Advertisement

Mobile Phone Usability Questionnaire (MPUQ) and Automated Usability Evaluation

  • Young Sam Ryu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5610)

Abstract

The mobile phone has become one of the most popular products amongst today’s consumers. The Mobile Phone Usability Questionnaire (MPUQ) was developed to provide an effective subjective usability measurement tool, tailored specifically to the mobile phone. Progress is being made in the HCI research community towards automating some aspects of the usability evaluation process. Given that this effort is gaining traction, a tool for measurement of subjective usability, such as MPUQ, may serve as a complement to automated evaluation methods by providing user-centered values and emotional aspects of the product. Furthermore, experimental comparison of MPUQ assessments and automated usability analysis may enable researchers to determine whether automated usability tools generate metrics that correlate with user impressions of usability.

Keywords

Usability mobile user interface subjective measurement questionnaire automating usability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Vnnen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Ruuska, S.: Designing Mobile Phones and Communicators for Consumers’ Needs at Nokia. In: Bergman, E. (ed.) Information Appliances and Beyond: Interaction Design for Consumer Products, pp. 169–204. Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sacher, H., Loudon, G.: Uncovering the new wireless interaction paradigm. ACM Interactions Magazine 9(1), 17–23 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ketola, P.: Integrating Usability with Concurrent Engineering in Mobile Phone Development. Tampereen yliopisto (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    PrintOnDemand. Popularity of Mobile Devices Growing (2003), http://www.printondemand.com/MT/archives/002021.html (cited February 5, 2003)
  5. 5.
    Ivory, M.Y., Hearst, M.A.: The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces. ACM Comput. Surv. 33(4), 470–516 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    John, B.E., et al.: Predictive human performance modeling made easy. In: The Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2004, ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kirakowski, J.: Questionnaires in Usability Engineering: A List of Frequently Asked Questions [HTML] (2003) (cited November 26, 2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Annett, J.: Target Paper. Subjective rating scales: science or art? Ergonomics 45(14), 966–987 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baber, C.: Subjective evaluation of usability. Ergonomics 45(14), 1021–1025 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keinonen, T.: One-dimensional usability - Influence of usability on consumers’ product preference, University of Art and Design Helsinki, UIAH A21 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caplan, S.H.: Making Usability a Kodak Product Differentiator. In: Wiklund, M. (ed.) Usability in Practice: How Companies Develop User-Friendly Products, pp. 21–58. Academic Press, Boston (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Logan, R.J.: Behavioral and emotional usability; Thomson Consumer Electronics. In: Wiklund, M. (ed.) Usability in practice: How companies develop user friendly products, pp. 59–82. Academic press, Boston (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hofmeester, G.H., Kemp, J.A.M., Blankendaal, A.C.M.: Sensuality in product design: a structured approach. In: CHI 1996 Conference (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jordan, P.W.: Human factors for pleasure in product use. Applied Ergonomics 29(1), 25–33 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Young Sam Ryu
    • 1
  1. 1.Ingram School of EngineeringTexas State University-San MarcosSan MarcosUSA

Personalised recommendations