Advertisement

Factors Affecting the Choice of Usability Evaluation Methods for Interactive Adaptive Systems

  • Amira DhouibEmail author
  • Ahlem Assila
  • Abdelwaheb Trabelsi
  • Christophe Kolski
  • Mahmoud Neji
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11262)

Abstract

Choosing the appropriate usability evaluation methods is a key part of the usability evaluation process of interactive adaptive systems. This step needs the consideration of different factors, leading to a multi-criteria decision analysis problem. In this paper, we present a review of the main factors reported in the literature which can affect the selection of usability evaluation methods for interactive adaptive systems. Three of the most commonly used usability evaluation methods are selected and classified according to these factors. The results of this research are used by applying a decision aid method in order to guide the choice of suitable usability evaluation methods for a given adaptive system in the field of tourism.

Keywords

Interactive adaptive system Usability evaluation method Decision process 

References

  1. 1.
    Benyon, D.: Adaptive systems: a solution to usability problems. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 3, 65–87 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jameson, A., Gajos, K.Z.: Systems that Adapt to Their Users. In: Julie, A., Jacko, J. (eds.) The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, pp. 246–251. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gena, C., Weibelzahl, S.: Usability engineering for the adaptive web. In: Brusilovsky, P., Kobsa, A., Nejdl, W. (eds.) The Adaptive Web. LNCS, vol. 4321, pp. 720–762. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72079-9_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dhouib, A., Trabelsi, A., Kolski, C., Neji, M.: A classification and comparison of usability evaluation methods for interactive adaptive systems. In: 9th International Conference on Human System Interactions, Portsmouth, UK, pp. 246–251 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xavier, F., Nigel, B., Tomás, A. E.: UCD method selection with usability planner. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (NordiCHI 2010), pp. 829–830. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Effie, L., Ebba, H., Gilbert, C. (eds.): Maturing Usability: Quality in Software. Interaction and Value. Springer, London (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-941-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paramythis, A., Weibelzahl, S., Masthoff, J.: Layered evaluation of interactive adaptive systems: framework and formative methods. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 20, 383–453 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dhouib, A., Trablesi, A., Kolski, C., Neji, M.: EvalCHOICE: a decision support approach for the usability evaluation of interactive adaptive systems. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference KES, Elsevier Procedia Computer Science, Marseille, France, pp. 864–873, September 2017Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dhouib A., Trabelsi, A., Kolski, C., Neji, M.: Towards the layered evaluation of interactive adaptive systems using ELECTRE TRI method. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Software Technologies (ICSOFT 2017), Madrid, pp. 163–170 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nielsen, J.: Heuristic evaluation. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L. (eds.) Usability Inspection Methods, pp. 25–64. Wiley, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dumas, J.S., Redish, J.C.: A Practical Guide To Usability Testing. N.J. Ablex Publishing Corp, Norwood (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mahatody, T., Sagar, M., Kolski, C.: State of the art on the cognitive walkthrough method, its variants and evolutions. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 26, 741–785 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zardari, K., Ahmed, S.M., Shirazi, Z., Yusop, B.: Weighting Methods and their Effects on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Outcomes in Water Resources Management. Springer Briefs in Water Science and Technology. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12586-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang, J.J., Jing, Y.Y., Zhang, C.F., Zhao, J.H.: Review on multi-criteria decision aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13, 2263–2278 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dix, A.J., Finlay, J.E., Abowd, G.D., Beale, R.: Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Staffordshire Hemel Hempstead (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Assila, A., Oliveira, K., Ezzedine, H.: Integration of subjective and objective usability evaluation based on ISO/IEC 15939: a case study for traffic supervision systems. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 32(12), 931–955 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Primož, K., Matjaž, D., Danijela, M.: Adequateness of usability evaluation methods regarding adaptivity. Simpozijum o računarskim naukama i informacionim tehnologijama (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wixon, D., Wilson, C.: The usability engineering framework for product design and evaluation. In: Helander, M., Landauer, T., Prabhu, P. (eds.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 653–688. Elsevier Science B.V, Amsterdam (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karat, J.: User-centered software evaluation methodologies. In: Helander, M., Landauer, T.K., Prabhu, P. (eds.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd edn, pp. 689–704. Elsevier Science B.V, Amsterdam (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hariri, M., Tabary, D., Lepreux, S., Kolski, C.: Context aware business adaptation toward user interface adaptation. Commun. SIWN 3, 46–52 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taktak, H., Moussa, F.: Service-oriented application creation process in ubiquitous environments travel assistant mobile application. Int. J. Pervasive Comput. Commun. 13(3), 300–330 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roy, B.: The Outranking Approach and the Foundations of ELECTRE Methods. Theory and Decision (1991)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roy, B.: Méthodologie Multicritère d’Aide a la Décision, Economica, Paris (1985)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guitouni, A., Martel, J-M., Vincke, P.: A Framework to Choose a Discrete Multicriterion Aggregation Procedure, Defence Research Establishment Valcatier (DREV) (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bouyssou, D., Duckstein, L., Goicoechea, A., Zionts, S.: On Some Properties of Outranking Relations Based on a Concordance-Discordance Principle, Multiple Criteria Decision Making, pp. 93–106. Springer, Berlin (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amira Dhouib
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ahlem Assila
    • 2
  • Abdelwaheb Trabelsi
    • 3
  • Christophe Kolski
    • 4
  • Mahmoud Neji
    • 1
  1. 1.Miracl Laboratory, Faculty of Economics and Management SciencesUniversity of SfaxSfaxTunisia
  2. 2.CESI, LINEACTReimsFrance
  3. 3.Saudi Electronic UniversityDammamSaudi Arabia
  4. 4.LAMIH-UMR CNRS 8201, Université Polytechnique Hauts-de-FranceValenciennesFrance

Personalised recommendations