A User-Orientation Evaluation Framework: Assessing Accessibility Throughout the User Experience Lifecycle

  • Alexandros Mourouzis
  • Margherita Antona
  • Evagelos Boutsakis
  • Constantine Stephanidis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4061)


Today, as the users and contexts of use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) become more diverse, there is a significant need to understand all the factors that may affect the quality of the user-experience, and to measure them systematically. This paper proposes an evaluation framework for specifying and measuring the user-orientation of interactive products. The term “user-orientation” refers to the extent to which target users (will) find the product acceptable at all phases of the user experience lifecycle. The proposed framework incorporates accessibility as a basic determinant of acceptability and long-term adoption. It can be employed effectively in the evaluation of systems that are aimed to be accessible and usable by diverse users (e.g., public systems) or by people with disability.


Technology Acceptance Model Simulated User Diverse User Basic Determinant System Design Feature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Savidis, A., Stephanidis, C.: Unified User Interface Design: Designing Universally Accessible Interactions. International Journal of Interacting with Computers 16(2), 243–270 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    eUSER: eUSER Conceptual and Analytical Framework (first version). In: Cullen, K. (ed.) eUSER Deliverable D1.1, Part A (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rogers, E.: Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1975)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benyon, D., Crerar, A., Wilkinson, S.: Individual Differences and Inclusive Design. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) User Interfaces for All - Concepts, Methods, and Tools, pp. 21–46. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO 9241 ISO DIS 9241 – Part 11: Guidance on usability (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis, F.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Featherman, M.S., Pavlou, P.A.: Predicting e-Services Adoption: A Perceived Risk Facets Perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 59(4), 451–474 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    MORI: Measuring & Understanding Customer Satisfaction. A MORI Review for the Office of Public Services Reform. London: The Prime Minister’s Office of Public Services Reform (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Antona, M., Mourouzis, A., Kartakis, G., Stephanidis, C.: User requirements and usage life-cycle for digital libraries. In: Proc. of the HCII 2005 Conference (2005) (CD-ROM)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mack, R.L., Nielsen, J.: Executive Summary. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L. (eds.) Usability Inspection Methods, pp. 1–23. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandros Mourouzis
    • 1
  • Margherita Antona
    • 1
  • Evagelos Boutsakis
    • 1
  • Constantine Stephanidis
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Computer ScienceFoundation for Research and Technology – Hellas (FORTH)HeraklionGreece
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CreteHeraklionGreece

Personalised recommendations