Extending Quality in Use to Provide a Framework for Usability Measurement

  • Nigel Bevan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5619)

Abstract

ISO has recently developed a new more comprehensive definition of quality in use, which has usability, flexibility and safety as subcharacteristics that can be quantified from the perspectives of different stakeholders, including users, managers and maintainers. While this provides a more complete set of requirements for operational use of a product, it also presents new challenges for measurement.

Keywords

Standards usability quality in use requirements measurement safety 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    ANSI: Common industry format for usability test reports (ANSI-NCITS 354-2001). ANSI (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berger, N., Arent, M., Arnowitz, J., Sampson, F.: Effective Prototyping with Excel: A practical handbook for developers and designers. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bevan, N.: Quality in use: meeting user needs for quality. Journal of Systems and Software 49(1), 89–96 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bevan, N., Claridge, N., Maguire, M., Athousaki, M.: Specifying and evaluating usability requirements using the Common Industry Format: Four case studies. In: Proceedings of IFIP 17th World Computer Congress, Montreal, Canada, August 25-30, pp. 133–148. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan, P., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry, pp. 189–194. Taylor and Francis, Abington (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F.: On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    CEC: Minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment Directive (90/270/EEC). Official Journal of the European Communities No L 156, 21/6/90 (1990) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cockton, G.: Putting Value into E-valuation. In: Law, E.L., Hvannberg, E.T., Cockton, G. (eds.) Maturing Usability. Quality in Software, Interaction and Value. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hassenzahl, M.: The effect of perceived hedonic quality on product appealingness. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 13, 479–497 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hassenzahl, M.: The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In: Blythe, M., Overbeeke, C., Monk, A.F., Wright, P.C. (eds.) Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, pp. 31–42. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hassenzahl, M.: AttrakDiff(tm), www.attrakdiff.de
  12. 12.
    Hornbæk, K.: Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 79–102 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO/IEC 9126: Software engineering – Product quality. ISO (1991)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO/IEC 9126-1: Software engineering – Product quality - Part 1: Quality model. ISO (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) Part 11: Guidance on Usability. ISO (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO 9241-171: Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 171: Guidance on software accessibility. ISO (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO/IEC CD 25010.3: Systems and software engineering – Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – Software product quality and system quality in use models. ISO (2009) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO/IEC 25062: Software Engineering - Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)-Common Industry Format (CIF) for Usability Test Reports. ISO (2006) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jian, J.-Y., Bisantz, A.M., Drury, C.G.: Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of cognitive Ergonomics 4(1), 53–71 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kirakowski, J.: The Software Usability Measurement Inventory: Background and Usage. In: Jordan, P., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor and Francis, Abington (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Audit Office: United Kingdom Passport Agency: The passport delays of Summer 1999. Publication HC 812 1998-1999 (1999) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Academic Press, London (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Norman, D.: Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Norman, K., Alm, H., Wigaeus Tornqvist, E., Toomingas, A.: Reliability of a questionnaire and an ergonomic checklist for assessing working conditions and health at call centres. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 12, 53–68 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Theofanos, M., Stanton, B., Bevan, N.: A practical guide to the CIF: Usability Measurements. Interactions 18(6), 34–37 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI): Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nigel Bevan
    • 1
  1. 1.Professional Usability ServicesLondonUK

Personalised recommendations