Active Involvement of Software Developers in Usability Engineering: Two Small-Scale Case Studies

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10516)

Abstract

The essence of usability evaluations is to produce feedback that supports the downstream utility so the interaction design can be improved and problems can be fixed. In practice, software development organizations experience several obstacles for conducting usability engineering. One suggested approach is to train and involve developers in all phases of usability activities from evaluations, to problem reporting, and making redesign proposals. Only limited work has previously investigated the impact of actively involving developers in usability engineering. In this paper, we present two small-scale case studies in which we investigate the developers’ experience of conducting usability evaluations and participating in a redesign workshop. In both case studies developers actively engaged in both activities. Per the developers, this approach supported problem understanding, severity ratings, and problem fixing. At the organizational level, we found that the attitude towards and understanding of the role of usability engineering improved.

Keywords

Usability engineering Redesign Case study 

References

  1. 1.
    Bak, J.O., et al.: Obstacles to usability evaluation in practice: a survey of software development organizations. In: Proceedings of the 5th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Building Bridges, pp. 23–32. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Billestrup, J., et al.: UX requirements to public systems for all: formalisation or innovation. In: INTERACT 2015 Adjunct Proceedings: 15th IFIP TC. 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Bamberg, Germany, p. 2015407, 14–18 September 2015Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bornoe, N., et al.: Redesign workshop: involving software developers actively in usability engineering. In: Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Fun, Fast, Foundational - NordiCHI 2014, pp. 1113–1118. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruun, A., Jensen, J.J., Skov, M.B., Stage, J.: Active collaborative learning: supporting software developers in creating redesign proposals. In: Sauer, S., Bogdan, C., Forbrig, P., Bernhaupt, R., Winckler, M. (eds.) HCSE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8742, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44811-3_1 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruun, A.: Training software developers in usability engineering: a literature review. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, pp. 82–91. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruun, A., Stage, J.: Barefoot usability evaluations. Behav. Inf. Technol. 33(11), 1148–1167 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bygstad, B., et al.: Software development methods and usability: perspectives from a survey in the software industry in Norway. Interact. Comput. 20(3), 375–385 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cajander, Å., Larusdottir, M., Gulliksen, J.: Existing but not explicit - the user perspective in scrum projects in practice. In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013, Part III. LNCS, vol. 8119, pp. 762–779. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40477-1_52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chilana, P.K., et al.: Understanding usability practices in complex domains. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2337–2346. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elliott, R., et al.: Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research. Handb. Res. Methods Clin. Heal. Psychol. 1, 147–159 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eriksson, E., Cajander, Å., Gulliksen, J.: Hello world! – experiencing usability methods without usability expertise. In: Gross, T., Gulliksen, J., Kotzé, P., Oestreicher, L., Palanque, P., Prates, R.O., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5727, pp. 550–565. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03658-3_60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garnik, I., et al.: Creative sprints: an unplanned broad agile evaluation and redesign process. In: Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational, pp. 1125–1130. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gulliksen, J., et al.: Usability professionals—current practices and future development. Interact. Comput. 18(4), 568–600 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hertzum, M.: Problem prioritization in usability evaluation: from severity assessments toward impact on design. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 21(2), 125–146 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Høegh, R.T., et al.: The impact of usability reports and user test observations on developers’ understanding of usability data: an exploratory study. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 21(2), 173–196 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Høegh, R.T., Jensen, J.J.: A case study of three software projects: can software developers anticipate the usability problems in their software? Behav. Inf. Technol. 27(4), 307–312 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Juristo, N., et al.: Analysing the impact of usability on software design. J. Syst. Softw. 80(9), 1506–1516 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karat, J., Dayton, T.: Practical education for improving software usability. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 162–169. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kjeldskov, J., et al.: Instant data analysis: conducting usability evaluations in a day. In: Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 233–240. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuusinen, K., Mikkonen, T., Pakarinen, S.: Agile user experience development in a large software organization: good expertise but limited impact. In: Winckler, M., Forbrig, P., Bernhaupt, R. (eds.) HCSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7623, pp. 94–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34347-6_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Latzina, M., Rummel, B.: Soft (ware) skills in context: corporate usability training aiming at cross-disciplinary collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T 2003), pp. 52–57 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Law, E.L.-C.: Evaluating the downstream utility of user tests and examining the developer effect: a case study. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 21(2), 147–172 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lizano, F., et al.: Is usability evaluation important: the perspective of novice software developers. In: The 27th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference (HCI 2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Monahan, K., et al.: An investigation into the use of field methods in the design and evaluation of interactive systems. In: Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Culture, Creativity, Interaction, vol. 1, pp. 99–108. British Computer Society, Swinton (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nørgaard, M., Hornbæk, K.: What do usability evaluators do in practice?: an explorative study of think-aloud testing. In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 209–218. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Øvad, T., et al.: Teaching software developers to perform UX tasks. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction on - OzCHI 2015, pp. 397–406. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rubin, J., Chisnell, D.: Handbook of Usability Testing [Electronic Resource]: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empir. Softw. Eng. 14(2), 131 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Salah, D., et al.: A systematic literature review for agile development processes and user centred design integration. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pp. 5:1–5:10. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Skov, M.B., Stage, J.: Training software developers and designers to conduct usability evaluations. Behav. Inf. Technol. 31(4), 425–435 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith, A., Dunckley, L.: Prototype evaluation and redesign: structuring the design space through contextual techniques. Interact. Comput. 14(6), 821–843 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Uldall-Espersen, T., et al.: Tracing impact in a usability improvement process. Interact. Comput. 20(1), 48–63 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vukelja, L., Müller, L., Opwis, K.: Are engineers condemned to design? A survey on software engineering and UI design in Switzerland. In: Baranauskas, C., Palanque, P., Abascal, J., Barbosa, S.D.J. (eds.) INTERACT 2007, Part II. LNCS, vol. 4663, pp. 555–568. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74800-7_50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Walsham, G.: Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 4(2), 74–81 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wixon, D.: Evaluating usability methods: why the current literature fails the practitioner. Interactions 10(4), 28–34 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations