The DOI matches its Crossref record; 176 of the 176 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Usability: Lessons Learned … and Yet to Be Learned
Abstract
The philosopher of science J. W. Grove (1989) once wrote, “There is, of course, nothing strange or scandalous about divisions of opinion among scientists. This is a condition for scientific progress” (p. 133). Over the past 30 years, usability, both as a practice and as an emerging science, has had its share of controversies. It has inherited some from its early roots in experimental psychology, measurement, and statistics. Others have emerged as the field of usability has matured and extended into user-centered design and user experience. In many ways, a field of inquiry is shaped by its controversies. This article reviews some of the persistent controversies in the field of usability, starting with their history, then assessing their current status from the perspective of a pragmatic practitioner. Put another way: Over the past three decades, what are some of the key lessons we have learned, and what remains to be learned? Some of the key lessons learned are:• When discussing usability, it is important to distinguish between the goals and practices of summative and formative usability.• There is compelling rational and empirical support for the practice of iterative formative usability testing—it appears to be effective in improving both objective and perceived usability.• When conducting usability studies, practitioners should use one of the currently available standardized usability questionnaires.• Because “magic number” rules of thumb for sample size requirements for usability tests are optimal only under very specific conditions, practitioners should use the tools that are available to guide sample size estimation rather than relying on “magic numbers.”
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale
(1996) · Usability Evaluation In Industry · doi:10.1201/9781498710411-35 · Cited by 8,989
International Organization for Standardization
(2015) · Encyclopedia of Astrobiology · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-44185-5_100574 · Cited by 6,716
Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction
(1993) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/0003-6870(93)90471-k · Cited by 5,587
An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale
Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447310802205776 · Cited by 5,181
On the Theory of Scales of Measurement
Stevens, S. S. (1946) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.103.2684.677 · Cited by 4,761 · cited 5×
“Stevens’s levels of measurement have been very influential, appearing in numerous statistics textbooks and used to guide recommendations given to users of some statistical analysis programs (Velleman & Wilkinson, 1993).”
InfluentialEricsson (1993) · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.87.3.215 · Cited by 4,539
Usability Evaluation In Industry
(1996) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781498710411 · Cited by 4,354
The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction
Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (2018) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780203736166 · Cited by 4,103
Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces
Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1990) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems Empowering people - CHI '90 · doi:10.1145/97243.97281 · Cited by 3,533
Cited by
Xi, N., Chen, J., Gama, F., Riar, M., & Hamari, J. (2022) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-022-10244-x · Cited by 423
Measuring Perceived Usability: The CSUQ, SUS, and UMUX
Lewis, J. R. (2018) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2017.1418805 · Cited by 283
Self-citationUsability, user experience and accessibility: towards an integrative model
Sauer, J., Sonderegger, A., & Schmutz, S. (2020) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2020.1774080 · Cited by 195
Borsci, S., Federici, S., Bacci, S., Gnaldi, M., & Bartolucci, F. (2015) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1064648 · Cited by 180
Salman, H. M., Wan Ahmad, W. F., & Sulaiman, S. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2827358 · Cited by 134
Metadata
- Authors
- Lewis, J. R.
- Venue
- International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-06-18
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 663-684
- ISSN
- 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7590
- OpenAlex
- W2023900384
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 176
- FWCI
- 38.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Usability: Lessons Learned … and Yet to Be Learned. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10447318.2014.930311
- The paper
- Lewis, J. R. (2014). Usability: Lessons Learned … and Yet to Be Learned. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2014.930311
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.