Usability testing: a review of some methodological and technical aspects of the method

References 

1. Sainfort F, Jacko JA, Booske BC. Human–computer interaction in health care. In:  Jacko JA,  Sears A editor. The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook. London: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 2003;p. 808–822
2. Tanguay S, Heywood P. MyFoodPhone: the start of a mobile health revolution. In:  Fogg BJ,  Eckles D editor. Mobile Persuasion. 20 Perspectives on the Future of Behavior Change. Stanford, CA: Stanford Captology Media; 2007;p. 21–27
3. Damen E. Simply persuasive: using mobile technology to boost physical activity. In:  Fogg BJ,  Eckles D editor. Mobile Persuasion. 20 Perspectives on the Future of Behavior Change. Stanford, CA: Stanford Captology Media; 2007;p. 39–44
4. Boland P. Managing chronic disease through mobile persuasion. In:  Fogg BJ,  Eckles D editor. Mobile Persuasion. 20 Perspectives on the Future of Behavior Change. Stanford, CA: Stanford Captology Media; 2007;p. 45–52
5. Beuscart-Zéphir M-C, Elkin P, Pelayo S, Beuscart R. The human factors engineering approach to biomedical informatics projects: state of the art, results, benefits and challenges. In: Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2007. Schattauer; 2007;p. 109–127
6. Ginsburg G. Human factors engineering: a tool for medical device evaluation in hospital procurement decision-making. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2005;38:213–219
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
7. Kushniruk AW, Triola MM, Borycki EM, Stein B, Kannry JL. Technology induced error and usability: the relationship between usability problems and prescription errors when using a handheld application. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2005;74:519–526
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full-Text PDF (159 KB)
   • CrossRef
8. Beuscart-Zéphir M-C, Pelayo S, Anceaux F, Meaux J-J, Degroisse M, Degoulet P. Impact of CPOE on doctor-nurse cooperation for the medication ordering and administration process. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2005;74:629–641
   • Abstract
   • Full Text
   • Full-Text PDF (602 KB)
   • CrossRef
9. Beuscart-Zéphir M-C, Pelayo S, Degoulet P, Anceaux F, Guerlinger S, Meaux JJ. A usability study of CPOE's medication administration functions: impact on physician–nurse cooperation. MedInfo. 2004;Pt 2:1018–1022
10. Horsky J, Kaufman DR, Oppenheim MI, Patel VL. A framework for analysing the cognitive complexity of computer-assisted clinical ordering. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2003;36:4–22
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
11. Pelayo S, Leroy N, Guerlinger S, Degoulet P, Meaux JJ, Beuscart-Zéphir M-C. Cognitive analysis of physicians’ medication ordering activity. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. 2005;116:929–934
    • MEDLINE
12. International Standards Organisation, ISO 13407, Human centered design processes for interactive systems. International Standards Organisation, Genève, 1999.
13. International Organisation for Standardization, ISO 9241-11, Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)—Part 11: Guidance on usability, 1998.
14. Rosenbaum S, Rohn JA, Humburg J. A toolkit for strategic usability: results from workshops, panels, and surveys. In:  Little R,  Nigay L editor. Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press; 2000;p. 337–344
15. Usability Professionals’ Association, UPA 2007 Salary Survey, Usability Professionals’ Association, Bloomingdale, IL, 2008.
