The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Heuristic evaluation of ambient displays
Abstract
We present a technique for evaluating the usability and effectiveness of ambient displays. Ambient displays are abstract and aesthetic peripheral displays portraying non-critical information on the periphery of a user's attention. Although many innovative displays have been published, little existing work has focused on their evaluation, in part because evaluation of ambient displays is difficult and costly. We adapted a low-cost evaluation technique, heuristic evaluation, for use with ambient displays. With the help of ambient display designers, we defined a modified set of heuristics. We compared the performance of Nielsen's heuristics and our heuristics on two ambient displays. Evaluators using our heuristics found more, severe problems than evaluators using Nielsen's heuristics. Additionally, when using our heuristics, 3-5 evaluators were able to identify 40--60% of known usability issues. This implies that heuristic evaluation is an effective technique for identifying usability issues with ambient displays.
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
Cites
Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms
Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997) · Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems · doi:10.1145/258549.258715 · Cited by 3,853 · cited 1×
“[22, 7, 6, 9]), or report only short evaluations with few details or informal feedback, focusing instead on technology and design innovation [10, 3, 13].”
BackgroundA 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
A survey of user-centered design practice
Vredenburg, K., Mao, J.-Y., Smith, P. W., & Carey, T. (2002) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/503376.503460 · Cited by 691 · cited 3×
“As an additional benefit, we have demonstrated a process for creating heuristics applicable to a new domain, building on the work of Baker et al. [ 1 ].”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Cited by
Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research
Hornbæk, K. (2006) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.06.002 · Cited by 1,123
A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces
Fishkin, K. (2004) · Personal and Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1007/s00779-004-0297-4 · Cited by 422
Evaluating Information Visualizations
Carpendale, S. (2008) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70956-5_2 · Cited by 364
Heuristic evaluation of virtual reality applications
Sutcliffe, A., & Gault, B. (2004) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2004.05.001 · Cited by 289
Rogers, Y., Connelly, K., Tedesco, L., Hazlewood, W., Kurtz, A., Hall, R. E., Hursey, J., & Toscos, T. (2007) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74853-3_20 · Cited by 199
Metadata
- Authors
- Mankoff, J., Dey, A. K., Hsieh, G., Kientz, J., Lederer, S., & Ames, M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2003-04-05
- Pages
- 169-176
- OpenAlex
- W2078569098
- Cited by
- 635
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 24.18
- 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: Heuristic evaluation of ambient displays. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/642611.642642
- The paper
- Mankoff, J., Dey, A. K., Hsieh, G., Kientz, J., Lederer, S., & Ames, M. (2003). Heuristic evaluation of ambient displays. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642642
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.
