This paper fills in the theoretical gap in the existing usability evaluation literature by introducing a new usability framework: the Usability Paradigm for Multiple Device System (UPMDS). The traditional usability framework for single interface evaluation is not sufficient to analyze usability in multiple-device system, in which the interrelationship between the devices has an impact on user performance. Therefore, the transfer of learning paradigm was adopted. The UPMDS framework consists of two usability attributes: transferability and user perception, which were further decomposed into effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction, attractiveness. Three measurement types, behavioral cues, subjective ratings, and self reported results, were suggested to address the existing challenges in usability evaluation. Future research is suggested to utilize the concept of transfer of learning in the area of usability evaluation, and provide empirical validation to the current usability framework.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallL. J.LucasE. J.MilesJ. N. V.GaleA. G. (2003). Inspection times and the selection task: What do eye-movements reveal about relevance effects?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 1053-1077.
2.
BevanN. (1995). Measuring usability as quality of use, Software Quality Journal 4,115-130.
3.
BommerW.H.JohnsonJ.L.RichG.A.PodsakoffP.M.MackenzieS.B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587-605.
4.
ConstantineL.L.LockwoodL.A.D. (1999). Software for Use: A Practical Guide to the Models and Methods of Usage-Centred Design, New York: Addison-Wesley.
5.
De AngeliA.SutcliffeA.HartmannJ.
(2006). Interaction, usability and aesthetics: what influences users’ preferences?2006ACM Press, 271-280.
6.
DenisC.KarsentyL. (2004). Inter-usability of multi-device systems - a conceptual framework, In: SeffahA.JavaheryH. (Eds.), Multiple User Interfaces: Cross-Platform Applications and Context-Aware Interfaces (pp. 381-383). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, West Sussex, England
7.
Gregan-PaxtonJ.JohnD.R. (1997). Consumer learning by analogy: A model of internal knowledge transfer. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3) 266-284.
8.
HaskellRobert E. (2000). Transfer of Learning: Cognition, Instruction, and Reasoning. Academic Press.
9.
HornbeckK (2006). Current practice in measuring usability: challenges to usability studies and research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64: 79-102.
10.
ISO/IEC. 9241. (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT)s. ISO/IEC9241-14: 1998 (E),.
11.
JohnB.E.KierasD. E. (1996). Using GOMS for user interface design and evaluation: Which technique?ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction3: 287-319.
12.
KirakowskiJ.CorbettM. (1993). SUMI: The Software Usability Measurement Inventory, British Journal of Educational Technology24: 210-212.
13.
MacleodM. (1994). Usability: practical methods for testing and Improvement, Proceedings of the Norwegian Computer Society Software ConferenceSandvika, Norway.
14.
MacleodMRenggerR (1993) The development of DRUM: a software tool for video-assisted usability evaluation. In: AltyJL. (eds) People and Computers VIII (pp. 293-309).
15.
MarshallD.FosterJ.C.JackM.A. (2001). User performance and attitude towards schemes for alphanumeric data entry using restricted input devices. Behaviour & Information Technology20 (3), 167-188.
16.
PohlM.ResterM.WiltnerS. (2007). Usability and transferability of a visualization methodology for medical data. In HolzingerA. (Ed.): USAB 2007, LNCS 4799, (pp. 171-184).
17.
PreeceJ.RogersY.SharpH.BenyonD.HollandS.CareyT. (1994). Human Computer Interaction, Wokingham, UK: Addison-Wesley.
18.
SchneidermanB. (1992). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed.), Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
19.
SearsA. (1995). AIDE: A step toward metric-based interface development tools, Proceedings of theACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (pp. 101-110). New York: ACM Press.
20.
SeffahA.DonyaeeM.KlineR.PaddaH. (2006). Usability Measurement and Metrics: A Consolidated Model, Software Quality Journal, 14, 159-178.
21.
StrawdermanL.KoubekR. (2004). The role of user processing and task change on task performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting. New Orleans, LA.
22.
SutcliffeA. G. (2002). Assessing the reliability of heuristic evaluation for website attractiveness and usability. In Proceedings HICSS-35 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Hawaii). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1838-1847.
23.
ThuringM.MahlkeS. (2007). Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human-technology interaction, International Journal of Psychology, 42, 253-264.
24.
TzinerA.HaccounR. R.KadishA. (1991). Personal and situational characteristics influencing the effectiveness of transfer of training improvement strategies. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 167-177.
25.
YehY.-Y.WickensC.D. (1988). Dissociation of performance and subjective measures of workload. Human Factors, 30 (1), 111-120.
26.
YoonD.NarayananN. H. (2004). Mental imagery in problem solving: An eye tracking study. In Proceedings of the Eye Tracking Research and Applications Symposium 2004 (pp. 77-83). NY: ACM Press.
