The DOI matches its Crossref record.
User interface evaluation in the real world: a comparison of four techniques
Abstract
evaluation; guidelines; usability testing; cognitive walkthrough A user interface (UI) for a software product was evaluated prior to its release by four groups, each applying a different technique: heuristic evaluation, software guidelines, cognitive walkthroughs, and usability testing. Heuristic evaluation by several ill specialists found the most serious problems with the least amount of effort, although they also reported a large number of low-priority problems. The relative advantages of all the techniques are discussed, and suggestions for improvements in the techniques are offered.
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
Cited by
(1993) · Cited by 9,879
Nielsen, J. (1995) · Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '95 · doi:10.1145/223355.223730 · Cited by 2,620
A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems
Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T. K. (1993) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '93 · doi:10.1145/169059.169166 · Cited by 1,961
Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics
Nielsen, J. (1994) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/191666.191729 · Cited by 1,439
User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges
Kujala, S. (2003) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449290301782 · Cited by 943
Jaspers, M. W. M. (2009) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.10.002 · Cited by 649
A survey of software learnability: metrics, methodologies and guidelines
Grossman, T., Fitzmaurice, G., & Attar, R. (2009) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1518701.1518803 · Cited by 322
Analyzing the input stream for character- level errors in unconstrained text entry evaluations
Wobbrock, J. O., & Myers, B. A. (2006) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/1188816.1188819 · Cited by 200
Web evaluation: Heuristic evaluation vs. user testing
Tan, W.-S., Liu, D., & Bishu, R. (2009) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2008.02.012 · Cited by 170
Applying heuristic evaluation to improve the usability of a telemedicine system
Tang, Z., Johnson, T. R., Tindall, R. D., & Zhang, J. (2006) · Telemedicine and e-Health · doi:10.1089/tmj.2006.12.24 · Cited by 102
Perspective-based Usability Inspection: An Empirical Validation of Efficacy
Zhang, Z., Basili, V., & Shneiderman, B. (1999) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1023/a:1009803214692 · Cited by 96
Heuristic evaluation of paper-based Web pages: a simplified inspection usability methodology
Allen, M., Currie, L. M., Bakken, S., Patel, V. L., & Cimino, J. J. (2006) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2005.10.004 · Cited by 95
Kim, H. K., Han, S. H., Park, J., & Park, J. (2016) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2016.07.002 · Cited by 80
Evaluating an mHealth App for Health and Well-Being at Work: Mixed-Method Qualitative Study
de Korte, E. M., Wiezer, N., Janssen, J. H., Vink, P., & Kraaij, W. (2018) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.6335 · Cited by 54
Towards the Development of Usability Heuristics for Native Smartphone Mobile Applications
Joyce, G., & Lilley, M. (2014) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07668-3_45 · Cited by 49
How UX Practitioners Produce Findings in Usability Testing
Reeves, S. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3299096 · Cited by 34
The influence of user interface usability on rural consumers' trust of e-health services
Fruhling, A. L., & Lee, S. M. (2006) · International Journal of Electronic Healthcare · doi:10.1504/ijeh.2006.010424 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Jeffries, R., Miller, J. R., Wharton, C., & Uyeda, K.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems Reaching through technology - CHI '91
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 1991
- Pages
- 119-124
- OpenAlex
- W2109428365
- Cited by
- 619
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.98
- Type
- conference paper
- 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
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.
