Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Green Paper on Usability Maturation

  • Chapter
Maturing Usability

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

Abstract

Usability maturation manifests in terms of quality in software, in interaction, and in value, constituting the three parts of this volume. In this green paper, the three editors present a range of ideas drawn and synthesized from the fifteen preceding chapters. It is not just a review, but, more importantly, it is an invitation for interested individuals or organizations to contribute more views and information, providing answers to open questions, challenging existing opinions, raising new issues, and bridging the gaps. In the Introduction, a brief overview of the development of the field of HCI is presented. In each of the three following sections, the five chapters comprising the respective part are reviewed and attendant issues are discussed, leading to research agendas that can serve as a roadmap for the future work on usability.

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

  • Abrahamsson, P., Warsta, J., Siponen, M. T., & Ronkainen, J. (2003). New directions on agile methods: a comparative analysis. In Proc. 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, Portland, Oregon (pp. 244–254), IEEE.

    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. Conf. on System Sciences. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, L., Clements, P., & Kazman, R. (2003) Software architecture in practice. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, L., & John, B. (2003). Linking usability to software architecture patterns through general scenarios. The Journal of Systems and Software, 66, 187–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (2000). Instrumental interaction: an interaction model for designing post-WIMP user interfaces. In Proc. CHI 2000 (pp. 446–453)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bødker, S. (2006). When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In Proceedings of NordiCHI 2006 (pp. 1–8), Oslo, Norway,

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B. (2002). Get ready for agile methods, with care. IEEE Computer 35, 64–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B. (2006). A view of 20th and 21st century software engineering. In Proc. ICSE’06 (pp 12–29), Shanghai, China. ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B.W., Brown J.R., Lipow, M. (1976). Quantitative evaluation of software quality. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software Engineering (pp 592–605), San Francisco, California, United States, IEEE,

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, K. (1996). Usability engineering turns 10. Interactions, 3, 58–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Card, S., Moran, T.P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J., & Moran, T. (1996) Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J.M., Kellogg, W.A., & Rosson, M.B. (1991). The task-artifact cycle. In J.M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human–computer interface (pp. 74–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockton, G. (2004). Value-centred HCI. In A. Hyrskykari (Ed.), Proc. NordiCHI 2004 (pp. 149–160).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockton, G. (2006). Designing worth is worth designing. In A.I. Mørch, K. Morgan, T. Bratteteig, G. Ghosh, & D. Svanæs (Eds.), Proc. NordiCHI 2006 (pp. 165–174).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockton, G., & Woolrych, A. (2002). Sale must end: Should discount methods be cleared off HCI’s shelves? Interactions (Sept/Oct), 13–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaper, D. (2002). Task scenarios and thought. Interacting with Computers, 14, 629–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dourish, P. (2006). Implications for design. In Proceedings of CHI 2006 (pp. 541–550). New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dray, S., Karat,C-M., Rosenberg, D., Siegel, D., & Wixon, D.(2005). Is ROI an effective approach for persuading decision-makers of the value of user-centered design? In CHI Extended Abstracts 2005, 1168–1169

    Google Scholar 

  • Earthy, J. (1998). Usability maturity model: Human centredness scale. INUSE Project deliverable D5.1.4(s). Version 1.2. London, Lloyd’s Register of Shipping.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eickelmann, N., & Hayes, J.H. (2004). New Year’s Resolutions for Software Quality. IEEE Software, 2004, 12–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiore, S. G. (2004). Oppressive interactions: Between expression and imagination. Paper presented at the CHI2004 Conference W18 Workshop, Vienna, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  • Firesmith, D. (2003). Using quality models to engineer quality requirements. Journal of Object Technology, 2(5), 67–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folmer, E., & Bosch, J. (2004). Architecting for usability: a survey. The Journal of Systems and Software, 70, 61–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, R. (2003). Standards: Do we really need them? Online at: www.masternewmedia.org/2003/12/26/standards_do_we_really_need.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Grudin, J. (1994). Computer-supported cooperative work: History and focus. IEEE Computer, 27(5), 19–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grudin, J. (2005). Three faces of human-computer interaction. IEEE Annals of history of computing 2005, 46–62

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A., & Chapman, R. (2002). Correctness by construction: Developing a commercial secure system. IEEE Software, 19, 18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl, M. (2002). The effect of perceived hedonistic quality on product appealingness. International Journal of HCI, 13, 479–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassenzahl, M., & Sandweg, N. (2004). From mental effort to perceived usability: Transforming experiences into summary assessments. In CHI ’04 Extended Abstracts on Human factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1283–1286). ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haumer, P., Jarke, M., Pohl, K., & Weidenhaupt, K. (2000). Improving reviews of conceptual models by extended traceability to captured system usage. Interacting with Computers, 13, 77–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornbæk, K., & Frøkjær, E. (2004). Usability inspection by metaphors of human thinking compared to heuristic evaluation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 17, 3, 357–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornbæk, K. (2006). Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(2), 79–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornbæk, K., & Stage, J. (2006). The interplay between usability evaluation and user interaction design. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 21(2), 117–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jokela, T., Siponen, M., Hirasawa, N., & J. Earthy, J. (2006). A survey of usability capability maturity models: Implications for practice and research. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(3), 263–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, E. L.-C. (2006). Evaluating the downstream utility of user tests and examining the developer effect: A case study. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 21(2), 147–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, E. L-C., & Hvannberg, E.T. (2006). Quality models of online learning community systems: Exploration, evaluation and exploitation. In N. Lambropoulous & P. Zaphiris (Eds.), User-Centred Design of On-line Learning Communities (pp. 71–101). Idea Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, E.L-C., Hvannberg, E.T., & Hassenzahl, M. (2006). Proceedings of the Workshop: User experience: Towards a unified view, 14 October 2006, Oslo, Norway.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J.R. (2006). Sample sizes for usability tests: Mostly math, not magic. Interactions, 13(6), 29–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lui, K.M., & Chan, K.C.C. (2006) Pair programming productivity: Novice-novice vs. expert-expert. International Journal of Human-computer studies 64, 915–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M.S. (2004). Finding a history for software engineering. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, 26, 8–19

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J., & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, E., Hager, D.R., Elie, C.J., & Blackwell, J.M. (2002). Remote usability evaluation: Overview and case studies. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 14(3&4), 489–502

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, N., & Kirakowski, J. (2006). Functionality, usability and user experience: Three areas of concern. Interactions, 13(6), 26–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molich, R. (2003). User testing, discount user testing. Available at: http://www.diku.dk/undervisning/2004f/516/UserTestingMolich.pdf (Accessed on 05.01.2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B.A. (1998) A brief history of human computer interaction technology. ACM interactions, 5 (2), 44–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A. (1973). You can’t play 20 questions with nature and win: Projective comments on the papers of this symposium. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 283–308). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oviatt, S. (2003). User-centered modeling and evaluation of multimodal interfaces (Invited talk). Proceedings of IEEE, 91(9), 1457–2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pace, S. (2004). A grounded theory of the flow experiences of Web users. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60(3), 327–363.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Preece, J. (2001). Sociability and usability in online communities: determining and measuring success. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20(5), 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, D. (2004). The myths of usability ROI. Interactions, 11(5), 22–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2001). Usability engineering: Scenario-based development of HCI. New York: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Penguin Modern Classics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauro, J. (2006). Quantifying usability. Interactions, 13(6), 20–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, D.C. (2006). Guest editor’s introduction: Model-driven engineering. IEEE Computer 39: 25–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Seffah, A., Gulliksen, J., & Desmarais, M.C. (Eds.) (2006). Human-centered software engineering – Integrating usability in the software development lifecycle. Secaucus, NJ: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seffah, A., & Metzker, E. (2004). The obstacles and myths of usability and software engineering. Communications of the ACM, 47, 71–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorflaten, J. (2006). Make the fuzzy part of ROI clear. Interactions, 13(6), 38–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe, A. (2003). Symbiosis and synergy? scenarios, task analysis and reuse of HCI knowledge. Interacting with Computers 15:245–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thackara, J. (2000), The design challenge of pervasive computing, April 22, 2000 posting of CHI 2000 keynote, available at http://www.doorsofperception.com/archives/businessinnovation/, last accessed 20/1/07.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venturi, G., Troost, J., & Jokela, T. (2006). People, organizations, and processes: An inquiry into the adoption of user-centered design in industry. International. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 21(2), 219–238.

    Article  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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut TIK, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

    Effie Lai-Chong Law

  2. Computer Science Department, University of Iceland, Iceland

    Ebba Thora Hvannberg

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

    Gilbert Cockton

Authors
  1. Effie Lai-Chong Law
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ebba Thora Hvannberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. 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

Law, E.LC., Hvannberg, E.T., Cockton, G. (2008). A Green Paper on Usability Maturation. 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_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-941-5_16

  • 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