Skip to main content

Comparison of Questionnaire Based and User Model Based Usability Evaluation Methods

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) (IEA 2018)

Abstract

The usability now serves as a fundamental quality of a computational device, e.g. smartphone. Moreover, the smartphone has firmly embedded into our daily life as an indispensable part, so the context and style that user may interact with them are largely different from a decade ago. Nowadays, testing usability with end user has become a common sense. Thus, how valid a usability evaluation method could assess the ‘extent to which a product can be used by specified users’ (ISO 9241-11) to facilitate software design becomes an interesting question to explore.

In this research, three usability evaluation methods are compared. Among these methods, IsoMetrics is a standard questionnaire aiming at offer usability data for summative and formative evaluation; SUMI aims to assess quality of software product from end users perspective; User Model Checklist is a method based on user’s cognition-motor chain in specific tasks. The coverage and amount of usability issues, user’s effort of evaluation and software developer’s feedback on evaluation result are compared under a simulated usability test on SMS function with a smartphone. The result indicate that User Model Checklist could cover 90.4% of the usability issues found by IsoMetrics and SUMI, while 26.3% usability issues found by User Model Checklist could not be covered by IsoMetrics and SUMI. Users put highest effort on accomplish IsoMetrics and lowest effort on User Model Checklist. Moreover, the feedbacks from the developers show that the User Model Checklist requires lower usability knowledge, offers clearer improvement points and supports detailed design better.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Macleod M, Bowden R, Bevan N, Curson I (1997) The MUSiC performance measurement method. Behav Inf Technol 16(4–5):279–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nokia Corporation (2004) Series 60 Developer Platform 2.0: Usability Guidelines For Enterprise Applications. http://www.forum.nokia.com/usability

  3. Weiss S (2003) Handheld usability. WileySons, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nielsen J (2012) Usability 101: Introduction to Usability. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability

  5. Nielsen J (1994) Usability engineering. Elsevier, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Lathan CE, Newman DJ, Sebrechts MM, Doarn CR (1997) Evaluating a web-based interface for internet telemedicine. NASA, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  7. Apple Inc. (2018) Human Interface Guideline. https://developer.apple.com/ios/human-interface-guidelines/overview/themes/

  8. Hornbæk K (2006) Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64(2):79–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hartson HR, Andre TS, Williges RC (2003) Criteria for evaluating usability evaluation methods. Int J Hum Comput Interact 15(1):145–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Li LS (2007) Design investigation. China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  11. International Organization for Standardization (2002) ISO/TR 16982:2002(E) Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Usability method supporting human-centred design. ISO, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gediga G, Hamborg KC, Düntsch I (1999) The IsoMetrics usability inventory: an operationalization of ISO 9241-10 supporting summative and formative evaluation of software systems. Behav Inf Technol 18(3):151–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kirakowski J, Corbett M (1993) SUMI: the software usability measurement inventory. Br J Educ Technol 24(3):210–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Follmer S, Leithinger D, Olwal A, Hogge A, Ishii H (2013) inFORM: dynamic physical affordances and constraints through shape and object actuation. In: UIST, vol 13

    Google Scholar 

  15. Solso RL, Johnson HH (1989) An introduction to experimental design in psychology: a case approach, 3rd edn. Harper & Row Publishers Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rasmussen J (1983) Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 3:257–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO 9241-110:2006 Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 110: Dialogue principles. ISO, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  18. Li LS (2004) Human computer interface design. Science Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  19. Berenguer A, Goncalves J, Hosio S, Ferreira D, Anagnostopoulos T, Kostakos V (2017) Are Smartphones Ubiquitous?: an in-depth survey of smartphone adoption by seniors. IEEE Consum Electron Mag 6(1):104–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee H, Ahn H, Nguyen TG, Choi SW, Kim DJ (2017) Comparing the self-report and measured smartphone usage of college students: a pilot study. Psychiatry Invest 14(2):198–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meng Li .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Li, M., Albayrak, A., Zhang, Y., van Eijk, D., Yang, Z. (2019). Comparison of Questionnaire Based and User Model Based Usability Evaluation Methods. In: Bagnara, S., Tartaglia, R., Albolino, S., Alexander, T., Fujita, Y. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 824. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_110

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics