Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Automated Usability Evaluation of Model-Based Adaptive User Interfaces for Users with Special and Specific Needs by Simulating User Interaction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
User Modeling and Adaptation for Daily Routines

Part of the book series: Human–Computer Interaction Series ((HCIS))

Abstract

Adaptive applications have the potential to help users with special and specific needs. However, evaluating the usability of such adaptive applications tends to become very complex. This chapter presents an integrated concept for the automated usability evaluation of model-based adaptive user interfaces. The approach is supposed to be used complementary to custom usability evaluations at an early stage of development. Interaction of a user is simulated and evaluated by combining a user model with user interface models from a model-based development framework, which is capable of providing different adaptation alternatives based on user attributes and the context of use. The main benefit of the approach is that no additional descriptions of the application’s UI and tasks need to be created for the usability evaluation because they are already available from the development process. As a result, different design alternatives and adaptation variants can be compared under equal usability evaluation criteria. Further, the complexity and costs for applying automated usability evaluation to adaptive user interfaces for users with special and specific needs can be reduced.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Notes

  1. 1.

    UIDE System for semi-Automated GOMS Evaluation.

  2. 2.

    Natural GOMS Language.

  3. 3.

    GOMS Language Evaluation and Analysis.

  4. 4.

    GOMS Language.

  5. 5.

    Scent-based Navigation and Information Foraging in the ACT cognitive architecture.

References

  1. Abowd GD, Mynatt ED (2000) Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 7(1):29–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amant RS, Freed AR, Ritter FE (2005) Specifying ACT-R models of user interaction with a GOMS language. Cogn Syst Res 6(1):71–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson JR, Bothell D, Byrne MD, Douglass S, Lebiere C, Qin Y (2004) An integrated theory of the mind. Psychol Rev 111(4):1036–1060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Balme L, Demeure A, Barralon N, Coutaz J, Calvary G (2004) CAMELEON-RT: a software architecture reference model for distributed, migratable, and plastic user interfaces. In: Markopoulos P, Eggen B, Aarts E, Crowley JL (eds) Ambient intelligence, vol 3295, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 291–302. ISBN:978-3-540-23721-1, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30473-9_28, URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30473-9_28

  5. Bastien JMC, Scapin DL (1993) Ergonomic criteria for the evaluation of human-computer interfaces. Technical report RT-0156, INRIA, Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baumeister LK, John BE, Byrne MD (2000) A comparison of tools for building GOMS models. In: CHI ’00: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 502–509

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Blackmon MH, Kitajima M, Polson PG (2005) Tool for accurately predicting website navigation problems, non-problems, problem severity, and effectiveness of repairs. In: CHI ’05: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 31–40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Blandford A, Butterworth R, Curzon P (2004) Models of interactive systems: a case study on programmable user modelling. Int J Hum Comput Stud 60(2):149–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Blumendorf M, Albayrak S (2009) Towards a framework for the development of adaptive multimodal user interfaces for ambient assisted living environments. In: Stephanidis C (ed) Universal access in human-computer interaction. Intelligent and ubiquitous interaction environments, vol 5615, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 150–159. ISBN: 978-3-642-02709-3, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02710-9_18, URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02710-9_18

  10. Blumendorf M, Lehmann G, Roscher D, Albayrak S (2009) Ubiquitous user interfaces: multimodal adaptive interaction for smart environments. In: Kurkovsky S (ed) Multimodality in mobile computing and mobile devices: methods for adaptable usability. IGI-Global, Hershey, pp 24–52

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Byrne MD, Wood D, Sukaviriya PN, Foley JD, Kieras DE (1994) Automating interface evaluation. In: Plaisant C (ed) CHI conference companion. ACM, New York, p 216

    Google Scholar 

  12. Calvary G, Coutaz J, Thevenin D, Limbourg Q, Souchon N, Bouillon L, Florins M, Vanderdonckt J (2002) Plasticity of user interfaces: a revised reference framework. In: TAMODIA ’02: Proceedings of the first international workshop on task models and diagrams for user interface design. INFOREC Publishing House, Bucharest, pp 127–134

    Google Scholar 

  13. Card SK, Moran TP, Newell A (1980) The keystroke-level model for user performance with interactive systems. Commun ACM 23:396–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Card SK, Moran TP, Newell A (1983) The psychology of human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Publ., Hillsdale. ISBN 0898592437

    Google Scholar 

  15. DIN, Deutsches Institut für Normen (2008) Ergonomie der Mensch-System-Interaktion - Teil 110: Grundsätze der Dialoggestaltung, DIN EN ISO 9241–110. Beuth Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  16. Engelbrecht KP, Quade M, Möller S (2009) Analysis of a new simulation approach to dialog system evaluation. Speech Commun 51(12):1234–1252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Farenc C, Palanque P, Vanderdonckt J (1995) User interface evaluation: is it ever usable? In: Anzai Y, Ogawa K, Mori H (eds) Proceedings of 6th international conference on human-computer interaction HCI international’95, vol 20B, Advances in human factors/ergonomics series. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, pp 329–334

    Google Scholar 

  18. Feuerstack S, Blumendorf M, Kern M, Kruppa M, Quade M, Runge M, Albayrak S (2008) Automated usability evaluation during model-based interactive system development. In: HCSE-TAMODIA ’08: Proceedings of the 2nd conference on human-centered software engineering and 7th international workshop on task models and diagrams. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 134–141

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fitts PM (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol 47(6):381–391. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=13174710, (reprinted in J Exp Psychol: General 121(3):262–269, 1992)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fu WT, Pirolli P (2007) Snif-act: a cognitive model of user navigation on the world wide web. Hum Comput Interact 22:355–412

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gajos K, Weld DS (2004) Supple: automatically generating user interfaces. In: IUI ’04: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on intelligent user interface. ACM Press, New York, pp 93–100

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Garcá Frey A, Calvary G, Dupuy-Chesa S (2010) Xplain: an editor for building self-explanatory user interfaces by model-driven engineering. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCHI symposium on engineering interactive computing systems, EICS ’10. ACM, New York, pp 41–46

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Harris BN, John BE, Brezin J (2010) Human performance modeling for all: importing UI prototypes into CogTool. In: Proceedings of the 28th of the international conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, CHI EA ’10. ACM, New York, pp1~3481–3486

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Ivory MY, Hearst MA (2001) The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces. ACM Comput Surv 33(4):470–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jameson A (2008) Adaptive interfaces and agents. In: Sears A, Jacko JA (eds) The human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 433–458

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jameson A, Mahr A, Kruppa M, Rieger A, Schleicher R (2007) Looking for unexpected consequences of interface design decisions: the MeMo workbench. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Task models and diagrams for user interface design, TAMODIA’07, Toulouse, France. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 279–286, 8 p. ISBN:3-540-77221-9, 978-3-540-77221-7, URL:http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1782434.1782466

  27. John B, Suzuki S (2009) Toward cognitive modeling for predicting usability. In: Jacko J (ed) Human-computer interaction. New trends, lecture notes in computer science, vol 5610. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 267–276

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Bonnie EJ, Tiffany J (2010) Exploration of costs and benefits of predictive human performance modeling for design. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on cognitive modeling, Philadelphia, pp 115–120

    Google Scholar 

  29. John BE, Kieras DE (1996) The GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques: comparison and contrast. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 3(4):320–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. John BE, Prevas K, Salvucci DD, Koedinger K (2004) Predictive human performance modeling made easy. In: CHI ’04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 455–462

    Google Scholar 

  31. Keates S, Clarkson J, Robinson P (2000) Investigating the applicability of user models for motion-impaired users. In: Proceedings of the fourth international ACM conference on assistive technologies, ASSETS ’00. ACM, New York, pp 129–136, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/354324.354354

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Kieras D (2003) Model-based evaluation. In: The human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, pp 1139–1151

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kieras D (2006) A guide to GOMS model usability evaluation using GOMSL and GLEAN4. Unpublished manuscript. ftp://ftp.eecs.umich.edu/people/kieras/GOMS/GOMSL_Guide.pdf

  34. Kieras D, Meyer D, Ballas J (2001) Towards demystification of direct manipulation: cognitive modeling charts the gulf of execution. In: CHI ’01: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 128–135

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Kieras DE, Meyer DE (1997) An overview of the epic architecture for cognition and performance with application to human-computer interaction. Hum Comput Interact 12(4):391–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kieras DE, Santoro TP (2004) Computational GOMS modeling of a complex team task: lessons learned. In: CHI ’04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 97–104

    Google Scholar 

  37. Limbourg Q, Vanderdonckt J, Michotte B, Bouillon L, López-Jaquero V (2005) USIXML: a language supporting multi-path development of user interfaces. In: Bastide R, Palanque P, Roth J (eds) Engineering human computer interaction and interactive systems, vol 3425, lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 200–220. ISBN:978-3-540-26097-4, doi:10.1007/11431879_12, URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11431879_12

  38. Mahlke S (2008) User experience of interaction with technical systems. Theories, methods, empirical results, and their application to the development of interactive systems. Ph.D. thesis, TU Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mori G, Paterno F, Santoro C (2004) Design and development of multidevice user interfaces through multiple logical descriptions. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(8):507–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Myers B, Hudson SE, Pausch R (2000) Past, present, and future of user interface software tools. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 7(1):3–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Newell A (1990) Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  42. Nielsen CM, Overgaard M, Pedersen MB, Stage J (2005) Feedback from usability evaluation to user interface design: are usability reports any good? In: Human-computer interaction – INTERACT 2005. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3585. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 391–404

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Nielsen J (1992) Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. In: CHI ’92: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 373–380

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Nielsen J (1993) Noncommand user interfaces. Commun ACM 36(4):83–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Nielsen J, Molich R (1990) Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: CHI ’90: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 249–256

    Google Scholar 

  47. Norman DA (1983) Mental models, chap. In: Some observations on mental models. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 7–14

