Cited by 1,961Usability and User Interface DesignSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems

Open access
Nielsen, Jakob, Landauer, Thomas K.·1993·Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '93

Abstract

For 11 studies, we find that the detection of usability problems as a function of number of users tested or heuristic evaluators employed is well modeled as a Poisson process. The model can be used to plan the amount of evaluation required to achieve desired levels of thoroughness or benefits. Results of early tests can provide estimates of the number of problems left to be found and the number of additional evaluations needed to find a given fraction. With quantitative evaluation costs and detection values, the model can estimate the numbers of evaluations at which optimal cost/benefit ratios are obtained and at which marginal utility vanishes. For a “medium” example, we estimate that 16 evaluations would be worth their cost, with maximum benefit/cost ratio at four.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/169059.169166

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 29 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. and Knowledge Based Systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 743-750.
  2. Nielsen, J. (1993). Iterative design of user interfaces. IEEE Computer 26 (to appear, probably in the July issue).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T. K.
Venue
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '93
Publisher
ACM Press
Published
1993
Pages
206-213
OpenAlex
W2099473180
Cited by
1,961
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 110 · 2025: 125 · 2024: 123 · 2023: 121 · 2022: 128 · 2021: 129 · 2020: 108 · 2019: 92 · 2018: 93 · 2017: 96 · 2016: 82 · 2015: 92 · 2014: 76 · 2013: 76 · 2012: 65
FWCI
6.58
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (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
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Keywords
usability evaluation, heuristic evaluation, Poisson process model, evaluation planning, user testing

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