1

Usability Engineering: Review of Previous Literature Usability practitioners have been sharing a common objective which is to develop the most potential tool or application with given resources and deadline, let alone the ways of achieving that objective. Compared to the technological scenario three decades ago, today numerous promising frameworks and efficient heuristics have emerged. Wixon (2011) gives an overview on the history of Usability Engineering and presents an effective argument stating that only a few of the frameworks deliverables were lost in translation while the field evolved. However, his study assures that a few of those lost components may serve the Information Technology (IT) industry well today. In addition, Wixon (2011) views frameworks of usability engineering and user experience complementing one another and believes that the missing elements of usability engineering could aid in accomplishing improved user experience. The term Engineering can be referred to as a process of application of limited resources to accomplish a desired result. With this definition as a starting point for describing usability engineering, the insight of this framework is that usability can be defined as the ease of use and acceptability of a tool for a specific group of users performing particular tasks in a particular environment. Good usability has an impact on the end-users performance and their satisfaction, where as acceptability impacts whether or not the tool is used. Therefore, it is extremely crucial that software practitioners are mindful of various usability techniques, as well as being able to promptly identify the most suitable method to be applied in every situation within a software system. Holzingers (2005) work is based on how the human-computer interaction (HCI) arrangement attempts to enhance the acceptance and awareness of established techniques amongst software engineers. He asserts that in human-computer interaction, usability of the system must be taken into account prior to the prototyping process starts. Methods like usability context analysis are meant for facilitating such early focus and dedication. Holzinger (2005) suggests that usability testing or inspection method must not be conducted when the design cycle ends, to avoid difficulty in implementation when the UI is modified. He further suggests that that user interface design must be referred to as User Interface (UI) development, representing software development, because the designing process involves the synthesis phases, while user interface elements comprise of metaphors, mental frameworks, interaction, navigation, appearance and usability (Holzinger, 2005: 72). To ascertain that a software system is inclusive of usability characteristics like learnability, efficiency, memorability, low error rate and satisfaction, Holzinger (2005: 72) recommends methods divided into inspection methods and test methods. The former is without end users, whereas the later is with end users.

2 Inspection methods are applied to identify usability issues and to improve the usability of an interface design by comparing it with established standards. Heuristic evaluation, action analysis and cognitive explanations are involved in the inspections methods. On the other hand, usability test methods involves testing with end users, since it gives direct guidance about how users are using the system and what issues they are facing with a certain interface. Most popular methods include thinking aloud, questionnaires and field reflection. Throughout the last 20 years, the HCI community has devised a broad array of methods for collecting, defining and evaluation usability prerequisites, such as user characteristics, workplace environment, along with usability objectives like efficiency, and end user satisfaction. However, even though software practitioners are aware of the importance of these methods, they are still not cost-effectively incorporated into methodologies of software engineering. For this purpose, Seffah, Djouab and Antunes (2001) have introduced the principle for their ACUDUC (or Approach Centred on Usability) approach as a means to identify the various concerns for enhancement of the use case-driven software requirements approach using RESPECT (REquirements SPECification in Telemetics), which is among the most sophisticated models for usercentred requirements. Apart from use cases and RESPECT, research conducted by Seffah, et al. (2001) aim at reconcilling user-centred and use case-driven R.E. along with cross-pollinating the concepts of software engineering and usability engineering. The researchers investigate methods of how issues of usability can be integrated into the software development cycle. There are numerous definitions for the term usability and models for usability engineering, which make usability somewhat a confusing idea. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defined two distinct usability definitions under its ISO 9241 and ISO 9126 standards: 1. The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use (ISO 9241-11). The first definition suggests Usability as a superior quality objective and a process-based approach to usability by which usable interactive arrangements can be attained as an outcome of a human-centred design procedure. Furthermore, the ISO 9241-11 standard involves the following actions pertaining to the user-centred design phase: a. Defining usability objective and metrics along with assessment against aforesaid requirements. b. Specifying activities required in the development lifecycle in order to achieve optimal quality in usage. The standard gives a model for the application of humancentred design and evaluation methods and aims at supplementing current lifecycle frameworks.

3 2. The second definition is a product-based approach, where usability is viewed as a relatively individual part of software quality. The second definition is, A set of attributes of an interactive system that bear on the effort needed for use and on the individual assessment of such use by a stated or implied set of users (ISO-IEC 9126). The main aim of this definition to define details of the layout, appearance, look and feel, and behaviour of the UI.

Seffah, et al. (2001: 132) devised ACUDUC is a process-driven model intended to merge: 1. The user-case based requirements process specified within the object-oriented software engineering methodology and recently designed as part of the UP or Unified software development Process, with 2. The user-centred requirements process specified in the RESPECT model. Seffah, et al. (2001) illustrate the RESPECT framework as a concrete execution of the ISO 13407 standard that defines the user-centred design process for interactive systems. Studies and investigations presented by Seffah, et al. (2001) show that the idea of the use casebased software development arrangement shows strong compatibility with the human-centred requirements methods of usability engineering. The majority of these investigations advocate specific and impactful improvements to the use case-driven software development approach. Artim, et al. (1998) provides a user-centric perspective of a package of applications to focus on the role of task analysis, and stress on use cases by associating every application with a technique of studying user-system interaction and exploring system behaviour. According to Jarke (1999), scenarios are applied in software engineering as intermediate design models in an elaborated goaloriented change procedure. They allow for task-driven design disintegration to be usable for several situations, including iterative development, usability trade-off, as well as achievable software design object frameworks. On the other hand, Mayhew (1999) illustrates the entire usability engineering lifecycle and throws light on some issues that need to be resolved for its efficient consolidation into the object-oriented (OO) software engineering method introduced by Jacobson (1994). Furthermore, according to Constantine and Lockwood (1999), use case designers develop lightweight use case model illustrations which are void of any inexplicit UI decisions. After that, the UI designer can employ these crucial use cases as input in order to generate the user interface that does not involve any implicit decisions. The study carried out by Nunes (1999) advocates the annotation of use cases be done via non-functional requirements at the abstraction phase where they must be regarded. Rosson (1999) chooses to combine the designing of OO models and tasks involved that are seen a refined version of speedy modelling and an extended tail of scenario-driven analysis. As introduced

4 by Krutchen (1999), a use case storyboard is referred to as a conceptual and coherent illustration of the way a use case is provided by the UI, highlighting how the actors interact with the system. In another renowned article written by Pimenta and Barthet (1996), a profound study is presented on the requirements of organisational context modelling in a usability-based approach to interactive systems requirements engineering. By analysing users independent tasks, task frameworks normally generated during the requirements engineering phase are derived. Further, the article discusses that some chief usability concerns within interactive tasks performance originate from shortage of organisational context prototyping. Pimenta and Barthet (1996: 316) propose the TOCO or Task Organisational Context framework and present an effective example of context modelling with TOCO. Software engineering as well as the HCI communities are both unanimous in realising that usability is termed as a quality standard equal in importance to utility for interactive systems, presently. In this context, utility entails the adequacy that exists amongst system functions and the end users tasks, whereas usability implies the adequacy that exists in how a specific user and the users cognitive profile conduct an interactive task. Several task frameworks have been applied for representing the task analysis outcomes, and every framework focuses on one aspect of examining the way people perform their tasks. For instance, TKS (Task-related Knowledge Structures), ATOM (Analysis for Task Object Modeling), and MAD (Method for Task Description), lay emphasis respectively on task breakdown, training needed to perform tasks and the relationships of actors-object-actions linked to tasks. Nonetheless, even though emphasising on varying areas, many user task analysis approaches focus on individual views in tasks performing and the associated task frameworks are deduced by analysing the users individual tasks. Nevertheless, as opposed to processes implemented by machines, tasks are present in social organisational contexts. Organisations comprise of social actors cooperating to attain a common objective that they would not unable to accomplish in isolation. Each actor relies on fellow actors for portions of their tasks, and therefore they are not free anymore to select their individual goals or ways in which their job can be conducted. As a matter of fact, instead of human performance issues, evaluated normally in terms of error and speed quantities, usability issues in interactive computerised systems should be determined as unsatisfactory fulfilment of organisational and user goals. Simply put, one cannot measure usability by analysing a product in isolation since usability is represented by the relation that exists between users and system that is only identifiable in a context, and its not a property of the system. Practically, context cannot be defined easily and many all-purpose definitions are insufficient. Some experts see context modelling as an estimation of the conceptual modelling, in other words estimation of modelling the end users concepts. Dowell and Long suggest that the real world wherein the interaction takes place must be modelled for assisting the development of

5 human-computer interaction. In their article, there is limited scope of context and it adopts an organisational specific-role definition. According to the approach adopted by Pimenta and Barthet (1996), usability is regarded as existing within two interlinked contexts, namely individual context and organisational context. The former considers only the conditions for task performing of every user, while the latter considers both the organisational process of an enterprise with specific category of users. In point of fact, the identification of the organisational context is seen as a composite task and it cannot be determined from individual contexts. Therefore, Pamenta and Barthet (1996) suggest that the idea of enterprise must be understood in a broad sense, signifying either a restricted field of activity of the organisation or the entire organisation of concern. Heiskari, Kauppinen, Runonen and Mannisto (2009) attempted to bridge the gap between usability and requirements engineering. They state that usability and requirement engineering are mechanisms through which users needs are discovered, analyzed, and fulfilled (Heiskari et. al, 2009:303). Requirement Engineering (R.E.) and usability engineering may have substantial economic effects in software development applications. The foremost part of developing a software project is to get the requirements right, while requirements issues are fatal and costly to majority of systems and software product companies. Usability engineering is not just beneficial for the end user; enhancing usability also decreases the cost of training, development, software documentation, support and maintenance. For successfully delivering from the processes, requirements as well as usability engineering domains are associated with their own group of practices and activities. In practical applications, separate management and control of user-driven design and system development processes is a tough task. An array of approaches have been proposed regarding how improvements in usability must be prepared or applied for integrating it into the system development phase. One such strategy is to devise an individual usability function which is tightly coordinated to and powerfully dedicated to the product organisations. Moreover, while incorporating usability within the system design phase, experts suggest prior emphasis to be placed on end users and tasks, iterative design rationales, and empirical calculations. Even so, this integration process is not a simple task and involves several challenges. Firstly, from the beginning itself insertion of additional methods within a software development organisation is a delicate issue. Secondly, user-driven design methods are reported to remain the area of interest for individual usability sections, visionaries, software developers, and large companies, instead of the daily practice of software practitioners. When infixing usability within a product development company, one must chiefly behave as a change agent. The role of usability experts is highly crucial whether the aim is to resolve the challenges or to introduce usability within an organisation.

6 By means of a case study carried out in two software firms, Heiskari, et al. (2009) aim to present the primary job and responsibilities of usability experts in the requirements engineering process or RE. Individual usability teams are either functioning in development projects or giving technical guidance and support for the complete development organisation. RE is seen as a field with more foresighted traditions in the two companies engaged in the study. From the collected evidence in the research, Heiskari, et al. (2009) detected a gap between the requirements and usability engineering functions within the two firms. They found that usability experts do not hold a pivotal position in the R.E. process. Based on the explored tasks of usability experts, Heiskari, et al. (2009) present discussions and solutions on how this gap can be bridged so as to bring usability an integrated part of the overall system development (Heiskari et al., 2009: 303). This urges one to view usability as a more comprehensive feature of a product rather than only a UI design. It was concluded that giving appropriate usability training to the entire development organisation was an ultimate approach to accomplish this goal; however, extra mechanisms of supporting the overlap of requirements and usability engineering in real world are necessary. Looije, Brake and Neerincx (2007) suggest usability engineering as a technique to develop maps for mobile applications. Several mobile phone applications have in-built maps; however, since interaction amongst these maps could get labourious, using the applications become difficult. The researchers review the previous study conducted to resolve out environmental, technical and societal obstacles for mobile map usage. They also talk about interaction, adaptive user support, and visualisation for maps on mobile devices. Usually, mobile map applications are coded and tested on desktop computers due to the troubles of testing in real world settings. In-depth usability testing is essential due to the fact that the environment wherein mobile devices are used is very intricate. The success of services and products that are developed on information and communication technology is determined by usability to some extent. According to Looije, et al (2007: 536), Usability engineering is said to be a way of developing software applications that are usable, efficient, and impactful, and is supportive of three primary principles: 1. Early and consistent emphasis on end user and tasks 2. Empirical measurement 3. Iterative design Usability engineering is an excellent design approach for a usable map on mobiles. It is indispensable to do mobile testing particularly while the end user is not stationary, which adds more challenges to the evaluation. According to the task and application, usability may be different for different situations and operational environments. Therefore, the choice amongst field experiment or laboratory experimentation is far from essential for mobile devices. Interestingly, the task of using