    Google Scholar 

  48. Palanque P, Barboni E, Martinie C, Navarre D, Winckler M (2011) A model-based approach for supporting engineering usability evaluation of interaction techniques. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI symposium on engineering interactive computing systems, EICS ’11. ACM, New York, pp 21–30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Peter GP, Lewis C, Rieman J, Wharton C (1992) Cognitive walkthroughs: a method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces. Int J Man-Mach Stud 36(5):741–773. ISSN:0020–7373, doi:10.1016/0020-7373(92)90039-N, URL:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002073739290039N

  50. Rieman J, Young RM, Howes A (1996) A dual-space model of iteratively deepening exploratory learning. Int J Hu Comput Stud 44(6):743–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ruß A, Quade M, Kruppa M, Runge M (2012) Rule-based approach for simulating age-related usability problems. In: Wichert R, Eberhardt B (eds) Ambient assisted living. Advanced technologies and societal change, vol 5, AAL-Kongress 2012. VDE, Springer, Berlin, pp 149–166

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Salvucci DD (2009) Rapid prototyping and evaluation of in-vehicle interfaces. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 16:33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Salvucci DD, Lee FJ (2003) Simple cognitive modeling in a complex cognitive architecture. In: CHI ’03: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 265–272

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sottet J-S, Calvary G, Coutaz J, Favre J-M (2008) A model-driven engineering approach for the usability of plastic user interfaces. In: Gulliksen J, Harning MB, Palanque P, Veer GC, Wesson J (eds) Engineering interactive systems. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 140–157, 18 p. URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92698-6_9, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92698-6_9

  55. Steinnökel P, Scheel C, Quade M, Albayrak S (2011) Towards an enhanced semantic approach for automatic usability evaluation. In: Proceedings of the computational linguistics-applications conference, Jachranka, Poland, pp 85–91. ISBN:N 978-83-60810-47-7

    Google Scholar 

  56. Teo L, John BE (2011) The evolution of a goal-directed exploration model: effects of information scent and GoBack utility on successful exploration. Top Cogn Sci 3(1):154–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Thevenin D, Coutaz J (1999) Plasticity of user interfaces: framework and research agenda. In: Human-computer interaction, INTERACT’99: IFIP TC. 13 international conference on human-computer interaction, 30 Aug–3 Sept 1999. IOS Press, Edinburgh, pp 110–117

    Google Scholar 

  58. Trewin S, Pain H (1999) Keyboard and mouse errors due to motor disabilities. Int J Hum Comput Stud 50(2):109–144, http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1998.0238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Vanderdonckt J (2008) Model-driven engineering of user interfaces: promises, successes, failures, and challenges. In: Proceedings of ROCHI 08

    Google Scholar 

  60. Weiser M (1991) The computer for the 21st century. Sci Am 265(3):66–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Whiteside JL, Bennett J, Holtzblatt K (1988) Usability engineering: our experience and evolution. Elsevier Science Publishers, B. V., Amsterdam, pp 791–817

    Google Scholar 

  62. Wood SD, Kieras DE (2002) Modeling human error for experimentation, training, and error-tolerant design. In: Proceedings of the interservice/industry training, simulation and education

    Google Scholar 

  63. Young RM, Green TRG, Simon T (1989) Programmable user models for predictive evaluation of interface designs. In: CHI ’89: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 15–19

    Google Scholar 

  64. Zhang J, Cheng BHC, Goldsby H (2007) Amoeba-rt: run-time verification of adaptive software. In: Giese H (ed) Models in software engineering, workshops and symposia at MoDELS 2007, Reports and revised selected papers. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5002. Springer, Nashville, pp 212–224

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DAI-Labor, Technische Universität Berlin, Ernst-Reuter-Platz 7, Berlin, 10587, Germany

    Michael Quade, Grzegorz Lehmann, Dirk Roscher & Sahin Albayrak

  2. Quality and Usability Lab, Telekom Innovation Laboratories, Technische Universität Berlin, Ernst-Reuter-Platz 7, Berlin, 10587, Germany

    Klaus-Peter Engelbrecht

Authors
  1. Michael Quade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Grzegorz Lehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Klaus-Peter Engelbrecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dirk Roscher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sahin Albayrak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Quade .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Languages and Computer Sys, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Tulipán s/n, Móstoles, 28933, Madrid, Spain

    Estefanía Martín

  2. IIC-Knowledge Engineering Institute, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Tomas y Valiente 11, Madrid, 28049, Madrid, Spain

    Pablo A. Haya

  3. Department of Computer Science and Engin, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Tomas y Valiente 11, Madrid, 28049, Madrid, Spain

    Rosa M. Carro

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Quade, M., Lehmann, G., Engelbrecht, KP., Roscher, D., Albayrak, S. (2013). Automated Usability Evaluation of Model-Based Adaptive User Interfaces for Users with Special and Specific Needs by Simulating User Interaction. In: Martín, E., Haya, P., Carro, R. (eds) User Modeling and Adaptation for Daily Routines. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4778-7_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4778-7_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4777-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4778-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation