Advertisement

Towards the Maturation of IT Usability Evaluation (MAUSE)

  • Effie L. -C. Law
  • Ebba T. Hvannberg
  • Gilbert Cockton
  • Philippe Palanque
  • Dominque Scapin
  • Mark Springett
  • Christian Stary
  • Jean Vanderdonckt
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3585)

Abstract

This article describes a new initiative MAUSE of which the ultimate goal is to bring more science to bear on usability evaluation methods. This overarching goal will be realized through scientific activities of four Working Groups (WGs) with each of them having specific objectives, rationales, tasks and expected outcomes. Outlook for MAUSE’s development is described.

References

  1. 1.
    Andre, T.S., Hartson, H.R., Belz, S.M., McCreary, F.A.: The user action framework. International Journal Human-Computer Studies 54, 107–136 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cockton, G., Lavery, D., Woolrych, A.: Inspection-based evaluation. In: Jacko, J.A., Sears, A. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction Handbook, pp. 1118–1138. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hartson, H.R., Andre, T.S., Williges, R.C.: Criteria for evaluating usability evaluation methods. Int. J. Human and Computer Interaction 15(1), 145–181 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hvannberg, E.T., Law, E.L.-C.: Classification of Usability Problems (CUP) Scheme. In: Proceedings of INTERACT 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Law, E.L.-C., Hvannberg, E.T.: Analysis of combinatorial user effect in international usability tests. In: Proceedings of CHI 2004 (2004a)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Law, E.L.-C., Hvannberg, E.T.: Analysis of strategies for improving and estimating the effectiveness of heuristic evaluation. In: Proceedings of NordiCHI 2004 (2004b)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Molich, R., Ede, M., Kaasgaard, K., Karyukin, B.: Comparative usability evaluation. Behaviour and Information Technology 23(1), 65–74 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rogers, Y.: New theoretical approaches for HCI. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) 38 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van den Haak, M.J., de Jong, M.D.T., Schellens, P.: Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols. Behaviour and Information Technology 22(5), 339–351 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Effie L. -C. Law
    • 1
  • Ebba T. Hvannberg
    • 2
  • Gilbert Cockton
    • 3
  • Philippe Palanque
    • 4
  • Dominque Scapin
    • 5
  • Mark Springett
    • 6
  • Christian Stary
    • 7
  • Jean Vanderdonckt
    • 8
  1. 1.ETH ZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.University of IcelandUK
  3. 3.University of SunderlandUK
  4. 4.Universite Paul SabatierFrance
  5. 5.INRIA RocquencourtFrance
  6. 6.University of MiddlesexUK
  7. 7.University of LinzAustria
  8. 8.Catholic University of LouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations