Cited by 95Usability and User Interface DesignElectronic Health Records SystemsDigital Accessibility for Disabilities

Heuristic evaluation of paper-based Web pages: a simplified inspection usability methodology

Open access
Allen, Mureen, Currie, Leanne M., Bakken, Suzanne, Patel, Vimla L., Cimino, James J.·2006·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Online medical information, when presented to clinicians, must be well-organized and intuitive to use, so that the clinicians can conduct their daily work efficiently and without error. It is essential to actively seek to produce good user interfaces that are acceptable to the user. This paper describes the methodology used to develop a simplified heuristic evaluation (HE) suitable for the evaluation of screen shots of Web pages, the development of an HE instrument used to conduct the evaluation, and the results of the evaluation of the aforementioned screen shots. In addition, this paper presents examples of the process of categorizing problems identified by the HE and the technological solutions identified to resolve these problems. Four usability experts reviewed 18 paper-based screen shots and made a total of 108 comments. Each expert completed the task in about an hour. We were able to implement solutions to approximately 70% of the violations. Our study found that a heuristic evaluation using paper-based screen shots of a user interface was expeditious, inexpensive, and straightforward to implement.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2005.10.004

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Allen, M., Currie, L. M., Bakken, S., Patel, V. L., & Cimino, J. J.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Allen, Mureen
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-08
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
412-423
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2133568092
Cited by
95
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM007593, LM07079-11, 1R01LM07593, T15LM007079)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
Keywords
heuristic evaluation, usability evaluation, website usability, online health information, user interface design, clinical information systems
MeSH terms
Computer Graphics, Consumer Behavior, Ergonomics, Natural Language Processing, Publishing, Software, Software Validation, User-Computer Interface, Internet, Information Dissemination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review