CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 96Usability and User Interface DesignSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Perspective-based Usability Inspection: An Empirical Validation of Efficacy

Zhang, Zhijun, Basili, Victor, Shneiderman, Ben·1999·Empirical Software Engineering
DOI 10.1023/a:1009803214692
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1009803214692

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Basili, V. 1997. Evolving and packaging reading technologies. Journal of Systems and Software, 38: 3–12. · DOI
  2. Basili, V., Green, S., Laitenberger, O., Shull, F., Sorumgard, S., and Zelkowitz, M. 1996. The empirical investigation of perspective-based reading. Empirical Software Engineering, 1.2:133–164. · DOI
  3. Desurvire, H. W. 1994. Faster, cheaper!! Are usability inspection methods as effective as empirical testing? In J. Nielsen and R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods, chapter 7, pages 173–202. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  4. Desurvire, H. W., Kondziela, J. M., and Atwood, M. E. 1992. What is gained and lost when using evaluation methods other than empirical testing. In A. Monk, D. Diaper, and M. D. Harrison (Eds.), People and Computers VII, pages 89–102. Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  5. Dumas, J. S., and Redish, J. C. 1993. A Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  6. Edington, E. S. 1987. Randomization Tests. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.
  7. Jeffries, R., Miller, J. R., Wharton, C., and Uyeda, K. M. 1991. User interface evaluation in the real world: A comparison of four methods. In ACM CHI'91 Conference Proceedings, pages 261–266. ACM. · DOI
  8. Kurosu, M., Sugizaki, M., and Matsura, S. 1998. Structured heuristic evaluation. In Proceedings of the Usability Professionals' Association Conference, pages 3–5.
  9. Nielsen, J. 1990. Paper versus computer implementations as mockup scenarios for heuristic evaluation. In D. Diaper et al. (Ed.), Human-Computer Interaction-INTERACT'90, pages 315–320. IFIP.
  10. Nielsen, J. 1993. Usability Engineering. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.
  11. Nielsen, J. 1994. Heuristic evaluation. In J. Nielsen and R. Mack (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods, chapter 2, pages 25–62. John Wiley.
  12. Nielsen, J., and Mack, R. (Eds.). 1994. Usability Inspection Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Norman, D. A. 1988. The Design of Everyday Things, 1st doubleday/currency edition. New York: Basic Books.
  14. Porter, A. A., Votta, L. G. Jr., and Basili, V. R. 1995. Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: A replicated experiment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21.6:563–575. · DOI
  15. Rieman, J., Divies, S. Hair, D. C., and Esemplare, M. 1991. An automated cognitive walkthrough. In ACM CHI'91 Conference Proceedings, pages 427–428. · DOI
  16. Seaman, C. B., and Basili, V. R. 1997. An empirical study of communication in code inspections. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 96–106. · DOI
  17. Sears, A. 1997. Heuristic walkthroughs: Finding the problems without the noise. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 9.3:213–234. · DOI
  18. Shneiderman, B. 1998. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd edition. Addison-Wesley.
  19. Tetzlaff, L., and Schwartz, D. R. 1991. The use of guidelines in interface design. In ACM CHI'91 Conference Proceedings, pages 329–333. ACM. · DOI
  20. Thovtrup, H. and Nielsen, J. 1991. Assessing the usability of a user interface standard. In ACM CHI'91 Conference Proceedings, pages 335–341. ACM. · DOI
  21. Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C., and Polson, P. 1994. The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner's guide. In J. Nielsen and R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability Inspection Methods, chapter 5, pages 105–140. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  22. Wright, P. C., and Monk, A. F. 1991. A cost-effective evaluation method for use by designers. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35:891–912. · DOI
  23. Zhang, Z., Basili, V., and Shneiderman, B. 1998. Perspective-based usability inspection. In Proceedings of the Usability Professionals' Association Conference, pages 281–282.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 96

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, Z., Basili, V., & Shneiderman, B.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, College Park (US)
ORCID
Venue
Empirical Software Engineering
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1999-03
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
43-69
ISSN
  • 1382-3256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7616
DOI
10.1023/a:1009803214692
OpenAlex
W1607841960
Cited by
96
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Empirical Software Engineering (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
usability inspection, heuristic evaluation, usability problems, inspection effectiveness, software usability, threats to validity

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