Parmit K. Chilana
Jacob O. Wobbrock
Amy J. Ko
ABSTRACT
Although usability methods are widely used for evaluating conventional graphical user interfaces and websites, there is a growing concern that current approaches are inadequate for evaluating complex, domain-specific tools. We interviewed 21 experienced usability professionals, including in-house experts, external consultants, and managers working in a variety of complex domains, and uncovered the challenges commonly posed by domain complexity and how practitioners work around them. We found that despite the best efforts by usability professionals to get familiar with complex domains on their own, the lack of formal domain expertise can be a significant hurdle for carrying out effective usability evaluations. Partnerships with domain experts lead to effective results as long as domain experts are willing to be an integral part of the usability team. These findings suggest that for achieving usability in complex domains, some fundamental educational changes may be needed in the training of usability professionals.
- Alexander, P. (1992) Domain Knowledge: Evolving Themes and Emerging Concerns. Ed Psychologist 27 (1), 33--51.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Beyer, H. and Holtzblatt, K. (1998) Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bias, R. (1994) The pluralistic usability walkthrough: coordinated empathies. In: Nielsen, J. and Mack, R. (eds.) Usability Inspection Methods. New York: Wiley. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bodker, S. (1989) A Human Activity Approach to User Interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction 4 (3), 171--195. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cummings, J. and Kiesler, S. (2005) Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science 35 (5), 703.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dumas, J. and Redish, J. (1999) A practical guide to usability testing. Portland: Intellect Books. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fischer, G. and Scharff, E. (2000) Meta-design: design for designers. Proc DIS'00, 396--405. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Flanagan, J. (1954) The critical incident technique. Psych bulletin 51 (4), 327--358.Google Scholar
- Folstad, A. (2007) Work--Domain Experts as Evaluators: Usability Inspection of Domain-Specific Work-Support Systems. IJHCI 22 (3), 217--245.Google Scholar
- Frøkjær, E. and Hornbæk, K. (2005) Cooperative usability testing: complementing usability tests with user-supported interpretation sessions. Proc CHI'05, 1383--1386. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gabbard, J., Hix, D., Swan II, J., Livingston, M., Höllerer, T., Julier, S., Brown, D. and Baillot, Y. (2003) Usability Engineering for Complex Interactive Systems Development. Proc Human Systems Integration Symposium, 1--13.Google Scholar
- Gould, J. and Lewis, C. (1985) Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Comm ACM 28 (3), 300--311. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gulliksen, J., Boivie, I. and Göransson, B. (2006) Usability professionals-current practices and future development. Interacting with Computers 18 (4), 568--600. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gulliksen, J. and Sandblad, B. (1995) Domain-specific design of user interfaces. IJCHI 7 (2), 135--151. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hewett, T., Baecker, R., Card, S., Carey, T., Gasen, J., Mantei, M., Perlman, G., Strong, G. and Verplank, W. (1996) ACM SIGCHI curricula for human-computer interaction (Technical Report). New York: ACM Press. Google Scholar
- Hudson, W. (May 3, 2000) User-Centered Survey Results email posting to [email protected].Google Scholar
- Millen, D. Rapid ethnography: Time deepening strategies for HCI field research. Proc DIS'00, 280--286. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mirel, B. (2004) Interaction design for complex problem solving: Developing useful and usable software. Boston: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Muller, M., Matheson, L., Page, C. and Gallup, R. (1998) Methods & tools: participatory heuristic evaluation. interactions 5 (5), 13--18. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nielsen, J. (2008) 25 Years in Usability. Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, April 21, 2008.Google Scholar
- Nielsen, J. (1993) Usability Engineering. Boston: Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Redish, J. (2007) Expanding Usability Testing to Evaluate Complex Systems. J Usability Studies 2 (3), 102--111.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roesler, A. and Woods, D. (2007) Designing for Expertise. In: Schifferstein, H. and Hekkert, P. (eds.) Product Experience. San Diego: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Rubin, H.J. and Rubin, I. (2005) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. (1993) Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Scott, K.M. (2009) Is usability obsolete? interactions 16 (3), 6--11. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. New York: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Suchman, L. (1995) Making work visible. Comm ACM 38 (9), 56--64. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vicente, K. (1999) Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Viitanen, J., Karjalainen, S., Kautonen, H. and Laukkanen, A. (2005) Challenges in Usability Evaluation of Expert Domain Products. Proc Intl Conf HCI '05.Google Scholar
- Vredenburg, K., Mao, J., Smith, P. and Carey, T. (2002) A survey of user-centered design practice. Proc CHI'02, 471--478. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wixon, D.R., Ramey, J., Holtzblatt, K., Beyer, H., Hackos, J., Rosenbaum, S., Page, C., Laakso, S.A. and Laakso, K.-P. (2002) Usability in practice: field methods evolution and revolution. Proc CHI '02 Extended Abstracts, 880--884. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Understanding usability practices in complex domains
Recommendations
On user behaviour adaptation under interface change
IUI '14: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Intelligent User InterfacesDifferent interfaces allow a user to achieve the same end goal through different action sequences, e.g., command lines vs. drop down menus. Interface efficiency can be described in terms of a cost incurred, e.g., time taken, by the user in typical ...
A comparison of synchronous remote and local usability studies for an expert interface
CHI EA '04: CHI '04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsSynchronous remote usability studies can be a convenient and cost-effective alternative to conventional local usability studies. Although they are common in the field, there has been little research comparing synchronous remote usability studies with ...
User recalled occurrences of usability errors: implications on the user experience
CHI EA '03: CHI '03 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsUsability testing determines what problems thwart goal attainment, but what problems shape the user experience? This study gathered users recalled instances of frustration from using various technologies and categorized those frustrating incidents with ...
Comments