There are many design and evaluation methods that have been developed to assess and improve the user experience. Each of them has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages and using them in the appropriate combination is an essential part of human factors practice. Methods vary along several dimensions, including the stage of the design process where they are most effective, the resources needed to apply them, and the types of results that they provide. Triangulation is an approach to maximize the effectiveness of the aggregate user experience design and evaluation by creating a strategic combination of methods that considers each dimension and how they interact. This session demonstrated four user experience methods applied to a single software application and followed with a panel discussion comparing and contrasting the results of each method and how they fit together.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Albanese I. (2013) The benefits of marrying two complementary research approaches. Quirk’s Marketing Research Review, May, 70-74. Retrieved on 5/12/13 at www.quirks.com/articles /2013/20130512.aspx.
2.
AndersonJ. R. (1993) Rules of the Mind. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
3.
AndersonJ. R.LebiereC. (1998) The Atomic Components of Thought. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
BledowR.FreseM.AndersonN.ErezM.FarrJ. (2009) A dialectic perspective on innovation: conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 3, 305-337.
6.
CardS.K.MoranT.P.NewellA. (1983) The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.
DornburgC.C.StevensS.M.HendricksonS.M.L.DavidsonG.S. (2009) Improving extreme-scale problem solving: assessing electronic brainstorming effectiveness in an industrial setting. Human Factors, 51, 4, 519-527.
10.
FreundN.M. (2013) Thoughts on using the new online qualitative tools. Quirk’s Marketing Research Review, May, 48-69. Retrieved on 5/12/13 at www.quirks.com/articles/2013/20130511.aspx.
11.
GirotraK.TerwieschC.UlrichK.T. (2010) Idea generation and the quality of the best idea. Management Science, 56, 4, 591-605.
12.
GreenP. (2008) Motor Vehicles Driver Interfaces. In SearsA.JackoJ.A. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction Handbook, 2nd edition, Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
13.
JeffriesR. (1994). Usability problem reports: Helping evaluators communicate effectively with developers. In NielsenJ.MackR. L. (eds). Usability Inspection Methods. Wiley, New York.
14.
JeffriesR.DesurvireH. (1992). Usability testing vs. heuristic evaluation: Was there a contest?SIGCHI Bulletin, 24(4), 39-41.
15.
JohnB. E.KierasD. E. (1996) Using GOMS for User Interface Design and Evaluation:Which Technique?ACM Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction, 3, 287-319.
16.
KierasD.E. (1999) A Guide to GOMS Model Usability Evaluation using GOMSL and GLEAN3. Document and software available www.eecs.umich.edu/people/kieras.
17.
KowlerE. (1999) What movements of the eye tell us about the mind. In LeporeE.PylyshynZ. (eds) What is Cognitive Science?Blackwell Publishers: Oxford, UK.
18.
MaherP.ElkertonJ. (2011, September). Human centered design in action. BayCHI Usability BOF Meeting, Santa Clara, CA.
19.
MartinB.HaningtonB. (2012). Universal Methods of Design. Rockport: Beverly, MA.
20.
LUMA Institute (2012). Innovating for People: Handbook of Human-Centered Design Methods. Pittsburgh, PA
NielsenJ. (1994). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. Proceedings of ACM CHI’94 Conference, 152-158, Boston, MA.
23.
NielsenJ.MackR. L. (1994). Usability Inspection Methods. Wiley, New York.
24.
NielsenJ.MolichR. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Proceedings of ACM CHI’90 Conference, 249-256, Seattle, WA.
25.
OlsonJ. R.OlsonG. M. (1990) The growth of cognitive modeling in human-computer interaction since GOMS. Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 221-265.
26.
ParksN.E. (2011) Assessing ERP Usability: A User-Centered and Business-Focused Approach. Master’s Thesis. Bentley University: Waltham, MA.
27.
ParsonsD. (2008). 10 usability heuristics. Emerson Electric Co.St. Louis, MO.
28.
ResnickM.L.AlbertW. (2013) The impact of advertising location and user task on the emergence of banner ad blindness: an eye tracking study. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: Santa Monica, CA.
29.
ResnickM.L.BeebeR.KelleyJ.ElkertonJ.RodriguezA. (2012) User experience and agile development. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: Santa Monica, CA.
30.
RobertJ.M.LesageA. (2011a) Designing and evaluating user experience. In BoyG.A. (ed) The Handbook of Human-Machine Interaction. Ashgate: London, UK.
31.
RobertJ.M.LesageA. (2011b) From usability to user experience with interactive systems. In BoyG.A. (ed) The Handbook of Human-Machine Interaction. Ashgate: London, UK.
32.
RodriguezA.ResnickM.L. (2013) Placement of Call to Action Buttons for Higher Website Conversion and Acquisition: An Eye Tracking Study. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: Santa Monica, CA.
SpoolJ.M. (2012, October3) Goods, bads, and dailies: lessons for conducting great critiques, User Interface Engineering. Retrieved on 10/3/12 at www.uie.com/great_critiques.
36.
StephaneA.L. (2011) Eye tracking from a human factors perspective. In BoyG.A. (ed) The Handbook of Human-Machine Interaction. Ashgate: London, UK.
37.
SunsteinC.R. (2006) Infotopia. Oxford University Press Inc.: New York.
38.
WalsheP. (2013) Get creative: seven solutions to improve usability studies. Quirk’s Marketing Research Review, April, Retrieved on 4/22/13 at www.quirks.com/articles/2013/20130426-2.aspx.
