Cited by 82Usability and User Interface DesignSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

A Systematic Mapping Study of HCI Practice Research

Ogunyemi, Abiodun Afolayan, Lamas, David, Lárusdóttir, Marta Kristin, Loizides, Fernando·2019·International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction

Abstract

Human–computer interaction (HCI) practice has emerged as a research domain in the HCI field and is growing. The need to transfer HCI practices to the industry began significantly with the works of Nielsen on usability engineering. To date, methods and techniques for designing, evaluating, and implementing interactive systems for human use have continued to emerge. It is, therefore, justified to conduct a systematic mapping study to determine the landscape of HCI practice research. A Systematic Mapping Study method was used to map 142 studies according to research type, topic, and contribution. These were then analyzed to determine an overview of HCI practice research. The objective was to analyze studies on HCI practice and present prominent issues that characterize the HCI practice research landscape. Second, to identify pressing challenges regarding HCI practices in software/systems development companies. The results show that HCI practice research has steadily increased since 2012. The majority of the studies explored focused on evaluation research that largely contributed to the evaluation methods or processes. Most of the studies were on design tools and techniques, design methods and contexts, design work and organizational culture, and collaboration and team communication. Interviews, case studies, and survey methods have been prominently used as research methods. HCI techniques are mostly used during the initial phase of development and during evaluation. HCI practice challenges in companies are mostly process-related and on performance of usability and user experience activities. The major challenge seems to be to find a way to collect and incorporate user feedback in a timely manner, especially in agile processes. There are areas identified in this study as needing more research.

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 · 10.1080/10447318.2018.1541544

Cites

71 of 71 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

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?

  • In human-computer interaction, action research has been considered a valuable approach to identifying issues of practice and providing insight on needs and challenges faced by practitioners.

    “In human–computer interaction, action research has been considered a valuable approach to identifying issues of practice, providing insight on the needs and challenges faced by practitioners (Ogunyemi et al., 2019).”

    From Designing learning technology collaboratively: analysis of a chatbot co-design (2023) · cites this paper as Ogunyemi et al., 2019

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering . Technical Report EBSE 2007-001 (Vol. 2). Durham.
  2. Majid, R. A., Noor, N. L. M., Adnan, W. A. W., & Mansor, S. (2009). A survey on HCI considerations in the software development life cycle. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Interaction Sciences Information Technology, Culture and Human -ICIS '09 (Vol. 403, pp. 21-24). http://doi.org/10.1145/1655925.1655929 · DOI
  3. Mcginley, C., & Macredie, R. (2011). Towards Diversity and Empathy in Design Development. zoonTechnica - the Journal of Redirective Design , (1), 1-10.
  4. Vermeeren, A., & Cockton, G. (2013). Facilitating the Take-up of New HCI Practices : A Diffusion of Innovations ' Perspective. In Proceedings of the Workshop Made for sharing: HCI Stories of Transfer, Triumph and Tragedy, CHI 2013 Conference (pp. 1-6). Paris, France: ACM.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ogunyemi, A. A., Lamas, D., Lárusdóttir, M. K., & Loizides, F.
Affiliations
  • Tallinn University (EE)
  • School of Computer Science, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland
  • Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Ogunyemi, Abiodun Afolayan
Venue
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
Published
2018-11-08
Volume
35
Issue
16
Pages
1461-1486
ISSN
  • 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7590
OpenAlex
W2900271353
Cited by
82
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3
FWCI
2.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
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 › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
usability engineering, user feedback collection, agile software development, software companies

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