Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methods for quantitative usability requirements: a case study on the development of the user interface of a mobile phone

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quantitative usability requirements are a critical but challenging, and hence an often neglected aspect of a usability engineering process. A case study is described where quantitative usability requirements played a key role in the development of a new user interface of a mobile phone. Within the practical constraints of the project, existing methods for determining usability requirements and evaluating the extent to which these are met, could not be applied as such, therefore tailored methods had to be developed. These methods and their applications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Also other terms such as user-centred design and human-centred design are used, although some authors do not consider these terms synonyms.

  2. Often called formative usability evaluations.

  3. Often called summative usability evaluation.

  4. Wireless Application Protocol.

  5. Reasons not within the scope of this article.

References

  1. Norman DA, Draper S (eds) (1986) User centered system design. Hillsdale, Erlbaum (NY)

  2. Gould JD, Boies SJ, Levy S, Richards JT, Schoonard J (1987) The 1984 Olympic message system: a test of behavioral principles of system design. Commun ACM 30(9):758–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beyer H, Holtzblatt K (1998) Contextual design: defining customer-centered systems. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, p 472

    Google Scholar 

  4. Carroll JM, Mack RL (1985) Metaphor, computing systems and active learning. Int J Man Mach Stud 221(1):39–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Academic, San Diego, p 358

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Hix D, Hartson HR (1993) Developing user interfaces: ensuring usability through product and process.Wiley, New York, p 416

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mayhew DJ (1999) The usability engineering lifecycle. Morgan Kaufman, San Fancisco

    Google Scholar 

  8. Constantine LL, Lockwood LAD (1999) Software for use. Addison-Wesley, New York, p 579

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cooper A, Saffo P (1999) The inmates are running the asylum: why high tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. Sams 261

  10. Rosson MB, Carroll JM (2002) Usability engineering. Scenario-based development of human–computer interaction. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  11. ISO/IEC, 13407 Human-centred design processes for interactive systems ISO/IEC 13407: 1999 (E)

  12. Jokela T (2004) The KESSU usability design process model. Version 2.1. Oulu University, p 22

  13. Good M, Spine TM, Whiteside J, G.P (1986) User-derived impact analysis as a tool for usability engineering. In: Conference proceedings on human factors in computing systems

  14. Wixon D, Wilson C (1997) The usability engineering framework for product design and evaluation. In: Helander M, Landauer T, Prabhu P (eds) Handbook of human–computer interaction. Elsevier, Amsterdam. pp 653–688

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jokela T, Pirkola J (1999) Using quantitative usability goals in the design of a user interface for cellular phones. In: INTERACT ‘99 (Volume II). British Computer Society, Wiltshire, Edinborough

  16. Göransson B, Gulliksen J, Boivie I (2003) The usability design process — integrating user-centred systems design in the software development process. Softw Process Improvement Practice 8(2)

  17. Gulliksen J, Göransson B, Boivie I, Blomqvist S, Persson J, Cajander Å (2005) Key principles of user-centred systems design. In: Desmarais M, Gulliksen J, Seffah A (eds) Human-centered software engineering: bridging HCl, usability and software engineering

  18. Wixon D (2003) Evaluating usability methods. Why the current literature fails the practitioner. Interactions 10(4):28–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. ISO/IEC (1998) 9241-11 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT)s—Part 11 Guidance on usability. ISO/IEC 9241-11 :1998 (E)

  20. NIST (2004) Proposed industry format for usability requirements. Draft version 0.62

  21. Whiteside J, Bennett J, Holtzblatt K (1988) Usability engineering: our experience and evolution. In: Helander M (eds) Handbook of human–computer interaction. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 791–817

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kirakowski J, Corbett M (1993) SUMI: The software usability measurement inventory. Br J Educ Technol 24(3):210–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brooke J (1986) SUS — A “quick and dirty” usability scale. Digital Equipment Co. Ltd

  24. Chin JP, Diehl VA, Norman KL (1988) Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human–computer interface. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI ‘88. New York

  25. Jokela T (2005) Guiding designers to the world of usability: determining usability requirements through teamwork. In: Seffah A, Gulliksen J, Desmarais M (eds) Human–centered software engineering. Kluwer HCI series

  26. Gould JD, Lewis C (1985) Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun ACM 28(3):300–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dumas JS, Redish JC (1993)A practical guide to usability testing. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bevan N, Macleod M (1994) Usability measurement in context. Behav Inf Technol 13(1,2):132–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Macleod M, Bowden R, Bevan N, Curson I (1997) The MUSiC performance measurement method. Behav Inf Technol 16(4,5):279–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Maguire M (1998) RESPECT user-centred requirements handbook. Version 3.3. HUSAT Research Institute (now the Ergonomics and Saftety Research Institute, ESRI), Loughborough University

  31. Bevan N, Claridge N, Athousaki M, Maguire M, Catarci T, Matarazzo G, Raiss G (2002) Guide to specifying and evaluating usability as part of a contract, version1.0. PRUE project. Serco Usability Services, London, p 47

  32. ANSI (2001) Common industry format for usability test reports. NCITS 354–2001

  33. Butler KA (1985) Connecting theory and practice: a case study of achieving usability goals. In: SIGCHI 1985. ACM Press, New York, San Francisco

  34. Karat J (1997) User-centered software evaluation methodologies, In: Helander MG, Landauer TK, Prabhu PV (eds) Handbook of human–computer interaction. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  35. Card SK, Moran TP, Newell A (1983) The psychology of human–computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  36. John BE (1995) Why GOMS?. In: Interactions pp 80–89

  37. Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H (2002) Interaction design. Beyond human–computer interaction. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Snyder C (2003) Paper prototyping. The fast and easy way to design and refine user interfaces. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nielsen J (1994) Heuristic evaluation. In: Nielsen J, Mack RL (eds) Usability inspection methods. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  40. Thomas C, Bevan N (1996) Usability context analysis: a practical guide. Version 4.04. National Physical Laboratory, Teddington

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oulu University, P.O. Box 3000, Oulu, Finland

    Timo Jokela & Niina Kantola

  2. Nokia, P.O. Box 50, 90571, Oulu, Finland

    Jussi Koivumaa & Jani Pirkola

  3. ValueFirst, Luuvantie 28, 02620, Espoo, Finland

    Petri Salminen

Authors
  1. Timo Jokela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jussi Koivumaa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jani Pirkola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Petri Salminen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Niina Kantola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timo Jokela.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jokela, T., Koivumaa, J., Pirkola, J. et al. Methods for quantitative usability requirements: a case study on the development of the user interface of a mobile phone. Pers Ubiquit Comput 10, 345–355 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-005-0050-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-005-0050-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation