Distributing Usability

The implications for usability testing
  • Lejla Vrazalic
Conference paper


In his article, “Trouble in Paradise: Problems Facing the Usability Community”, Rhodes (2000) begins with a gloomy prospect for usability by stating “usability as we know it is dying”. He argues that usability is outdated, misunderstood and faces serious challenges in the face of emerging web technologies because new usability ideas, techniques and methods are not being developed. Rhodes’ (2000) language is strong, but his observations are not new. The Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and usability communities are being faced with mounting and pressing concerns for which an instantaneous remedy is not readily available. It is the premise of this paper that in order to begin resolving these concerns, it is necessary to reflect on the very fundamental concept that the discipline is based on — the concept of usability, and then examine the implications of this on our methods, techniques and tools.


Activity Theory Human Computer Interaction Usability Testing Usability Problem Distribute Usability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ACM SIGCHI, 1992, Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction,ACM Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, R. W., 1993, Performance vs preference, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting, 282–286.Google Scholar
  3. Beyer, H. and Holtzblatt, K., 1998, Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Oriented Systems,Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Beyer, H. and Holtzblatt, K., 1999, Contextual Design, interactions, 6, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Be dker, S., 1991, Through the Interface: A Human Activity Approach to User Interface Design,Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Borgholm, T. and Madsen, K. H., 1999, Cooperative Usability Practices, Communications of the ACM, 42, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dumas, J. S. and Redish, J. C., 1993, A Practical Guide to Usability Testing,Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Engeström, Y. and Middleton, D., 1996, Cognition and Communication at Work,Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y., 1987, Learning by Expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research,Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y., 1995, Polycontextuality and Boundary Crossing in Expert Cognition: Learning and Problem Solving in Complex Work Activities, Learning and Instruction. 5, 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gould, J. D. and Lewis, C., 1985, Designing for Usability: Key Principles and What Designers Think, Communications of the ACM, 28: 3, 300–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hertzum, M. and Jacobsen, N.E., 2001, The Evaluator Effect: A Chilling Fact About Usability Evaluation Methods, International Journal of Human-Computer- Interaction, 13: 4, 421–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holleran, P.A., 1991, A methodological note on pitfalls in usability testing, Behaviour & Information Technology, 10: 5, 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hutchins, E., 1995, Cognition in the Wild,MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kaptelinin, V., 1994, Activity Theory: Implications For Human Computer Interaction, in: Human-Machine Communication For Educational SystemsDesign, M.D. Brouwer-Janse and T.L. Harrington, eds., Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Karat, J., 1997, User-centred software evaluation methodologies, in: Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, Helander, M. G., Landauer, T. K. and Prabhu, P. V., eds., Elsevier Science, pp. 689–704.Google Scholar
  17. Kling, R. and Iacono, S., 1989, The Institutional Character of Computerized Information Systems, Office: Technology & People, 5: 1, 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuutti, K., 1996, Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction, in: Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human Computer Interaction, B. Nardi, ed., MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Leontiev, A. N., 1981, Problems of The Development of The Mind,Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Lewis, J. R., 2001, Current Issues in Usability Evaluation, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13: 4, 343–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Molich, R., Thomsen, A. D., Karyukina, B., Schmidt, L., Ede, M., van Ocl, W. and Arcuri, M., 1999, Comparative Evaluation of Usability Tests, in: Proceedings of CHI’99, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  22. Molich, R., Bevan, N., Curson, I., Butler, S., Kindlund, E., Miller, D. And Kirakowski, J., 1998, Comparative Evaluation of Usability Tests, Proceedings of the UPA Conference, 189–200.Google Scholar
  23. Nardi, B., 1996, Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, in: Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human Computer Interaction, B. Nardi, ed., MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nardi, B. A. and O’Day, V. L., 1999, Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart,MIT Press. Nielsen, J., 2000, Why you only need to test with 5 users, Alertbox,March 19.Google Scholar
  25. Nielsen, J., 1993, Usability Engineering,Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Nielsen, J., 1990, Designing for International Use, in: Human Factors in Computing Systems, Proceedings of CHI’90, ACM Press, pp. 291–294.Google Scholar
  27. Nielsen, J. and Molich, R., 1990, Heuristic Evaluation of User Interfaces, in: Proceedings of CHI’90, ACM Press, pp. 249–256.Google Scholar
  28. Norman, D. A., 1988, The Psychology of Everyday Things,Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Poison, P. G., Lewis, C., Rieman, J. and Wharton, C., 1992, Cognitive Walkthroughs: A method for theory basedGoogle Scholar
  30. evaluation of user interfaces, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 36, 741–773.Google Scholar
  31. Rubin, J., 1994, Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests,Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Rhodes, J. S., 2000, Trouble in Paradise: Problems Facing the Usability Community, (April 17, 2003 );Google Scholar
  34. Shackel, B., 1986, Ergonomics in Design for Usability, in: People and Computers: Designing for Usability, Proceedings of the 2“ d Conference of the British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Specialist Group, Harrison, M. D. and Monk, A. F., eds., Cambridge University Press, pp. 45–64.Google Scholar
  35. SINTEF Group, 2002, The Foundation for Scientific and Industrial Research at the Norwegian Institute of Technology, (March 15, 2003); 32/3270/brosjyrer/engelskl6.html.Google Scholar
  36. Spinuzzi, C., 1999, Grappling with distributed usability: A cultural-historical examination of documentation genres over four decades, Proceedings of the 17th annual international conference on Computer documentation, New Orleans, 16–21.Google Scholar
  37. Spool, J. and Schroeder, W., 2001, Testing Websites: Five Users is Nowhere Near Enough, in: Proceedings of CHI’2001, ACM Press, pp. 285–286.Google Scholar
  38. Sweeney, M., Maguire, M. and Shackel, B., 1993, Evaluating user-computer interaction: A framework, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies. 38, 689–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thimbleby, H., 1990, User Interface Design, Addison Wesley, Harlow, UK.Google Scholar
  40. Thomas, P. and Macredie, R. D., 2002, Introduction to The Ncw Usability, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 9: 2, 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tullis, T. S., 1993, Is user interface design just common sense?, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human- Computer Interaction, 9–14.Google Scholar
  42. Vygotsky, L. S., 1978, Mind in Society,Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Whiteside, J., Bennett, J. and Holtzblatt, K., 1988, Usability engineering: our experience and evolution, in: Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, M. Helander, ed., North-Holland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lejla Vrazalic
    • 1
  1. 1.Information SystemsUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations