Usability Evaluation of Learning Objects with Augmented Reality for Smartphones: A Reinterpretation of Nielsen Heuristics

  • Beatriz de Almeida PachecoEmail author
  • Marcelo Guimarães
  • Ana Grasielle Correa
  • Valeria Farinazzo Martins
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 847)


Augmented Reality Systems merge virtual content and the real world with real-time interaction and have features such as lighting conditions, sensor usage, and user position. These systems are very different from conventional applications that use mouse and keyboard; therefore, require a usability assessment to verify that they achieve their goals and their users goals, taking into account these specificities. When learning objects are constructed, it is necessary to guarantee their quality, measured by certain criteria in the pedagogical, content and technical components in addition to interaction components. The present work aims to discuss and present the usability assessment of Learning Objects developed in Augmented Reality, through an update of the usability heuristics proposed by Nielsen at the end of the 20th century, taking into account their specificities, such as the ease of manipulation of markers and degree of fidelity of the representation of the virtual objects added in the scenes.


Usability Learning objects Augmented reality Heuristic evaluation 


  1. 1.
    Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G.D., Beale, R.: Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd edn. Pearson Education Limited, Haddington (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lazar, J., Feng, J.H., Hochheiser, H.: Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction. Morgan Kaufmann, Cambridge (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hewett, T., et al.: ACM SIGCHI curricula for human-computer interaction. Technical report. ACM Press, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bryson, S., et al.: Knowledge-based augmented reality. Commun. ACM 26(7), 56–62 (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., MacIntyre, B.: Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 21(6), 34–47 (2001). Scholar
  6. 6.
    IEEE - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Learning Object Metadata (2005). Acesso 02 fev. 2018
  7. 7.
    NMC, NMC Horizon Project Short List: 2013 Higher Education Edition, Austin, Texas, The New Media Consortium (2012). Acesso 15 dez. 2017
  8. 8.
    Nielsen, J.: Heuristic evaluation. In: Nielsen, J. (ed.) Usability Inspection Methods. Wiley, New York (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martins, V.F., Kirner, T.G., Kirner, C.: Subjective usability evaluation criteria of augmented reality applications. In: Shumaker, R., Lackey, S. (eds.) VAMR 2015. LNCS, vol. 9179, pp. 39–48. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shackel, B.: Usability-context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. In: Human Factors for Informatics Usability, pp. 21–37 (1991).
  11. 11.
    Rubin, J., Chisnell, D.: Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests. Wiley, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kawamoto, L.S., Martins, V.F.: Requirements and guidelines for the evaluation of voice user interfaces. In: Lazinica, A. (ed.) User Interfaces. InTechweb (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sutcliffe, A., Gault, B.: Heuristic evaluation of virtual reality applications. Interact. Comput. 16(4), 831–849 (2004).
  14. 14.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability inspection methods. In: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hodgins, W.: The future of learning objects. In: Proceedings of the 2002 eTEE Conference, Davos, Switzerland (2002). doi: Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zainuddin, N.M.M., Zaman, H.B., Ahmad, A.: Heuristic evaluation on augmented reality courseware for the deaf. In: 2011 International Conference on User Science and Engineering (i-USEr). IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guimarães, M.P., Martins, V.F.: A checklist to evaluate augmented reality applications. In: 2014 XVI Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality (SVR). IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Unity 3D. Acessado em 07 fev. 2018
  19. 19.
    Ogre3D. Acessado em 07 fev. 2018
  20. 20.
    Northrup, P.T.: Learning Objects for Instruction: Design and Evaluation: Design and Evaluation, 300p. Information Science Publishing (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carvalho, B.A.: Modelo de Desenvolvimento de Aplicações de Realidade Aumentada para Empacotamento e Distribuição no formato de Objetos de Aprendizagem. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciência da Computação) - Faculdade Campo Limpo Paulista, Brasil (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rocha, A.R., de Campos, G.H.B.: Avaliação da qualidade de Software Educacional. Em Aberto 12(57), 23–45 (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Silveira, M.S., Carneiro, M.L.F.: Diretrizes para a Avaliação da Usabilidade de Objetos de Aprendizagem. In: Brazilian Symposium on Computers in Education (Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação-SBIE) (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gomes, F.J.L., Lima, J.V., Nevado, R.A.: Definindo orientações de usabilidade para o desenvolvimento de objetos de aprendizagem para TV Digital. RENOTE-Revista Novas Tecnologias na Educação 5(2), 1–9 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramos, F., Santos, P.K.: A contribuição do Design Instrucional e das Dimensões da Educação para o desenvolvimento de Objetos de Aprendizagem. In: Anais do Workshop de Informática na Escola, pp. 1–8 (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cazella, S.C., Behar, P., Schneider, D., Silva, K.K., Freitas, R.: Desenvolvendo um Sistema de Recomendação de Objetos de Aprendizagem baseado em Competências para a Educação: relato de experiências. In: Brazilian Symposium on Computers in Education (Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação-SBIE), pp. 1–10 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reategui, E., Finco, M.D.: Proposta de diretrizes para avaliação de objetos de aprendizagem considerando aspectos pedagógicos e técnicos. RENOTE- Revista Novas Tecnologias na Educação 8(3), 1–10 (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Braga, J.C., Dotta, S., Pimentel, E., Stransky, B.: Desafios para o Desenvolvimento de Objetos de Aprendizagem Reutilizáveis e de Qualidade. In: Anais do Workshop de Desafios da Computação Aplicada à Educação, pp. 90–99 (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rodriguez, A.P., Dominguez, E.L., Velazquez, Y.H.: Usability assessment of mobile learning objects by high school students. IEEE Latin Am. Trans. 14(2), 1044 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Selviany, A., Kaburuan, E.R., Junaedi, D.: User interface model for Indonesian animal apps to kid using augmented reality. In: International Conference on Orange Technologies (ICOT) (2017)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sumadio, D.D., Rambli, D.R.A.: Preliminary evaluation on user acceptance of the augmented reality use for education. In: Second International Conference on Computer Engineering and Applications, vol. 2 (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jayasinghe, J.A.S.S., Hewagamage, K.P.: An innovative mobile learning framework for the field of Agriculture extension Sri Lanka. In: Sixteenth International Conference on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions (ICTer) (2016)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Magalhães, P., Castro, A., Carvalho, C.V.: Augmented reality applied to the teaching/learning environment. In: 6th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ivanc, D., Vasiu, R., Onita, M.: Usability evaluation of a LMS mobile web interface. In: Skersys, T., Butleris, R., Butkiene, R. (eds.) ICIST 2012. CCIS, vol. 319, pp. 348–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mussoi, E.M., Flores, M.L.P., Behar, P.A.: Avaliação de objetos de aprendizagem. In: Congresso Iberoamericano de Informática Educativa, Santiago, Chile, Anais, (2010). Author, F.: Article title. Journal 2(5), 99–110 (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade PaulistaSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Mestrado do Centro Universitário Campo Limpo PaulistaUniversidade Federal de São Paulo-(Unifesp/UAB)São PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Distúrbios do DesenvolvimentoUniversidade Presbiteriana MackenzieSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations