Domain specific evaluation during the design of human-computer interfaces

  • Magnus Lif
  • Bengt Sandblad
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT)


During our work within highly domain specific development projects we have noticed that a user centred approach in design does not necessarily lead to a user interface that is “optimal” for the skilled end-user. There is a need for a evaluation method that identifies both general and domain specific usability problems, identifies usability problems concerning both efficiency in daily use and ease of learning, can be included early in the user centred design process, is cost efficient and easy to use.

This paper presents an evaluation method that identifies general usability problems by using a variant of heuristic evaluation, and domain specific usability problems by evaluating the interface together with the end-users. The heuristics have been adjusted to fit evaluation of interfaces for skilled users with great domain specific knowledge. The method is to be included early in the user centred design process as a tool to guide the development of the interface towards a design that is efficient for the end-user in his/her specific domain.


Domain specific evaluation skilled users efficiency in daily use heuristics user centred 


  1. Boräly, E., Göransson, B., Olsson, E., and Sandblad, B. (1994) Usability and Efficiency. The HELIOS Approach to Development of User Interfaces. In The HELIOS Software Engineering Environment (ed. U. Engelmann, F. C. Jean, and P. Degoulet), Supplement to Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 45, 47–64.Google Scholar
  2. Desurvie, H., Kondziela, J. and Atwood, M. (1992) What is gained and lost when using evaluation methods other then empirical testing. In People and computers VII (ed. Monk, Diaper and Harrison), Proceedings of the BCSHCI’92, Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  3. Foley, J.D. (1990) Dialogue Design. In Computer Graphics: Principles and Practise (ed. J.D. Foley, A. Van Dam, S.K. Feiner andJ.F. Hughes), Reading, Addison-Wesley, 391–431.Google Scholar
  4. Fischer, G. (1993) Beyond Human-Computer Interaction: Designing Useful and Usable Computational Environments. In People and Computers VIII (ed. J. Alty, D. Diaper and S. Guest), Proceedings of the BCSHCI’93 conference, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  5. Gulliksen, J., Lind, M., Lif, M. and Sandblad, B. (1995) Efficient Development of Organisations and Information Technology–A Design Approach. In Symbiosis of Human and Artifact. (ed. Ya Anzai and K. Ogawa) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, HCI International’95, Pacificio Yokohama, Yokohama, Japan 9–14 July 1995, 951–6.Google Scholar
  6. Hendersson, A., & Card, S. K. (1987) The Use of Multiple Virtual Workspaces to Reduce Space Contention in a Window-Based Graphical User Interface. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 5 (3), 211–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. International Organisation for Standardization (1995) ISO/DIS 9241–10 (Draft). Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs) — Part 10: Dialogue Principles.Google Scholar
  8. International Organisation for Standardization (1995) ISO/DIS 9241–11 (Draft). Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs) — Part 11: Guidance on Usability.Google Scholar
  9. International Organisation for Standardization (1995) ISO/DIS 9241–13 (Draft). Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs) — Part 13: User Guidance.Google Scholar
  10. Lif, M., Gulliksen, J., Lind, M., and Sandblad, B. (1996), A Structural Approach to Prototype Design in Iterative System Development, In preparation.Google Scholar
  11. Lind, M. (1991) Effects of Sequential and Simultaneous Presentations of Information. CMD Report 19/91, Center for Human-Computer Studies, Uppsala University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  12. MacLean, A., Bellotti, V., and Young, R. (1990) What Rationale is there in Design? Proceedings of the INTERACT ’80 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 207–12Google Scholar
  13. McKerlie, D. & MacLean, A. (1993) QOC in Action: Using Design Rationale to Support Design. INTERCHI ’83 video program, ACM: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. Nielsen, J. (1993) Usability Engineering. Academic Press, Inc. San DiegozbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Nielsen, J., Mack, R. L. (1994) Usability Inspection Methods. John Wiley & Sons, IncCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Neisser, U. (1976) Cognition and Reality. San Francisco: W H FreemanGoogle Scholar
  17. Norman, D. A, Draper, S. (Eds.) (1986) User Centred System Design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale: New Jersey.Google Scholar
  18. Nygren, E., and Henriksson, P. (1992) Reading the Medical Record I. Analysis of Physicians Ways of Reading the Medical Record., Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine., 39, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nygren, E., Allard, A., and Lind, M. (1996) Skilled Users Interpretation of Visual Displays. Submitted for Publication.Google Scholar
  20. Nygren, E., Johnson, M., Lind, M. and Sandblad, B. (1992) The Art of the Obvious. Proceedings of CHI ’82, Monterey: California, May 1992.Google Scholar
  21. Schneider, W. and Schiffrin, R. M. (1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing: I., In Psych. Rev., 84, 1–66.Google Scholar
  22. Shiffrin, R. M. and Dumais, S. T. (1981) The Development of Automatism. In Cognitive Skills and their Acquisition. (ed. J. R. Anderson), Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Whitefield, A., Wilson, F., and Dowell, J. (1991) A framework for human factors evaluation. In Behaviour & information technology, 10 (1), 65–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Aborg, K., Sandblad, B., Strigârd, W., and Nygren, E. (1994) A practical method for evaluation of human computer interfaces. In Book of short papers. 4th international scientific conference “Work with display units”. 2–5 October 1994, Milano.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magnus Lif
    • 1
  • Bengt Sandblad
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Human-Computer StudiesUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations