Advertisement

Value Added by the Axiomatic Usability Method for Evaluating Consumer Electronics

  • Yinni Guo
  • Yu Zhu
  • Gavriel Salvendy
  • Robert W. Proctor
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8018)

Abstract

In this paper we demonstrate how to use the axiomatic evaluation method to evaluate usability of consumer electronic products. The axiomatic evaluation method examines three domains of a product: customer, functional, and control domains. This method collects not only usability problems reported by the users, but also usability problems found through the mapping matrix between the three domains. To determine how well this new usability evaluation method works, an experiment was conducted to compare the axiomatic evaluation method with a think-aloud method. 60 participants were randomly assigned to use one method or the other to evaluate three popular consumer electronic devices. Number of usability problems discovered and completion time were collected and analyzed. Results showed that the axiomatic evaluation method performed better than the think-aloud method at finding usability problems for the mobile phone and about user expectation and control.

Keywords

axiomatic evaluation consumer electronics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Guo, Y., Proctor, R.W., Salvendy, G.: A conceptual model of the axiomatic usability evaluation method. In: Smith, M.J., Salvendy, G. (eds.) HCII 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6771, pp. 93–102. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Suh, N.P.: The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Suh, N.P.: Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications. Oxford University Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Proctor, R.W., Vu, K.-P.L.: Selection and Control of Action. In: Salvendy, G. (ed.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 3rd edn., pp. 89–110. John Wiley, Hoboken (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schneider, D.W., Anderson, J.R.: A Memory-based Model of Hick’s Law. Cognitive Psychol. 62, 193–222 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guiard, Y., Beaudouin-Lafon, M.: Fitts’ Law 50 Years Later: Applications and Contributions from Human–Computer Interaction. Int. J. Hum.-Comp. St. 61, 747–750 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lewis, C.: Using the" Thinking-Aloud" Method in Cognitive Interface Design. IBM Research Report RC 9265. IBM TJ Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ericsson, K., Simon, H.: Verbal Reports on Thinking. In: Faerch, C., Kasper, G. (eds.) Introspection in Second Language Research, pp. 24–54. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability testing. In: Salvendy, G. (ed.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2nd edn., pp. 1543–1568. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Magliano, J., Millis, K.: Assessing Reading Skill with a Think-Aloud Procedure and Latent Semantic Analysis. Cognition Instruct. 21, 251–283 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data, rev edn. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yinni Guo
    • 1
  • Yu Zhu
    • 2
  • Gavriel Salvendy
    • 1
    • 3
  • Robert W. Proctor
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Industrial EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  3. 3.Department of Industrial EngineeringTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  4. 4.Department of Psychological SciencesPurdue UniversityLafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations