Cited by 34Usability and User Interface DesignInnovative Human-Technology InteractionDesign Education and Practice

How UX Practitioners Produce Findings in Usability Testing

Open access
Reeves, Stuart·2019·ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction

Abstract

Usability testing has long been a core interest of HCI research and forms a key element of industry practice. Yet our knowledge of it harbours striking absences. There are few, if any detailed accounts of the contingent, material ways in which usability testing is actually practiced . Further, it is rare that industry practitioners’ testing work is treated as indigenous and particular (instead subordinated as a ‘compromised’ version). To service these problems, this article presents an ethnomethodological study of usability testing practices in a design consultancy. It unpacks how findings are produced in and as the work of observers analysing the test as it unfolds between moderators taking participants through relevant tasks. The study nuances conventional views of usability findings as straightforwardly ‘there to be found’ or ‘read off’ by competent evaluators. It explores how evaluators/observers collaboratively work to locate relevant troubles in the test's unfolding. However, in the course of doing this work, potential candidate troubles may also routinely be dissipated and effectively ‘ignored’ in one way or another. The implications of the study suggest refinements to current understandings of usability evaluations, and affirm the value to HCI in studying industry practitioners more deeply.

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 · 10.1145/3299096

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • The EM/CA studies of AI reviewed have contributed a systematic, reflective focus on how interactions unfold in ways that are demonstrably consequential for users.

    “The EM/CA studies of AI we review here have contributed a systematic, reflective focus on how interactions unfold in ways that are demonstrably consequential for users (Reeves 2019b), by looking at how these technologies enable and constrain the practical organization of everyday social interaction.”

    From AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies (2025) · cites this paper as Reeves 2019b

    Section 3.2 describes EM/CA as a way to examine collaborative action around technology and to articulate how people treat one another’s activities as interactions unfold. The paper studies usability-testing practices, however; it does not establish what the AI studies reviewed by the citing authors contributed or show consequences for users of those AI technologies. The indexed passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 87

  1. Carol M. Barnum. 2010. Usability Testing Essentials: Ready, Set … Test! (1 st ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.
  2. Jordan Beck and Hamid R. Ekbia. 2018. The Theory-Practice Gap as Generative Metaphor. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Paper 620, 11 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174194 · DOI
  3. Douglas Benson and John Hughes. 1991. Method: evidence and inference-evidence and inference in ethnomethodology. Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences (Graham Button, ed.), chapter 6, pp. 109-136. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611827 · DOI
  4. Herbert Blumer. 1986. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press, Berkley.
  5. M. Ted Boren and Judith Ramey. 2000. Thinking aloud: reconciling theory and practice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 43(3):261-278, Sep 2000. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1109/47.867942 · DOI
  6. Thea Borgholm and Kim Halskov Madsen. 1999. Cooperative usability practices. Commun. ACM42, 5 (May 1999), 91-97. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/301353.301438 · DOI
  7. John Bowers and James Pycock. 1994. Talking through design: requirements and resistance in cooperative prototyping. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '94), Beth Adelson, Susan Dumais, and Judith Olson (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 299-305. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/191666.191773 · DOI
  8. Anders Bruun and Jan Stage. 2012. Training software development practitioners in usability testing: an assessment acceptance and prioritization. In Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (OzCHI '12), Vivienne Farrell, Graham Farrell, Caslon Chua, Weidong Huang, Raj Vasa, and Clinton Woodward (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 52-60. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2414536.2414545 · DOI
  9. Anders Bruun A. and Jan Stage. 2015. An Empirical Study of the Effects of Three Think- Aloud Protocols on Identification of Usability Problems. In Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2015, Abascal J., Barbosa S., Fetter M., Gross T., Palanque P., Winckler M. (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9297. Springer, Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22668-2_14 X:35 XXXX. · DOI
  10. Graham Button (ed.). 1991. Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611827 · DOI
  11. Aaron V. Cicourel. 1964. Method and Measurement in Sociology. New York: The Free Press.
  12. Torkil Clemmensen, Morten Hertzum, Kasper Hornbæk, Qingxin Shi, Pradeep Yammiyavar. 2009. Cultural cognition in usability evaluation. Interacting with Computers, 21(3):212-220, Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2009.05.003 · DOI
  13. Gilbert Cockton. 2014. A critical, creative UX community: CLUF. Journal of Usability Studies, 10(1):1-16, (November 2014).
  14. Gilbert Cockton. 2017. "Usability Evaluation". The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction (2 nd ed.), Interaction Design Foundation, retrieved 20/09/17 from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer- interaction-2nd-ed/usability-evaluation 18
  15. Gilbert Cockton and Alan Woolrych. 2002. Sale must end: should discount methods be cleared off HCI's shelves? interactions 9, 5 (September 2002), 13-18. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/566981.566990 · DOI
  16. Gillbert Cockton, Alan Woolrych, Lynne Hall, and Mark Hindmarch. 2004. Changing Analysts' Tunes: The Surprising Impact of a New Instrument for Usability Inspection Method Assessment. In People and Computers XVII -Designing for Society (O'Neill E., Palanque P., Johnson P., eds.). Springer, London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471- 3754-2_9 · DOI
  17. Lucas Colusso, Cynthia L. Bennett, Gary Hsieh, and Sean A. Munson. 2017. Translational Resources: Reducing the Gap Between Academic Research and HCI Practice. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '17), 957-968. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064667 · DOI
  18. Andy Crabtree, Peter Tolmie, and Mark Rouncefield. 2013. 'How many bloody examples do you want?'-fieldwork and generalisation. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW), pp. 1-20, Springer.
  19. Susan M. Dray. 2009. Engaged scholars, thoughtful practitioners: The interdependence of academics and practitioners in user-centered design and usability. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(1):1-7, (November 2009).
  20. Joseph S. Dumas and Beth A. Loring. 2008. Moderating Usability Tests: Principles and Practices for Interacting (1st ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
  21. Joseph S. Dumas and Janice C. Redish. 1999. A practical guide to usability testing (Revised ed.), University of Chicago Press.
  22. Jodi Forlizzi. 2018. Moving beyond user-centered design. interactions 25, 5 (August 2018), 22-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3239558 · DOI
  23. Erin Friess. 2012. Do usability evaluators do what we think usability evaluators do?. Commun. Des. Q. Rev 13, 1 (March 2012), 9-13. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2424837.2424838 · DOI
  24. Erik Frøkjær and Kasper Hornbæk. 2005. Cooperative usability testing: complementing usability tests with user-supported interpretation sessions. In CHI '05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1383-1386. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1056808.1056922 · DOI
  25. Asbjørn Følstad, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2010. Work-domain knowledge in usability evaluation: Experiences with Cooperative Usability Testing. Journal of systems and software, 83(11), 2019-2030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2010.02.026 · DOI
  26. Asbjørn Følstad, Effie Law, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2012. Analysis in practical usability evaluation: a survey study. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2127-2136. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208365 · DOI
  27. Asbjørn Følstad, Effie Lai-Chong Law, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2012. Outliers in usability testing: how to treat usability problems found for only one test participant? In Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design (NordiCHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 257-260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2399016.2399056 · DOI
  28. Dominic Furniss. 2008. Beyond Problem Identification: Valuing methods in a 'system of usability practice', PhD thesis, University College London, London, UK.
  29. Julia Gardner. 1999. Strengthening the focus on users' working practices. Commun. ACM 42, 5 (May 1999), 78-82. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/301353.301433 · DOI
  30. Harold Garfinkel. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
  31. Harold Garfinkel, Michael Lynch, and Eric Livingston. 1981. The Work of a Discovering Science Construed with Materials from the Optically Discovered Pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11(2):121-158 (June 1981), Sage. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/004839318101100202 · DOI
  32. Harold Garfinkel, Harvey Sacks, (1986), "On Formal Structures of Practical Actions", In Ethnomethodological Studies of Work (Harold Garfinkel, ed.), London, UK, Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 160-193.
  33. Igor Garnik, Marcin Sikorski, and Gilbert Cockton. 2014. Creative sprints: an unplanned broad agile evaluation and redesign process. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (NordiCHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1125-1130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2670290 · DOI
  34. Elizabeth Goodman. 2013. Delivering Design: Performance and Materiality in Professional Interaction Design. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
  35. Charles Goodwin. 1980. Restarts, Pauses, and the Achievement of a State of Mutual Gaze at Turn-Beginning. Sociological Inquiry, vol. 50, no. 3-4, pp. 272-302.
  36. Colin M. Gray. 2016a. What is the Nature and Intended Use of Design Methods? In Proceedings of the Design Research Society. Brighton, UK: Design Research Society.
  37. Colin M. Gray. 2016b. "It's More of a Mindset Than a Method": UX Practitioners' Conception of Design Methods. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4044-4055. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858410 · DOI
  38. Colin M. Gray, Erik Stolterman, and Martin A. Siegel. 2014. Reprioritizing the relationship between HCI research and practice: bubble-up and trickle-down effects. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems (DIS '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 725-734. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598595 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Colin M. Gray, Austin L. Toombs, and Shad Gross. 2015. Flow of Competence in UX Design Practice. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3285-3294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702579 · DOI
  40. Wayne D. Gray and Marilyn C. Salzman. 1998. Damaged merchandise? a review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 13, 3 (September 1998), 203-261. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1303_2 · DOI
  41. Tovi Grossman, George Fitzmaurice, and Ramtin Attar. 2009. A survey of software learnability: metrics, methodologies and guidelines. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 649-658. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518803 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Steven Harrison, Maribeth Back, and Deborah Tatar. 2006. "It's Just a Method!": a pedagogical experiment in interdisciplinary design. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems (DIS '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 261-270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1142405.1142445 · DOI
  43. Christian Heath and Paul Luff. 2000. Technology in action. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Alexa Hepburn and Galena B. Bolden. 2012. The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (J. Sidnell and T. Stivers, eds.), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch4 · DOI
  45. Kasper Hornbæk. 2008. Usability Evaluation as Idea Generation. In Maturing Usability (Effie Lai-Chong Law, Ebba Thora Hvannberg, and Gilbert Cockton, eds.), Human-Computer Interaction Series, Chapter 12, pp. 267-286. Springer, London.
  46. Kasper Hornbæk. 2010. Dogmas in the assessment of usability evaluation methods, Behaviour & Information Technology 29(1): 97-111, Taylor & Francis. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449290801939400 · DOI
  47. Morten Hertzum. 2016. A usability test is not an interview. interactions 23, 2 (February 2016), 82-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2875462 · DOI
  48. Morten Hertzum, Kristin D. Hansen & Hans H.K. Andersen. 2009. Scrutinising usability evaluation: does thinking aloud affect behaviour and mental workload? Behaviour & Information Technology, 28(2):165-18, Taylor & Francis. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449290701773842 · DOI
  49. Morten Hertzum and Neils Ebbe Jacobsen. 2001. The Evaluator Effect: A Chilling Fact About Usability Evaluation Methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 13(4):421-443, Taylor & Francis. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327590IJHC1304_05 · DOI
  50. Robin Jeffries, James R. Miller, Cathleen Wharton, and Kathy Uyeda. 1991. User interface evaluation in the real world: a comparison of four techniques. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '91), Scott P. Robertson, Gary M. Olson, and Judith S. Olson (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 119-124. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/108844.108862 · DOI
  51. Jesper Kjeldskov, Mikael B. Skov, and Jan Stage. 2004. Instant data analysis: conducting usability evaluations in a day. In Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on Human- X:38 XXXX. computer interaction (NordiCHI '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 233-240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1028014.1028050 · DOI
  52. Steve Krug. 2009. Rocket surgery made easy: The do-it-yourself guide to finding and fixing usability problems (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: New Riders Publishing.
  53. Carine Lallemand and Vincent Koenig. 2017. Lab Testing Beyond Usability: Challenges and Recommendations for Assessing User Experiences. Journal of Usability Studies 12(3):133- 154.
  54. Darryn Lavery, Gilbert Cockton, and Malcolm P. Atkinson. 1997. Comparison of evaluation methods using structured usability problem reports. Behaviour and Information Technology, 16(4-5):246-266, Taylor & Francis. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014492997119824 · DOI
  55. Gitte Lindgaard. 2006. Notions of thoroughness, efficiency, and validity: Are they valid in HCI practice? International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36(12):1069-1074, Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2006.09.007 · DOI
  56. Eric Livingston. 1987. Making sense of ethnomethodology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  57. Michael Lynch. 2000. Against Reflexivity as an Academic Virtue and Source of Privileged Knowledge. Theory, Culture & Society, 17(3), 26-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632760022051202 · DOI
  58. Ritch Macefield. 2009. How to specify the participant group size for usability studies: a practitioner's guide. Journal of Usability Studies 5, 1 (November 2009), 34-45.
  59. Sharon McDonald, Helen Edwards, and Tingting Zhao. 2012. Exploring Think-Alouds in Usability Testing: the Findings of an International Survey. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 55 (1). pp. 2-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2011.2182569 · DOI
