The increasing availability of recording technologies makes it easier to include usability testing projects in business communication courses. Usability testing is a method of discovering whether people can navigate, read, and understand a print or electronic communication well enough to achieve a particular purpose in a reasonable time frame. Usability projects increase students’ knowledge and motivation by forcing them to experience the audience’s frustrations with poorly written and designed communications. By following the suggestions and examples provided, faculty can develop effective usability project materials and capitalize on new technologies for data collection and sharing.
AnsonC. M.ForsbergL. L. (1990). Moving beyond the academic community: Transitional stages in professional writing. Written Communication, 7, 200-231. doi:10.1177/0741088390007002002
2.
BarnumC. M. (2011). Usability testing and research. New York, NY: Morgan Kaufmann.
3.
BeaufortA. (2000). Learning the trade: A social apprenticeship model for gaining writing expertise. Written Communication, 17, 185-223. doi:10.1177/0741088300017002002
4.
CappelJ. J.HuangA. (2007). A usability analysis of company websites. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 48, 117-123.
5.
CombeN.HarrisonD.CraigS.YoungM. S. (2012). An investigation into usability and exclusivity issues of digital programmable thermostats. Journal of Engineering Design, 23, 401-417. doi:10.1080/09544828.2011.599027
6.
CookeL. (2010). Assessing concurrent think-aloud protocol as a usability test method: A technical communication approach. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53, 202-215. doi:10.1109/TPC.2010.2052859
7.
CoxC. (2006, May3). Testimony before a hearing of the House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.sec.gov/news/testimony/ts050306cc.htm
8.
DreyfussH. (1955). Designing for people. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
9.
FreedmanA.AdamC. (1996). Learning to write professionally: “Situated Learning” and the transition from university to professional discourse. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 10, 395-427. doi:10.1177/1050651996010004001
10.
FuglerudK. S.RøssvollT. H. (2012). An evaluation of web-based voting usability and accessibility. Universal Access in the Information Society, 11, 359-373. doi:10.1007/s10209-011-0253-9
11.
GrantA. M.HofmannD. A. (2011). Outsourcing inspiration: The performance effects of ideological messages from leaders and beneficiaries. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 173-187. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.06.005
HarveyC.StantonN. A.PickeringC. A.McDonaldM.ZhengP. (2011). To twist or poke? A method for identifying usability issues with the rotary controller and touch screen for control of in-vehicle information systems. Ergonomics, 54, 609-625. doi:10.1080/00140139.2011.586063
14.
HeathC.HeathD. (2007). Made to stick: Why some ideas die and others survive. New York, NY: Random House.
15.
HuettmanE. (1996). Writing for multiple audiences: An examination of audience concerns in a hospitality consulting firm. Journal of Business Communication, 33, 257-273. doi:10.1177/002194369603300303
16.
LawR.NgaiC. (2005). Usability of travel websites: A case study of the perceptions of Hong Kong travelers. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 13, 19-31. doi:10.1300/J150v13n02_03
17.
LimC.SongH.-D.LeeY. (2012). Improving the usability of the user interface for a digital textbook platform for elementary-school students. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 60, 159-173. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9222-5
18.
LowryS. Z.QuinnM. T.RamaiahM.SchumacherR. M.PattersonE. S.NorthR.AbbottP. (2012). Technical evaluation, testing, and validation of the usability of electronic health records. Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
19.
MichaelJ. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works?Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159-167. doi:10.1152/advan.00053.2006
20.
MolichR.DumasJ. S. (2008). Comparative usability evaluation (CUE-4). Behaviour & Information Technology, 27, 263-281. doi:10.1080/01449290600959062
21.
NegrettiR. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: A longitudinal study of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation, and evaluation of performance. Written Communication, 29, 142-179. doi:10.1177/0741088312438529
NielsenJ.PerniceK. (2010). Eyetracking web usability. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
25.
RedishJ. (2010). Technical communication and usability: Intertwined strands and mutual influences. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53, 191-201. doi:10.1109/TPC.2010.2052861
26.
RedishJ. (2012). Letting go of the words: Writing web content that works (2nd ed.). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
27.
SchriverK. A. (1990). Evaluating text quality: The continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods (Technical Report No. 41). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED318009)
28.
SchriverK. A. (1991). Plain language for expert or lay audiences: Designing text using protocol-aided revision (Technical Report No. 46). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED334583)
29.
SchriverK. A. (1992). Teaching writers to anticipate readers’ needs: A classroom-evaluated pedagogy. Written Communication, 9, 179-208. doi:10.1177/0741088392009002001
30.
ShermanP. (2006). Usability success stories: How organizations improve by making easier-to-use software and web sites. Aldershot, England: Gower.
31.
StevensK. T.StevensK. C.StevensW. P. (1992). Measuring the readability of business writing: The Cloze procedure versus readability formulas. Journal of Business Communication, 29, 367-382. doi:10.1177/002194369202900404
32.
U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (2012). Integrated Mortgage Disclosures Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth In Lending Act (Regulation Z): Proposed rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 51116-51457 (to be codified at 12 C.F.R. pts. 1024 & 1026).
33.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2006). Research-based web design & usability guidelines (enlarged/expanded ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
34.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (1998). A plain English handbook: How to create clear SEC disclosure documents. Washington, DC: Author.
35.
van den HaakM. J.de JongM. D. T.SchellensP. J. (2006). Constructive interaction: An analysis of verbal interaction in a usability setting. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49, 311-324. doi:10.1109/TPC.2006.885865
36.
van den HaakM. J.de JongM. D. T.SchellensP. J. (2007). Evaluation of an informational web site: Three variants of the think-aloud method compared. Technical Communication, 54, 58-71.
37.
VrontisD.KtoridouD.MelanthiouT. (2007). Website design and development as an effective and efficient promotional tool: A case study in the hotel industry in Cyprus. Journal of Website Promotion, 2, 125-139. doi:10.1080/15533610802174995
38.
WinsorD. A. (1996). Writing like an engineer: A rhetorical education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
