The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Apparent usability vs. inherent usability: experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability
Open accessAbstract
No abstract available.
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
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A. S., & Ikar, D. (2000) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/s0953-5438(00)00031-x · Cited by 1,376
The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products
Hassenzahl, M. (2004) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1904_2 · Cited by 1,083
Liu, Y., Li, H., & Hu, F. (2013) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2013.04.001 · Cited by 541
Wurtz, E. (2005) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00313.x · Cited by 364
Integrating cognitive load theory and concepts of human–computer interaction
Hollender, N., Hofmann, C., Deneke, M., & Schmitz, B. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.031 · Cited by 328
Metadata
- Authors
- Kurosu, M., & Kashimura, K.
- Venue
- Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '95
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 1995
- Pages
- 292-293
- OpenAlex
- W2105496730
- Cited by
- 346
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.71
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Apparent usability vs. inherent usability: experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/223355.223680
- The paper
- Kurosu, M., & Kashimura, K. (1995). Apparent usability vs. inherent usability: experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability. Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '95. https://doi.org/10.1145/223355.223680
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.