  60. Rolf Molich, Meghan R. Ede, Klaus Kaasgaard, and Barbara Karyukin. 2004. Comparative usability evaluation. Behaviour and Information Technology 23(1):65-74 (January 2004). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929032000173951 · DOI
  61. Rolf Molich and Joseph S. Dumas. 2008. Comparative usability evaluation (CUE- 4). Behaviour and Information Technology 27(3):263-281 (May 2008). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449290600959062 · DOI
  62. Mie Nørgaard and Kasper Hornbæk. 2006. What do usability evaluators do in practice?: an explorative study of think-aloud testing. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems (DIS '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 209-218. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1142405.1142439 · DOI
  63. Gary M. Olson and Thomas P. Moran. 1998. Commentary on "Damaged merchandise?". Hum.-Comput. Interact. 13, 3 (September 1998), 263-323. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1303_3 · DOI
  64. Trevor Pinch. 1993. "Testing -One, Two, Three ... Testing!": Toward a Sociology of Testing. Science, Technology, & Human Values 18(1):25-41, (Jan 1993) Sage. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/016224399301800103 · DOI
  65. Melvin Pollner. 1991. Left of Ethnomethodology: The Rise and Decline of Radical Reflexivity. American Sociological Review, vol. 56, no. 3, 1991, pp. 370-380.
  66. Taylor & Francis. Commentary on The Usability Construct: A Dead End? 78
  67. Stephanie Rosenbaum. 2008. The Future of Usability Evaluation: Increasing Impact on Value. In Maturing Usability (Effie Lai-Chong Law, Ebba Thora Hvannberg, and Gilbert Cockton, eds.), Human-Computer Interaction Series, Chapter 15, pp. 344-378. Springer, London.
  68. Harvey Sacks. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
  69. Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), Part 1 (Dec., 1974) , pp. 696-735, Linguistic Society of America. DOI: http://doi.org/10.2307/412243 · DOI · Paper page
  70. Harvey Sacks. 1984. Notes on methodology. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (John Heritage, J. Maxwell Atkinson, eds.), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 2-27.
  71. Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1987. Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis", Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2):101-114, American Sociological Association. DOI: http://doi.org/10.2307/2786745 · DOI
  72. Emanuel A. Schegloff. 2007. A Tutorial on Membership Categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3):462-482, Elsevier.
  73. Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8(4):289- 327.
  74. Qingxin Shi. 2008. A field study of the relationship and communication between Chinese evaluators and users in thinking aloud usability tests. In Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: building bridges (NordiCHI '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 344-352. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1463160.1463198 · DOI
  75. Jared Spool and Will Schroeder. 2001. Testing web sites: five users is nowhere near enough. In CHI '01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '01). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 285-286. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/634067.634236 · DOI
  76. Philippe Sormani, Esther González-Martínez, and Alain Bovet. (2011). Discovering Work: A Topical Introduction, Ethnographic Studies, vol. 12, pp. 1-11.
  77. Lucy A. Suchman. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: the Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.
  78. Margaret H. Szymanski, Erik Vinkhuyzen, Paul M. Aoki, and Allison Woodruff. 2006. Organizing a Remote State of Incipient Talk: Push-to-Talk Mobile Radio Interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 393-418.
  79. Maryam Tohidi, William Buxton, Ronald Baecker, and Abigail Sellen. 2006. User sketches: a quick, inexpensive, and effective way to elicit more reflective user feedback. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles (NordiCHI '06), Anders Mørch, Konrad Morgan, Tone Bratteteig, Gautam Ghosh, and Dag Svanaes (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 105-114. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1182475.1182487 · DOI
  80. Thomas Tullis and William Albert. 2013. Measuring User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics (2 nd ed.), Morgan Kaufmann.
  81. Arnold Vermeeren. 2009. What's the problem? Studies on identifying usability problems in user tests. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft, Netherlands.
  82. Dirk vom Lehn. 2014. Harold Garfinkel: The Creation and Development of Ethnomethodology. New York: Routledge.
  83. Stephanie Wilson, Mathilde Bekker, Peter Johnson, and Hilary Johnson. 1997. Helping and hindering user involvement -a tale of everyday design. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '97). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 178-185. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/258549.258699 · DOI
  84. Dennis Wixon. 2003. Evaluating usability methods: why the current literature fails the practitioner. Interactions 10, 4 (July 2003), 28-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/838830.838870 · DOI
  85. Tracee Vetting Wolf, Jennifer A. Rode, Jeremy Sussman, and Wendy A. Kellogg. 2006. Dispelling "design" as the black art of CHI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '06), Rebecca Grinter, Thomas Rodden, Paul Aoki, Ed Cutrell, Robin Jeffries, and Gary Olson (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 521-530. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124853 100 Ludwig Wittgenstein. 2009. Philosophical investigations (P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte, eds.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 101 · DOI
  86. Steve Woolgar. 1990. Configuring The User: the case of usability trials. The Sociological Review 38(1):58-99, Sage. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03349.x 102 · DOI
  87. Alan Woolrych, Kasper Hornbæk, Erik Frøjær and Gilbert Cockton. 2011. Ingredients and Meals Rather Than Recipes: A Proposal for Research That Does Not Treat Usability Evaluation Methods as Indivisible Wholes. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 27(10):940-970, Taylor & Francis. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2011.555314 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reeves, S.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Reeves, Stuart
Venue
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
Published
2019-01-30
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
1-38
ISSN
  • 1073-0516 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7325
OpenAlex
W2894721001
Cited by
34
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
EPSRC
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
Keywords
usability testing, usability evaluation, UX practitioners, design consultancy, ethnomethodology, industry professionals

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