7 the mobile map comes secondary while the primary task is of route planning or searching for a nearby mall. This primary task shapes the way of using the map application. The device needs to have a higher level of fidelity and the simulation of the primary task must be realistic manner too. Zhang and Adipat (2005) provide an insight into the challenges of usability testing for mobile devices and state that they are similar to those of the design challenges for mobile applications, including: 1. Connectivity 2. Mobile context 3. Small screen size 4. Varying display resolution 5. Limited processing Power and capability 6. Varying data entry methods A good example of such challenges is that low screen display resolutions are likely to have disastrous consequences on a mobile applications usability. Several frameworks and approaches have been proposed for mobile device usability testing. Each of these frameworks is associated with a doubt about whether the usability test will be done in the field or in the lab, and whether end users or experts will be employed. Lab tests are ideal for enhancement of the UI design which necessitates the use of the real device or an emulator. On the contrary, field-testing is more proper for testing of the final application. Streefkerk, Esch-Bussemakers and Neerincx (2006) devised framework is an extension of the framework of Zhang and Adipat (2005). The extended version not just provides instructions about which experimental method mechanism to adopt, but also constraints on when to use a chosen experimental method. Webb, Balasubramanium, OBroin and Webb (2012) felt the need to communicate information more efficiently and speedily to end-users. Their work involves creation and use of Comics as user assistance, which are easy to develop using free and online applications. It was observed that respondents of their study could grasp information more effectively via comic strips as compared to the Powerpoint presentations. The scholars concluded that comics play a vital role in creating information like participant study guidelines and can become an engaging tool for usability professionals. Johnson and Henderson (2012) talk about how growing number companies are developing poor interactive applications and services with negligible or no knowledge of how things could be done better, in comparison to those seen thirty years ago. Certainly, the areas and domains of HCI, usability and interaction design have dramatically advanced and matured over the years. UI design is a thing of the past and is not practiced exclusively in the industrialised world. The researchers claim that majority of software engineers concentrate chiefly on software technology.

8 They ignore the importance of interaction between users and technology and fail to consider interaction as a vital part of design efforts. Hence, irrespective of the progress of the areas of HCI, usability, and interaction design, the associated knowledge cannot be accessed by people who wish to make their products usable. Another study conducted by Kumin, et al. (2012), involved the evaluation of usability of multi-touch tablet devices by persons with Down syndrome to be applied for workplace-linked activities. The study, involving ten adults with Down syndrome, revealed that adults with Down syndrome could easily perform office related tasks using multi-touch-screen devices. It was observed that respondent performance was driven by formal computer training. However, password usability was an obstacle for adults with Down syndrome. Computer literacy and Information technology has been highlighted as key workplace skills for individuals having Down syndrome, and software practitioners must focus on understanding how such adults use technology. Study presented by Ravendran, MacColl and Dochert (2011) reported the results of a comparative usability evaluation of a tag-based UI and the existing traditional interface applied to the Australian banking sector. The traditional interface contains basic HTML objects like dropdown boxes, tables, and lists, with little customization facility, while the tag-based interface employs user-defined tags to banking resources having various customization options. The study involved 30 online banking participants who conducted a series of tasks on both interfaces. The results indicated that the tag-based interface showed better performance in efficiency, user satisfaction, and effectiveness, in mobile and online contexts. The case study concluded that tag-based interface can play a crucial role in enhancing user satisfaction of mobile and online banking. A similar study was conducted by Siegenthaler, et al. (2012) which involved the study of how usability of electronic reading devises was impacted by the touch-screen technology. The usability of a device is a critical factor for perceived legibility. Ease of handling a device influences a users overall reading experience, and the touch-screen facility is one such crucial feature of a device. This study compared three devices with varying specifications: two e-readers with e-ink display and one tablet personal computer (PC) equipped with a backlit LCD (liquid crystal display). Siegenthaler, et al. (2012) observed participants who were asked to complete use-case scenarios for every device, and rate them in terms of their usability of design, navigation, and user-friendliness. It was found that the touch-screen feature of a device permits the user to interact more easily and intuitively and navigation of a touch-screen device was seen to be enhanced than those without a touch-screen feature. Wentz and Lazar (2011) evaluated usability of web-based and desktop email applications used by blind end-users. To determine usability barriers facing blind users using email applications, 15 blind participants were asked to test seven commonly utilized email applications. The results

9 identified many ways of improving email applications to enable blind users to use them with ease. The findings of the study must be undertaken by employers while deciding on the type of email application they will employ in the company. On similar lines, Lazar, Olalere and Wentz (2012) investigated the usability and accessibility of job portals for blind users. The experts stated that previous research involved automated tools or expert reviews for assessing the accessibility of online job applications. 16 blind, screen-reader users attempted to apply for employment on websites. Overall 32 applications were submitted, two for every 16 companies in United States. Similar to the previous study, this study revealed that several online job application processes were inaccessible to disabled or blind users, and when faced with accessibility problem, the users would seek expert assistance. Only 28.1% of successful application submission was recorded. The report explains the barriers of usability testing, and details the most common issues for blind users and those linked to usability. The report suggests introduction of features like clear hyperlink text, wellstructured website layout, logical series of queries, accessibly feedback, distinctly named data format, etc. in core website development of companies for ensuring that online job application can be accessed and used by disabled applicants as well. According to Henderson and Harris (2012), with shrinking of development cycles and communication with end-users becoming easier and more enhanced, the user experience community are likely to build devices and products as a result of collaboration amongst developers and users. Open source software, blogs, social media, wikis are already established products based on such collaboration. The scholars believed that changes in product development must change the current role of the designer in that they ought to collaborate with end-users to support and curate changes, and above all, furnish the means for end-users to collectively achieve enough convergence to be able to fulfil their interacting prerequisites. Moreover, Henderson and Harris (2012: 54) advocated that the role of design is to accelerate evolution and while evolution occurs in all directions, the designer must accelerate the coordination of those directions, in order to bring coherence where needed. McLellan, Muddimer and Peres (2012) studied the ways in which user experience has an effect on System Usability Scale (SUS) ratings. The researchers note that long-term studies involve testing over time and consider a products earlier user experiences. Nonetheless, conducting these forms of studies is no longer easy. Hence, there is limited literature on instances of actual impact of user experience on user satisfaction metrics within industry-standard study tools. McLellan, et al. (2012) led research in 2009 made use of a cross-sectional technique to observe the effects of user profiles on commercial product ratings which employed one such tool, the System Usability Scale or SUS. Based on this finding, their latest research study reported that variations in user ratings might be based on the level of a users previous experience with an IT system, a website visited or the use

10 of a desktop application. The study involved data collection from 262 end-users from various geographic locations to test two linked oilfield product versions, one desktop-based and one webbased. The study identified that end-users who had broader experience with a product provided better SUS ratings over users of limited or no experience with the same product; similar to the results of previous testing studies. The changing role of HCI practitioners working in industry since the last 25 years was depicted in the article written by Karat and Karat (2011). The article is a personal perspective of the researchers who peek into the future of HCI research, determine emerging trends in the industrial HCI research environment, and offer insight into their personal experiences on work in IT research and development, which included being team members to collaborate on HCI research projects at IBM (International Business Machines Corporation) research through 15 years. Article developed by Bergstrom, et al. (2011) illustrates the challenges and benefits of working in collaboration with engineers and designers while carrying out iterative usability testing while designing a Website. The course of usability testing was conducted four times with the help of elements of increasing reality to depict the UI of a government website, i.e. 1st iteration: low-fidelity paper prototypes; 2nd iteration: medium-fidelity, non-clickable HTML images; 3rd and 4th iteration: high-fidelity, partially-clickable Web pages. Usability increased in the first three rounds of testing, but declined in the fourth iteration. Through iterative testing, evaluators could gather qualitative and quantitative data from end-users, tackle usability problems, and test new and advanced designs in the design process. Usability evaluators/ testers ought to include several iterations in their test agenda since iterative testing is an effective and productive instrument to identify usability problems and address them efficiently. Ryu, Koh, Ryu and Um (2011) evaluated the usability of a touch-less mouse or T-mouse for noncontact action-based inputs into a computer system, via infrared proximity sensing technique. The Tless mouse is a Human-Machine Interface (HMI) device, used by making only finger gestures without making any contact with any surface or device. The T-less mouse was evaluated in accordance with the testing procedures and standards for assessing computer pointing devices. It was compared to a traditional mouse through data collection and statistical methods. The authors found the average completion time was longer, and number of errors was not very high with T-less mouse, contrary to traditional mouse. Most of the respondents stated that T-less mouse could be usable in special situations where traditional mouse usage would prove useless. On the other hand, work of Toivonen, Choi and Nevala (2011) involved the testing of the ergonomics and usability of a mobile workstation prototype when applied in real work scenarios. To adhere to

11 the aim of this study, health care providers were made to test the mobile workstation during and after hospital rounds where patient information was to be stored in electronic format effectively. The study generated 19 requirements for a usable product. Additionally, the subjects marked screen height, wheel operation, the mobility and adjustability of the terminal, as the best usability characteristics of the prototype. However, the areas which needed improvement were the mouse level, the keyboard positioning, and the installation of the machine into the terminal. The design development was the result of the subjective outputs and judgements given by doctors and nurses regarding the usability of a mobile workstation. Perry, et al. (2011) report on the outcomes of a usability study involving 5 commercially accessible programmable thermostats (PTs). The study aims at developing four new metrics to be applied in the evaluation of thermostat usability. Lack of usability was detected in the current generation of PTs and the metric were correlated with each other by complying with the qualitative outcomes of the study. The study was based on the fact 9% of the energy usage of American residents were controlled by residential thermostats. There was need to the installation of PTs due to their energy saving feature. However, many recent studies indicate neither any significant energy saving nor higher energy usage in residents using PTs. Hence, usability problems were revealed that led to improper energy use and wastage, which in turn indicated the need for metrics applicable to PTs that PT manufacturers can use for evaluating their products (Perry et al., 2011). Keselman, et al. (2011) examined the ways of adaptation, expansion, and modification of current Web measures of Internet performance, Internet usage, usability, and end-user feedback, for virtual life or Second Life. Second Life is an online virtual world where users interact with each other and the virtual environment through graphical characters. Several government and academic companies build applications on the Second Life platform for supporting education and information outreach. This gives rise to an increasing need for evaluation methods for Second Life applications. The area of Web evaluation is advanced and has the potential to supply metric, techniques and instruments adaptable to Second Life. The study utilized two facilitated expert board discussion, after which an empirical pilot-test of the discussion outcomes were conducted (Keselman et al., 2011). In another study, Faulkner and Hayton (2011) conducted an experiment conducted on the layout of navigational panels or menus on a typical website. A group of students built a website, after which two identical versions of the same site were developed- one with menus on the right and other with menus on the left. Subjects were made to use one particular version of the site, and answer a short survey hereafter. The second version was kept out of access. The study indicated that there was no substantial time savings in applying the rule of positioning menus on the left-hand side of the website, while there may be benefits of placing menus on the right hand of a website (Faulkner and

12 Hayton, 2011). Coursaris and Kim (2011) present an adapted usability evaluation model and apply it to a mobile computing environment. A qualitative meta-analytical review was conducted via this model, of over 100 empirical mobile usability studies. The outcomes of the qualitative study included: contextual factors examined, and the core and peripheral dimensions evaluated. The result also included primary findings in terms of a research plan for the next mobile usability research, such as 1. Under-utilization of open and amorphous tasks 2. Further investigation needed in the field of interaction impact between complexity and interactivity 3. With increase in research on accessibility, usability of services and products may be improved 4. The study of new technology and environmental factors will offer in-depth contextual mobile usability understanding 5. Knowledge of the hedonic factors affecting the aesthetic aspect of a mobile device or service, as well as usability. 6. High scope of research in the area of neuroscience in mobile usability. The article also discusses several other detailed findings (Coursaris and Kim, 2011). Although usability testing and usability evaluation has emerged as a crucial instrument in artifact assessment, there is very limited knowledge on what exactly happens to usability data when it travels between usability session and usability report. Friess (2011) presents an ethnographic study wherein he investigates various forms of languages utilized by usability evaluators in user-driven usability testing sessions as against the language adopted by novice usability evaluators in oral reporting of that usability testing session. The consistency and persistence of the usability testing data is assessed, within the view of each tester undertaking do-it-yourself usability testing. With a few participants, this case study advocates that the outcomes of oral usability reports might or might not be confirmed in the evaluations themselves, that explicit biases could impact the presentation of the reports findings, and that more extensive investigations are warranted (with respect to both methodologies and populations. Another contribution in the field of Usability Engineering was made by Owens, Chaparro and Palmer (2011). Their research is based on banner blindness, the phenomenon of website users who actively ignore web manners. The concept of banner blindness was expanded to text advert blindness to analyze the effects of advert placement and search type on the level of blindness. The study discovered that eye-tracking and performance analysis showed that end-users missed information in text adverts on the right side of the webpage more commonly than in text adverts placed at the top of the webpage. Performance and eye-

13 tracking measures were also affected by search types (semantic or exact). Respondent search criteria varied according to search type and whether or not the top region of the webpage was considered as an advertisement or relevant information (Owens et al., 2011). Vaughan (2011) talks about how to sell User Experience (UX) and gives a personalized view on their experience on working for a mature user experience company. The article reveals how a companys sales department can greatly benefit from accurately positioning UX with clients. One needs to understand customers purchase motivations technical soundness previous relation with the company career aspirations, and Organizational relations within their own enterprise. These dimensions play a pivotal role in UX positioning. In another such article, Turner (2011) presents a strategic approach to metrics for designers of UX. UX designers made to warrant return-on-investment (ROI) for OX activities usually depend on published ROI literature and UX metrics which fail to address concerns of decision makers. Even with limited knowledge of business strategy and metrics, and by realizing their own value to a company, UX designers can 1. Determine non-financial and financial metrics and goals influencing change in their company 2. Depict a clear picture to decision makers about the connection between their value and organization goals, and 3. Establish a positive ROI in UX activities

Lastly, UX practitioners are recommended to use the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) approach to understand the ways of aligning their activities to company goals. Hocko (2011) presents a case study based on the contributions of the author to an enterprise-wide implementation of Microsoft Sharepoint. In early 2008, the IT department of Hocko (2011) began to consider development of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) products in place of traditionally developed applications. This decision made it essential for the evolution of the responsibilities of usability practitioners to participate in incorporating the user-centred design practices within both COTS evaluation as well as COTS implementations. The case study demonstrates a few challenges faced by the author and the lessons learned.

14 Bibliography

Artim, J., van Harmelen, M., Butler, K., Gulliksen, J., Henderson, A., Kovacevic, S., Lu, S., Overmyer, S., Reaux, R., Roberts, D, Tarby, J-C., and Linden, K.V. 1998. Incorporating work, process and task analysis into industrial object-oriented systems development. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 30(4).

Bergstrom, J. R., Olmsted-Hawala, E. L., Chen, J. M. and Murphy, E. D. 2011. Conducting Iterative Usability Testing on a Web Site: Challenges and Benefits. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(1), pp. 9-30.

Constantine, L.L. and Lockwood, L.A.D. 1999. Software for Use: A Practical Guide to the Models and Methods of Usage-Centred Design. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Coursaris, K. C. and Kim, D. J. 2011. A Meta-Analytical Review of Empirical Mobile Usability Studies. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(3), pp. 117-171.

Faulkner, X. and Hayton, C. 2011. When Left might Not Be Right. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(4), pp. 245-256.

Friess, E. 2011. Discourse Variations Between Usability Tests and Usability Reports. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(3), pp. 102-116.

Heiskari, J., Kauppinen, M., Runonen, M. and Mannisto, T. 2009. Bridging the Gap between Usability and Requirements Engineering. 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 303-308.

Henderson, A. and Harris, J. 2012. Curating Evolution. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(2), pp. 51-55.

Holzinger, A. 2005. Usability Engineering Methods for Software Developers. Communications of the ACM, 48(1), pp. 71-74.

15 Hocko, J. 2011. User-Centered Design in Procured Software Implementations. Journal of usability studies, 6(2), pp. 60-74.

Jacobson, I. 1994. Object-Oriented Software Engineering: A Use Case Driven Approach. AddisonWesley Object Technology Series. Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.

Jarke, M. 1999. Scenarios for Modelin. Communications of the ACM, 42(1).

Johnson, J. and Henderson, A. 2012. Usability of Interactive Systems: It will get worse before it gets better. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(3), pp. 88-93.

Karat, C. and Karat, J. 2011. Industrial HCI Research: A Personal and Professional Perspective. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(1), pp. 1-8.

Keselman, A., Cid, V., Perry, M., Steinberg, C., Wood, F. B. and Elliot, R. S. 2011. Adapting Web 1.0 Evaluation Techniques for E-govenment in Second Life. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(4), pp. 204225.

Krutchen, P. 1999. Use Case Storyboards in the Rational Unified Process. Workshop on Integrating Human Factors in Use Case and 00 Methods. 12th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming. Lisbon, Portugal 14-20 June 1999.

Kumin, L., Lazar, J., Feng, J. H., Wentz, B. and Ekedebe, N. 2012. A Usability Evaluation of Workplacerelated Tasks on a Multi-Touch Tablet Computer by Adults with Down Syndrome. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(4), pp. 118-142. Lazar, J., Olalere, A. and Wentz. B. 2012. Investigating the Accessibility and Usability of Job Application Web Sites for Blind Users. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(2), 68-87. Looije, R., Brake, G. M. and Neerincx, M.A. 2007. Usability Engineering for Mobile Maps. Proc. of the 4th Intl. Conf. on Mobile Technology, Applications and Systems, pp. 532-539.

16

Mayhew, D.J. 1999. The Usability Engineering Lifecycle: A Practitioners Handbook for User Interface Design. Morgan Kaufmanns Publishers.

McLellan, S., Muddimer, A. and Peres, S. C. 2012. The Effect of Experience on System Usability Scale Ratings. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(2), pp. 56-67.

Nunes, N. 1999. A bridge too far: Can UML finally help bridge the gap?. Proceedings of INTERACT99 Doctoral Consortium. Edinburgh, Scotland.

Owens, J., Chaparro, B. S. and Palmer, E. M. 2011. Text Advertising Blindness: The New Banner Blindness?. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(3), pp. 172-197.

Pimenta, M. and Barthet, M. 1996. Context Modelling for a Usability Oriented Approach to Interactive Systems Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 315-321.

Perry, D., Aragon, C., Meier, A., Peffer, T. and Pritoni, M. 2011. Making Energy Savings Easier: Usability Metrics for Thermostats. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(4), pp. 226-244.

Ravendran, R., MacColl, I. and Docherty, M. 2011. Usability Evaluation of a Tag-based Interface. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(4), pp. 143-160.

Rosson, M. B. 1999. Integrating Development of Tasks and Object Models. Communications of the ACM, 42(1).

Ryu, Y., Koh, D. H., Ryu, D. and Um, D. 2011. Usability Evaluation of Touchless Mouse Based on Infrared Proximity Sensing. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(1), pp. 31 39. Seffah, A., Djouab, R. and Antunes, H. 2001. Comparing and Reconciling Usability-Centered and Use Case-Driven Requirements Engineering Processes. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 132-139.

17

Siegenthaler, E., Bochud, Y., Wurtz, P., Schmid, L. and Bergamin, P. 2012. The Effects of Touch Screen Technology on the Usability of E-Reading Devices. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(3), pp. 94-104.

Streefkerk, J. W., Esch-Bussemakers, M. P. and Neerincx, M. A. 2006. Designing personal attentive user interfaces in the mobile public safety domain. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, pp. 749-770.

Toivonen, R., Choi, D. and Nevala, N. 2011. Ergonomics Product Development of a Mobile Workstation for Health Care. Journal of Usability Studies, 7 (1), pp. 40-50.

Turner, C. W. 2011. A Strategic Approach to Metrics for User Experience Designers. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(2), pp. 52-59.

Vaughan, M. W. 2011. Tough Sell: Selling User Experience. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(2), pp. 4851.

Wixon, D. 2011. The Unfulfilled Promise of Usability Engineering. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(4), pp. 198-203.

Webb, E. N., Balasubramanian, G., OBroin, U. and Webb, J. M. 2012. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(3), 105-117. Wentz, B. and Lazar, J. 2011. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(2), pp. 75-89.

Zhang, D. and Adipat, B. 2005. Challenges, Methodologies, and Issues in the Usability Testing of Mobile Applications. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 18, pp. 293-308.