Towards Qualitative and Quantitative Data Integration Approach for Enhancing HCI Quality Evaluation

  • Ahlem Assila
  • Káthia Marçal de Oliveira
  • Houcine Ezzedine
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8510)


Over the two past decades, various HCI quality evaluation methods have been proposed. Each one has its own strengths and its own shortcomings. Different methods are combined to enhance the evaluation results. To obtain better coverage of design problems and to increase the system performance, subjective and objective methods can complement each other. However, the variability of these methods features poses a challenge to effectively integrate between them. The purpose of this paper is to enhance the evaluation of HCI quality by suggesting new approach intended for improving evaluation results. This method supports a mapping model between evaluation data. It aims to specify new quality indicators that effectively integrate qualitative and quantitative data based on a set of pre-defined quality criteria. Qualitative (items) and quantitative data are respectively extracted from highly cited HCI quality questionnaires and from existing tools.


Human-Computer Interface HCI evaluation subjective objective qualitative quantitative integration mapping data indicator 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Fernandez, A., Abrahão, S., Insfrán, E.: A systematic review on the effectiveness of web usability evaluation methods. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Evaluation & Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2012), Ciudad Real, Spain, pp. 52–56 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khan, M., Sulaiman, S., Tahir, M., Said, A.M.: Research approach to develop usability evaluation framework for haptic systems. In: Proc. of NPC, Tronoh, Malaysia, pp. 1–4. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tran, C., Ezzedine, H., Kolski, C.: EISEval, a Generic Reconfigurable Environment for Evaluating Agent-based Interactive Systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 71(6), 725–761 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yang, T., Linder, J., Bolchini, D.: DEEP: Design-Oriented Evaluation of Perceived Usability. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 308–346 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Assila, A., Ezzedine, H., Bouhlel, M.S.: A Web questionnaire generating tool to aid for interactive systems quality subjective assessment. In: IEEE International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies, CoDIT 2013, Tunisia, pp. 1–7 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alva O., M.E., Martínez P., A.B., Cueva L., J.M., Sagástegui Ch., T.H., López P., B.: Comparison of Methods and existing tools for the Measurement of usability in the web. In: Cueva Lovelle, J.M., Rodríguez, B.M.G., Gayo, J.E.L., del Pueto Paule Ruiz, M., Aguilar, L.J. (eds.) ICWE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2722, pp. 386–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindgaard, G.: Notions of Thoroughness, Efficiency, and Validity: Are they Valid in HCI practice? Proceedings of the 4th International Cyberspace Conference on Ergonomics 36(12), 1069–1074 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Al-Wabil, A., Al-Khalifa, H.: A Framework for Integrating Usability Evaluations Methods: The Mawhiba Web Portal Case Study. In: The International Conference on the Current Trends in Information Technology (CTIT 2009), Dubai, UAE, pp. 1–6 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Charfi, S., Trabelsi, A., Ezzedine, H., Kolski, C.: A User-Oriented Test environment based on User-Interface evaluation graphical controls. In: 12th Symposium on Analysis, Design, and Evaluation of Human-Machine Systems, IFAC, Las Vegas, USA, pp. 494–504 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koutsabasis, P., Spyrou, T., Darzentas, J.: Evaluating Usability Evaluation Methods: Criteria, Method and a Case Study. In: Jacko, J.A. (ed.) Human-Computer Interaction, Part I, HCII 2007. LNCS, vol. 4550, pp. 569–578. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Charfi, S., Ezzedine, H., Kolski, C.: RITA: a Framework based on multi-evaluation techniques for user interface evaluation, Application to a transport network supervision system. In: ICALT, May 29-31, pp. 263–268. IEEE, Tunisia, ISBN 978-1-4799-0312-2Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grammenos, D., Akoumianakis, D., Stephanidis, C.: Integrated support for working with guidelines: the Sherlock guideline management system. Interacting with Computers 12(3), 281–311 (2000) ISSN 0953-5438Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ezzedine, H.: Méthodes et Modèles de Spécification et d’Evaluation des Interfaces Homme-Machine dans les systèmes industriels complexes. HDR memory, University of Valenciennes and Hainaut-Cambrai (December 2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nikov, A., Vassileva, S., Angelova, S., Tzvetanova, S., Stoeva, S.: WebUse: An approach for web usability evaluation. In: Proc. 3rd Symposium on Production Research, Istanbul, April 19-20, pp. 511–518 (2003) ISBN 975695731XGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kerzazi, N., Lavallée, M.: Inquiry on usability of two software process modeling systems using ISO/IEC 9241. In: CCECE, pp. 773–776 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO/IEC 15939 Systems and software engineering — Measurement process (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO/IEC. ISO 9241-11 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT) s- Part 11 Guidance on usability. ISO/IEC 9241-11: 1998(E) (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bastien, J.M.C., Scapin, D.: Ergonomic Criteria for the Evaluation of Human Computer interfaces. Technical Report n° 156, Institut Nationale de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique, France (1993)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Erdinç, O., Lewis, J.R.: Psychometric Evaluation of the T-CSUQ: The Turkish Version of the Computer System Usability Questionnaire. International Journal of Human and Computer Interaction 29(5), 319–326 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chattratichart, J., Lindgaard, G.: A Comparative Evaluation of Heuristic-Based Usability Inspection Methods. In: The Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2008, pp. 2213–2220. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lewis, J.R.: IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction (7), 57–78 (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lewis, J.R.: Psychometric evaluation of the PSSUQ using data from five years of usability studies. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction (14), 463–488 (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewis, J.R.: Psychometric evaluation of an after-scenario questionnaire for computer usability studies: The ASQ. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 23(1), 78–81 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahlem Assila
    • 1
  • Káthia Marçal de Oliveira
    • 1
  • Houcine Ezzedine
    • 1
  1. 1.L.A.M.I.H. – UMR CNRS 8201UVHCValenciennes Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations