Advertisement

Usability Evaluation of an M-Commerce System Using Proxy Users

  • Gabriela NovakEmail author
  • Lars Lundberg
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 529)

Abstract

We have done a usability evaluation of a mobile commerce system developed by Ericsson in Sweden. The main market for the system is in developing countries in Africa. Consequently, there is a geographical distance between the developers and the users, and it is difficult to involve actual users in usability tests. Because of this, a team of solution architects that work with the product was used as proxies for the actual users in the usability test. When the test was completed, a group of actual users came to Sweden to attend a course. In order to get additional input to the usability evaluation, the usability test was repeated with the actual users. The results from the two groups were very similar, and our conclusion is that the proxy user group was a good alternative to actual users.

Keywords

Proxy users Surrogate users Usability testing Mobile commerce 

References

  1. 1.
    Maguire, M.: Methods to support human centered design. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 55(4), 587–634 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maguire, M.: Context of use within usability activities. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 55(4), 453–483 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zollet, R., Back, A.: Website usability for internet banking. In: Proceedings of 23rd Bled eConference. Slovenia (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Elseiver, Amsterdam (1993). ISBN 9780125184069Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shneiderman, B.: Universal usability, association for computing machinery. Commun. ACM 43, 84–91 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/IEC, ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic requirements for office with visual display terminals (VDTs). Part 11 Guidance on usability, ISO/IEC 9241-11:1998 (E) (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pruitt, J., Grudin, J.: Personas: practice and theory. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences, DUX 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wilson, C.: Interview Techniques for UX Practitioners: A User-Centered Design Method, Semi-Structured Interviews. Newnes, London (2013). ISBN 978-0-12-410450-1Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sherman, P.: Usability Success Stories: How Organizations Improve by Making Easier to Use Software and Websites. Gower, London (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. Wiley, New York (2002). ISBN 0471492787Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Van Den Haak, M.J., De Jong, M.D.T., Schellens, P.J.: Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols: testing the usability of an online library catalogue. Behav. Inf. Technol. 22(5), 339–351 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Travis, D.: Usability testing with hard-to-find participants. http://www.userfocus.co.uk/articles/surrogates.html
  16. 16.
    Venkatesh, V., Ramesh, V., Massey, A.P.: Understanding usability in mobile commerce. Commun. ACM 46(12), 53–56 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nielsen, J.: Why you only need to test with 5 users. http://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test-with-5-users/

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ericsson ABKarlskronaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringBlekinge Institute of TechnologyKarlskronaSweden

Personalised recommendations