The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of empirical testing and walkthrough methods in user interface evaluation
Abstract
We investigated the relative effectiveness of empirical usabitit y testing and individual and team walkthrough methods in identifying usability problems in two graphical user interface office systems. The findings were replicated across the two systems and show that the empirical testing condition identified the largest number of problems, and identified a significant number of relatively severe problems that were missed by the walkthrough conditions. Team walkthroughs achieved better results than individual walkthroughs in some areas. About a third of the significant usability problems identfled were common across all methods. Cost-effectiveness data show that empirical testing required the same or less time to identify each problem when compared to walkthroughs.
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. (1994) · Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '94 · doi:10.1145/259963.260531 · Cited by 2,759
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
User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges
Kujala, S. (2003) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449290301782 · Cited by 943
Metadata
- Authors
- Karat, C.-M., Campbell, R., & Fiegel, T.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '92
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 1992
- Pages
- 397-404
- OpenAlex
- W1972940641
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.62
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of empirical testing and walkthrough methods in user interface evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/142750.142873
- The paper
- Karat, C.-M., Campbell, R., & Fiegel, T. (1992). Comparison of empirical testing and walkthrough methods in user interface evaluation. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '92. https://doi.org/10.1145/142750.142873
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.
