This paper proposes that usability methods can be organized into a three-dimensional space. The dimensions of this method space are (1) the genesis of the method, (2) the function of the method, and (3) the point(s) in the design that the method is typically used. The paper exemplifies and explains each dimension by discussing where on the dimension certain methods might fall. The future of usability methods is discussed by examining (1) how new methods might be developed within the space defined by the three dimensions (inner space methods) or (2) how new methods might require extending a dimension (outer space methods).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BiasR. G. (1994). The pluralistic usability walkthrough: Coordinated empathies. In NielsenJ.MackR. L. (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 63–76). New York: Wiley.
2.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental design for research. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
3.
CardS. K.MoranT. P.NewellA. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
CookeN. M.GillanD. J. (1999). Representing human behavior in human-computer interaction. In Encyclopedia of computer science and technology, Vol 40, Supplement 25 (pp. 283–308). New York: Marcel Dekker.
5.
FettermanD. M. (1988). Ethnography: Step by step. Newbury Park: Sage.
6.
DiaperD. (Ed.) (1989). Task analysis in human-computer interaction. New York: Wiley.
7.
GillanD. J.BreedinS. D.CookeN. J. (1992). Network and multidimensional representations of the declarative knowledge of human-computer interface design experts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36, 587–615.
8.
GillanD. J.CookeN. M. (1998). Making usability data more usable. Proceedings of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 300–304). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
9.
GillanD. J.CookeN. J. (2000). Using Pathfinder networks to analyze procedural knowledge in interactions with advanced technology. In SalasE. (Ed.) Human-technology interaction in complex systems. Vol. 10. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. In press.
10.
GordonS. E.SchmiererK. A.GillR. T. (1993). Conceptual graph analysis: Knowledge acquisition for instructional system design. Human Factors, 35, 459–481.
11.
LandauerT. K. (1997). Behavioral research methods in human-computer interaction. In HelanderM.LandauerT. K.PrabhuP. (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (2nd Ed.) (pp. 203–227). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
12.
NardiB. (1997). The use of ethnographic methods in design and evaluation. In HelanderM.LandauerT. K.PrabhuP. (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (2nd Ed.) (pp. 361–366). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
13.
NewellA.SimonH. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
14.
NielsenJ. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In NielsenJ.MackR. L. (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 25–62). New York: Wiley.
WhartonC.RiemanJ.LewisC.PolsonP. (1994). The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner's guide. In NielsenJ.MackR. L. (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 105–140). New York: Wiley.
