analysts’ tunes: The surprising impact of a new instrument for usability inspection method assessment. In P. Palanque, P. Johnson and E. O’Neill (Eds.), People and Computers XVII: Designing for Society (pp. 145–162). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockton, G., Woolrych, A., & Hindmarch, M. (2004). Reconditioned merchandise: Extended structured report formats in usability inspection”. In CHI 2004 Extended Abstracts (pp. 1433–1436). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, M., & Alty, J. L. (Eds.). (1981). Computing Skills and the User Interface. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbridge, C., Rugg, G., Major, N., Shadbolt, N.R., & Burton, A. (1994). Laddering: Techniques and Tool Use in Knowledge Acquisition. Journal of Knowledge Acquisition, 6, 315–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edgerton, E. A., Draper, S. W., & Barton, S. B. (1993). Feature checklists in HCI: Some basic results. In S. Ashlund, K. Mullet, A. Henderson, E. Hollnagel, & T. White (Eds.), INTERACT ’93 and CHI ’93 Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 189–190). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B., & Kahn, P. (2003). Chapter 61: Human values, ethics and design. In J. Jacko and A. Sears (Eds.), The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook (pp. 1171–1201), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, W.D., & Salzman, M.C. (1998). Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human-Computer Interaction, 13(3), 203–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience – a research agenda. Behavior & Information Technology, 25(2), 91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heitmann, M., Prykop, C., & Aschmoneit, P.(2004). Using means-end chains to build mobile brand communities. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtzblatt, K., Wendell J. B., & Wood, S. (2004). Rapid Contextual Design. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W., Westerlund, B., Bederson, B. B., Druin, A., Plaisant, C., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., Conversy, S., Evans, H., Hansen, H., Roussel, N., & Eiderbäck, B. (2003). Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. In Proc. Conf. on Human Factors in Comp. Systems (pp. 17–24). New York: ACM.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ISO/International Standards Organisation (1998). 9241 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals – Part 11: Guidance on usability

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO/International Standards Organisation (2006). 25062 Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation – Common Industry Format (CIF) for usability test reports.

    Google Scholar 

  • JISC, (no date) PESTLE and SWOT Analyses, available at www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/project-management/pestle-swot, last accessed on 10/01/07.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S., & Cockton, G. (2004). Tightly coupling multimedia with context: Strategies for exploiting multimodal learning in complex management topics (pp. 813–815). In 4th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavery, D., & Cockton, G. (1996). Iterative development of early usability evaluation methods for software visualisations. In W.D. Gray & D.A. Boehm-Davies (Eds.), Empirical Studies of Programmers: 6th Workshop, (pp. 275–276). Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavery, D., & Cockton, G. (1997). Representing predicted and actual usability problems. In Proc. Int. Workshop on Representations in Interactive Software Development (pp. 97–108), Queen Mary College London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavery, D., Cockton, G., & Atkinson, M.P., (1997). Comparison of Evaluation Methods Using Structured Usability Problem Reports. Behaviour and Information Technology, 16(4), 246–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, W. M., & Taylor, A. S. (1999). Towards a methodology employing critical parameters to deliver performance improvements in interactive systems. In A. Sasse & C. Johnson (Eds.), INTERACT 99 Proceedings (pp. 605–612).

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, D.P., & Kaplan, R.S. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, T. J., & Gutman, J. (1984). Laddering: Extending the repertory grid methodology to construct attribute-consequence-value hierarchies. In R. E. Pitts & A. G. Woodside (Eds.), Personal values and consumer psychology (pp. 155–167). Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, T.J., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method analysis and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 28, 11–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human value. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugg, G., Eva, M., Mahmood, A., Rehman, N., Andrews, S., & Davies S. (2002). Eliciting information about organizational culture via laddering. Information Systems Journal, 12, 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholtz, J., Herman, H., Laskowski, S., Smailagic, A., & Siewiorek, D. (2001), Workshop on Evaluation Methods for Ubiquitous Computing, UbiComp 2001 Conference, http://zing.ncsl.nist.gov/ubicomp01/, last accessed 10/1/07.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellen, A., Eardley, R., Izadi, S., & Harper, R. (2006). The whereabouts clock: early testing of a situated awareness device. In CHI ’06 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1307–1312). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengers, P., Boehner, K., David, S., & Kaye J. J. (2005). Reflective design. in O. Berthelsen, N.O. Bouvin, P.G. Krogh & M. Kyng (Eds.), Critical Computing – Between Sense and Sensibilities. Proceedings of the Fourth Decennial Aarhus Conference (pp. 49–58). New York: ACM.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Service Design Network (no date), http://www.servicedesignnetwork.org/, last accessed 12/12/06.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramony, D.P. (2002). Why users choose particular web sites over others: Introducing a “means-end” approach to human-computer interaction. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 3(3), 144–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voida, A., & Mynatt, E. D. (2005). Six themes of the communicative appropriation of photographic images. In Proc SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 171–180). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiteside, J., Bennett, J., & Holtzblatt, K. (1988). Usability engineering: Our experience and evolution. In M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (1st Ed.) (pp. 791–817). North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wixon, D. (2003) Evaluating usability methods: why the current literature fails the practitioner. Interactions, 10(4), 28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B., & Jeffery, R. (2002). A Quantitative Study on the Role of Cognitive Structures in Software Quality Evaluation, Tech. Rep. 02/3, National ICT Australia Empirical Software Engineering, www.caesar.unsw.edu.aupublications/pdf/Tech02_3.pdf, last accessed 07/01/07.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing & Technology, University of Sunderland, UK

    Gilbert Cockton

Authors
  1. Gilbert Cockton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut TIK, ETH Zürich, Switzerland

    Effie Lai-Chong Law

  2. Computer Science Department, University of Iceland, Iceland

    Ebba Thora Hvannberg PhD

  3. University of Sunderland, UK

    Gilbert Cockton MA, PGCE,PhD, CITP, FBCS, FRSA

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cockton, G. (2008). Putting Value into E-valu-ation. In: Law, E.LC., Hvannberg, E.T., Cockton, G. (eds) Maturing Usability. Human-Computer Interaction Series. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-941-5_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-941-5_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84628-940-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84628-941-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation