Usability Evaluation Methods for Special Interest Internet Information Services

Authors

  • Eva Maria Schön Seven Principles, Germany.
  • Jens Hellmers University of Bremen image/svg+xml
  • Jörg Thomaschewski University of Applied Sciences Emden Leer image/svg+xml

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2014.263

Keywords:

Usability, User Experience, UEQ, Kanno Model, Service Portal

Abstract

The internet provides a wide range of scientific information for different areas of research, used by the related scientific communities. Often the design or architecture of these web pages does not correspond to the mental model of their users. As a result the wanted information is difficult to find. Methods established by Usability Engineering and User Experience can help to increase the appeal of scientific internet information services by analyzing the users’ requirements. This paper describes a procedure to analyze and optimize scientific internet information services that can be accomplished with relatively low effort. It consists of a combination of methods that already have been successfully applied to practice: Personas, usability inspections, Online Questionnaire, Kano model and Web Analytics.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] J. Scholtz. (2004). Usability Evaluation [Online]. Available: www.itl.nist.gov/iad/IADpapers/2004/Usability%20Evaluation_rev1.pdf

[2] K. Hornbæk, “Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research” in International journal of humancomputer studies, 64 (2), 2006, pp. 79–102.

[3] B. Laugwitz, T. Held, and M. Schrepp, “Construction and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (5298), 2008, pp. 63–76.

[4] J. Nielsen. (2005). Putting A/B Testing in Its Place [Online]. Available: www.nngroup.com/articles/putting-ab-testing-in-its-place/

[5] J. Hellmers, J. Thomaschewski, E.-M. Holt, and T. Wriedt, “Usability evaluation methods for a scientific internet information portal” in Journal of Universal Computer Science (JUCS) 18 (10), 2012, pp.1308–1322.

[6] H. Beyer, User-centered agile methods. San Francisco, Calif.: Morgan & Claypool, 2010

[7] D. Winter, E.-M. Holt, and J. Thomaschewski, “Persona driven agile development. Build up a vision with personas, sketches and persona driven user stories“, in 2012 Proc. Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI). Vol. 2, pp. 307-310.

[8] DIN EN ISO 9241-210:2011-01, Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems, Beuth, Berlin, 2011.

[9] A. Cooper, The inmates are running the asylum. Indianapolis, Ind.: Sams, 1999

[10] A. Cooper, R. Reimann, and D. Cronin, About face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design. Indianapolis, Ind.: Wiley, 2007

[11] D. Norman. (2004). Ad-Hoc Personas & Empathetic Focus [Online]. Available: jnd.org/dn.mss/personas_empath.html

[12] Å. Blomquist and M. Arvola, “Personas in action: ethnography in an interaction design team” in Proc. of the second Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction, 2002, pp. 197–200.

[13] J. Hellmers, E.-M. Holt, and J. Thomaschewski, “Personas für das wissenschaftliche Internetportal ScattPort zum Thema Lichtstreuung”, in Proc. 2. Symposium Wissenschaftliche Portale und Informationsnetzwerke, Institut für Werkstofftechnik, Bremen, 2011.

[14] DIN EN ISO 9241-11:1998, Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 11: Guidance on usability, Beuth, Berlin, 1999.

[15] R. L. Mack and J. Nielsen, Usability inspection methods. Wiley & Sons, 1994.

[16] B. Shneiderman and C. Plaisant, Designing the user interface. Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. 5. ed., internat. ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley/Pearson, 2010.

[17] DIN EN ISO 9241-110: 2006, Ergonomics of human-system interaction- Part 110: Dialogue principles, Beuth, Berlin, 2008.

[18] G. Gediga, K. Hamborg, and I. Düntsch, “The IsoMetrics usability inventory: an operationalization of ISO 9241-10 supporting summative and formative evaluation of software systems”, Behaviour & Information Technology, 18 (3), 1999, pp. 151–164.

[19] J. Kirakowski and M. Corbett, “SUMI: The software usability measurement inventory” in British journal of educational technology, 24 (3), 1993, pp. 210–212.

[20] M. Hassenzahl, “The Effect of Perceived Hedonic Quality on Product Appealingness” in International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 13 (4), 2001, pp. 481–499.

[21] M. Hassenzahl, M. Burmester, and F. Koller, “AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität” in Proc. Mensch & Computer 2003, pp. 187–196.

[22] M. Rauschenberger, M. Schrepp, M. Perez-Cota, S. Olschner, and J. Thomaschewski, “Efficient Measurement of the User Experience of Interactive Products. How to use the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ). Example: Spanish Language Version“ in IJIMAI: International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, Bd. 2 (Special issue “Artificial Intelligence and Social Application”, Vol 2. Nr. 1), 2013, pp. 39-45.

[23] User Experience Questionnaire [Online]. Available: www.ueqonline.org

[24] M. Bosnjak, B. Batinic, “Understanding the Willingness to Participate in Online-Surveys – The Case of e-mail Questionnaires” in Online social sciences, 2002, pp. 111–116.

[25] T. Tuten, D. Urban, M. Bosnjak, “Internet Surveys and Data Quality: A Review” in Online social sciences, 2002, 7–27.

[26] L. Gräf, “Assessing Internet Questionnaires: The Online Pretest Lab” in Online social sciences, 2002, 73–93.

[27] R. Likert, “A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes” in Archives of Psychology No. 140, 1932

[28] E. Sauerwein, F. Bailom, K. Matzler, and H.H. Hinterhuber, “The Kano Model: How to delight your customers” in Preprints Volume I of the IX. International Working Seminar on Production Economics, Innsbruck/Igls/Austria, February 19-23 1996, 1996, pp. 313–327.

[29] E. Sauerwein, “Experiences with the reliability and Validity of the Kano-Method: Comparison to Alternate Forms of Classification of Product Requirements” in Transactions of the 11th Symposium on QFD, 1999, pp. 416–429.

[30] C. Berger, R. Blauth, D. Boger, C. Bolster, G. Burchill, W. DuMouchel, F. Pouliot, R. Richter, A. Rubinoff, D. Shen, M. Timko and D. Walden: “Kano’s Methods for Understanding Customer-defined Quality”; David Walden (Ed): Center for Quality Management Journal, Vol. 2, Nr. 4 (Fall 1993) (Vol. 2, Nr. 4 (Fall 1993)), pp. 3–36.

[31] T. Wriedt and J. Hellmers: “New Scattering Information Portal for the light-scattering community”; Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer 109, 2008, pp. 1536–1542.

[32] L. Hasan, A. Morris, and S. Probets, “Using Google Analytics to Evaluate the Usability of E-Commerce Sites”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2009, pp. 697–706.

[33] J. Burby, A. Brown and WAA Standards Committee, “Web Analytics “Big Three” Definitions Version 1.0”, 2006

[34] J. Burby, A. Brown and WAA Standards Committee, “Web Analytics Definitions Version 4.0”, 2007.

Downloads

Published

2014-06-01
Metrics
Views/Downloads
  • Abstract
    61
  • PDF
    31

How to Cite

Schön, E. M., Hellmers, J., and Thomaschewski, J. (2014). Usability Evaluation Methods for Special Interest Internet Information Services. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 2(6), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2014.263

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 6 (2014): IIJIMAI 2014 - Regular Issue.

Section

Regular Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)