The Uninformativeness of Quantitative Research for Usability Focused Design of Consumer Products

Abstract

Scientific journals in the area of Ergonomics/Human Factors are strongly oriented towards quantitative research. At the same time, authors are urged to discuss the practical applicability of their research, such as in terms of design recommendations. On the basis of empirical findings in several studies, the present paper demonstrates that usability focused design of consumer products is barely supported by research into human characteristics. Neither do the commonly found overall performance measures obtained in summative evaluations appear to be of any help in design. Instead, to inform design, in-depth research into actual user activities is indispensable, preferably including observations in a naturalistic environment enriched by clarification of product use from a user's perspective.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

(1973). Notes on Synthesis of Form. Harvard University Press.

Bevan

Curson

(1997). Who Needs Usability Metrics? In Howard

Hammond

Lingaard

(eds.), Human-Computer Interaction: INTERACT '97 (pp. 123–125).

Chapanis

(1971). The search for relevance in applied research. In Singleton

W.T.

Fox

J.G.

Whitfield

(eds.), Measurement of man at work (pp.1–14), London, Taylor & Francis.

Chapanis

(1988). Some Generalisations about Generalisation. Human Factors, 30, 253–267.

Gray

W.D.

Salzman

M.C.

(1998). Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 203–261.

Jeffries

Miller

J.R.

(1998). Ivory Towers in the Trenches: Different Perspectives on Usability Evaluations. Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 270–276.

John

B.E.

(1998). A case for cases. Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 289–296.

Jordan

Henderson

(1995). Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 4, 39–103.

Kanis

(1993). Operation of Controls on Consumer Products by Physically Impaired Users. Human Factors, 35, 305–328.

10.

Kanis

(1998). Usage centred research for everyday product design. Applied Ergonomics, 29, 75–82.

11.

Oviatt

S.L.

(1998). What's Science Got to Do With It? Designing HCI Studies That Ask Big Questions and Get Results That Matter. Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 303–307.

12.

Peijs

Green

W.S.

Kanis

Maartense

(1999). Footwell Space. Automotive Ergonomics and Safety. Proceedings of 32ndISATA (pp. 171–178).

13.

Rouse

W.B.

(1985). On Better Mousetraps and Basic Research: Getting the Applied World to the Laboratory Door. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, volume SMC15 (pp. 2–8).

14.

Steenbekkers

L.P.A.

(1998). Moeite met ADL: Volgens wie? [Difficulty in performing ADL-activities: According to whom (in Dutch)] Huishoudstudies, 8, 44–52.

15.

Sturm

den Os

E.A.

Boves

(1999). Dialogue Management in the Dutch ARISE Train Timetable Information System. To appear in: Proceedings of Eurospeech'99.

16.

Vicente

K.J.

(1997). Heeding the Legacy of Meister, Brunswik & Gibson: Toward a Broader View of Human Factors Research. Human Factors, 39, 323–328.

17.

Weegels

M.F.

(1999). Usability evaluation of voice-operated information services: a comparative study of VIOS and ARISE. Technical report 79, Priority Program Speech and Language Technology, IPO, Center for Research on User-System Interaction, Eindhoven.