Role of context in usability evaluations: A review

Usability is often defined as the ability of a system to carry out specific tasks by specific users in a specific context. Usability evaluation involves testing the system for its expected usability. Usability testing is performed in natural environment (field) or artificial environment (laboratory). The result of usability evaluation is affected by the environment in which it is carried out. Previous studies have focused only on the physical environment (lab and field) effect on the results but rarely focused on the effect of social environment (people present during testing). Therefore, this study aims to review how important it is to take context into account during usability evaluation. Context is explored through the theory of behaviour settings, according to which behaviour of individuals is strongly influenced by the physical as well as the social environment in which they function. The result of this review indicates that the physical and social context plays a substantial role in usability evaluations. Further, it also suggests that the usability evaluation model should encompass context as an important component in the framework.

[1]  Vior Beha,et al.  A POWERFUL THEORY AND A PARADOX Ecological Psychologists After Barker , 2005 .

[2]  Martin C. Maguire,et al.  Context of Use within usability activities , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[3]  Jean Scholtz,et al.  Usability Evaluation , 2001 .

[4]  Nigel Bevan,et al.  Measuring usability as quality of use , 1995, Software Quality Journal.

[5]  Anu Kankainen,et al.  Usability testing of mobile applications: a comparison between laboratory and field testing , 2005 .

[6]  Janne Jul Jensen,et al.  Social Context in Usability Evaluations: Concepts, Processes and Products , 2009 .

[7]  A. M. Nenci,et al.  Ecological Psychology , 2022 .

[8]  Steve Howard,et al.  Teachers' involvement in usability testing with children , 2006, IDC '06.

[9]  Kapil Chalil Madathil,et al.  Synchronous remote usability testing: a new approach facilitated by virtual worlds , 2011, CHI.

[10]  Richard Hull,et al.  Towards situated computing , 1997, Digest of Papers. First International Symposium on Wearable Computers.

[11]  F.H.A. Razak,et al.  Usability testing with children: Laboratory vs field studies , 2010, 2010 International Conference on User Science and Engineering (i-USEr).

[12]  Elizabeth D. Murphy,et al.  Think-aloud protocols: a comparison of three think-aloud protocols for use in testing data-dissemination web sites for usability , 2010, CHI.

[13]  Bill N. Schilit,et al.  Disseminating active map information to mobile hosts , 1994, IEEE Network.

[14]  Andreas Holzinger,et al.  Usability engineering methods for software developers , 2005, CACM.

[15]  Gregory D. Abowd,et al.  Towards a Better Understanding of Context and Context-Awareness , 1999, HUC.

[16]  David R. Morse,et al.  Enhanced Reality Fieldwork: the Context Aware Archaeological Assistant , 1997 .

[17]  Lynne Baillie,et al.  Exploring multimodality in the laboratory and the field , 2005, ICMI '05.

[18]  A.S. Tsiaousis,et al.  Evaluating the Effects of the Environmental Context-of-Use on Mobile Website Usability , 2008, 2008 7th International Conference on Mobile Business.

[19]  Matt Jones,et al.  Mobile Interaction Design , 2006 .

[20]  Miles MacLeod,et al.  Usability measurement in context , 1994, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[21]  Jan Stage,et al.  It's worth the hassle!: the added value of evaluating the usability of mobile systems in the field , 2006, NordiCHI '06.

[22]  Stephanie Rosenbaum,et al.  Usability studies of WWW sites: heuristic evaluation vs. laboratory testing , 1997, SIGDOC '97.

[23]  S. Rosenbaum,et al.  Usability evaluations versus usability testing: when and why? , 1989 .

[24]  Fabio Paternò,et al.  Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices , 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[25]  Janet C. Read,et al.  Evaluating Children's Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers , 2008 .

[26]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  The Evaluator Effect in Usability Studies: Problem Detection and Severity Judgments , 1998 .

[27]  Connor Graham,et al.  A Review of Mobile HCI Research Methods , 2003, Mobile HCI.

[28]  Tom Stewart,et al.  Usability evaluation , 2009, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[29]  Thomas Grill,et al.  Environmental context sensing for usability evaluation in mobile HCI by means of small wireless sensor networks , 2008, MoMM.

[30]  Peter J. Brown,et al.  Context-aware applications: from the laboratory to the marketplace , 1997, IEEE Wirel. Commun..

[31]  Mikael B. Skov,et al.  Exploring Verbalization and Collaboration of Constructive Interaction with Children , 2005, INTERACT.

[32]  M.D.T. de Jong,et al.  Analyzing the interaction between facilitator and participants in two variants of the think-aloud method , 2005 .

[33]  Myung-Suk Kim,et al.  SocialAttributesofRoboticProducts:Observations of Child-Robot Interactions in a School Environment , 2010 .

[34]  Emanuela Mazzone,et al.  In search for evaluation methods for children's tangible technology , 2006, IDC '06.

[35]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[36]  Kyung S. Park,et al.  A STRUCTURED METHODOLOGY FOR COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF USER INTERFACE DESIGNS USING USABILITY CRITERIA AND MEASURES , 1999 .

[37]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  The Evaluator Effect: A Chilling Fact About Usability Evaluation Methods , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[38]  L. Tiina Sarjakoski,et al.  Need for Context-Aware Topographic Maps in Mobile Devices , 2003, ScanGIS.

[39]  P. Schoggen,et al.  Behavior Settings: A Revision and Extension of Roger G. Barker’s “Ecological Psychology” , 1989 .

[40]  Nikolaos Avouris,et al.  Usability evaluation of handheld devices: A case study for a museum application , 2005 .

[41]  Chris Andrzejczak,et al.  The effect of testing location on usability testing performance, participant stress levels, and subjective testing experience , 2010, J. Syst. Softw..

[42]  M.J. van den Haak,et al.  Analyzing the interaction between facilitator and participants in two variants of the think-aloud method , 2005, IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference, 2005..