16. Cockton G, Lavery D, Woolrych A. Inspection-based evaluations. In:  Jacko JA,  Sears A editor. The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook. Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 2003;p. 1118–1138
17. Dumas JS. User-based evaluations. In:  Jacko JA,  Sears A editor. The Human–Computer Interaction Handbook. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 2003;p. 1093–1117
18. Dumas JS, Redish JC. A Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1993;
19. Karat J. User-centered software evaluation methodologies. In:  Helander MG,  Landauer TK,  Prabhu PV editor. Handbook of Human–Computer Interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers; 1997;p. 689–704
20. Rubin J. Handbook of Usability Testing. How to Plan, Design and Conduct Effective Tests. New York: Wiley; 1994;
21. Lewis JR. Usability testing. In:  Salvendy G editors. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2006;
22. Tullis T, Albert B. Measuring the User Experience. Amsterdam: Morgan Kauffman; 2008;
23. Lewis JR. Sample sizes for usability tests: mostly math, not magic. Interactions. 2006;XIII(6):29–33
24. Turner CW, Lewis JR, Nielsen J. Determining usability test sample size. In:  Karwowski W editors. International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2006;p. 3084–3088
25. Nielsen J, Landauer TK. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In:  Ashlund S,  Mullet K,  Henderson A,  Hollnagel E,  White T editor. Proceedings of ACM INTERCHI’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM; 1993;p. 206–213
26. Virzi RA. Streamlining the design process: running fewer subjects. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting. Orlando, FL: The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 1990;p. 291–294
27. Virzi RA. Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: how many subjects is enough?. Human Factors. 1992;34:457–468
28. Spool J, Schroeder W. Testing Web sites: five users is nowhere near enough. In: Proceedings of the Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’2001. New York: ACM Press; 2001;
29. O’Malley CE, Draper SW, Riley MS. Constructive interaction: a method for studying human–computer–human interaction. In:  Shackel B editors. Proceedings of IFIP INTERACT’84. London, U.K.: Elsevier Science Publishers; 1984;p. 269–274
30. Wildman D. Getting the most from paired-user testing. Interactions. 1995;2(3):21–27
31. Westerink JHDM, Rankin PJ, Majoor GM, Moore PS. A new technique for early user evaluation of entertainment product interfaces. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 1994;p. 992
32. C. Wilson, J. Blostein, Usability techniques. Pros and cons of co-participation in usability studies. Usability Interface, 1998.
33. Grondin N, Bastien JMC, Agopian B. Les tests utilisateurs: avantages et inconvénients des passations individuelles et par paires. In:  Beaudoin-Lafon M editors. Actes de la Conférence IHM’2002. New York, NY: ACM; 2002;p. 121–128
34. Dray S, Siegel D. Remote possibilities? International usability testing at a distance. Interactions. 2004;(march+april):10–17
35. Thompson KE, Rozanski EP, Haake AR. Here, there, anywhere: remote usability testing that works. In: SIGITE’04. New York: ACM; 2004;p. 132–137
36. Hong JI, Heer J, Waterson S, Landay JA. WebQuilt: a proxy-based approach to remote Web usability testing. ACM Transactions on Information Systems. 2001;19(3):263–285
37. Atterer R, Wnuk M, Schmidt A. Knowing the User's every move—user activity tracking for Website usability evaluation and implicit interaction. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web (Edinburgh, Scotland, May 23–26). New York, NY: ACM; 2006;p. 203–212
38. Hartson HR, Castillo JC, Kelso J, Kamler J, Neale WC. Remote evaluation: the network as an extension of the usability laboratory. In:  Tauber MJ,  Bellotti V,  Jeffries R,  Mackinlay JD,  Nielsen J editor. Proceedings of ACM CHI’96 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Companion. New York, NY: ACM; 1996;p. 228–235
39. Tullis T, Fleischman S, McNulty M, Cianchette C, Bergel M. An empirical comparison of lab and remote usability testing of Web sites. In: Usability Professional Association Conference. Orlando. 2002;Available at http://home.comcast.net/∼tomtullis/publications/RemoteVsLab.pdf
40. West R, Lehman KR. Automated summative usability studies: an empirical evaluation. In: CHI 2006. New York: ACM; 2006;p. 631–639
41. Andreasen MS, Nielsen HV, Schrøder SO, Stage J. What happened to remote usability testing? An empirical study of three methods. In: CHI 2007. New York, NY: ACM; 2007;p. 1405–1414
42. Noldus LPJJ, Trienes RJH, Hendriksen AHM, Jansen H, Jansen RG. The Observer Video-Pro: new software for the collection, management, and presentation of time-structured data from videotapes and digital media files. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 2000;32:197–206
43. Uehling DL, Wolf K. User action graphing effort (UsAGE). In: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’95. New York, NY: ACM Press; 1995;p. 290–291
44. Al-Qaimari G, McRostie D. KALDI: A CAUsE Tool for supporting testing and analysis of user interaction. In:  Blandford A,  Vanderdonckt J,  Gray P editor. People and Computers XV. Joint Proceedings of HCI 2001 and IHM 2001. London, UK: Springer; 2001;p. 153–169
45. Ivory MY, Hearst MA. The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces. ACM Computing Surveys. 2001;33:470–516
46. Schusteritsch R, Wei CY, LaRosa M. Towards the perfect infrastructure for usability testing on mobile devices. In: CHI 2007. New York, NY: ACM; 2007;p. 1839–1844
47. Rieman J. The diary study: a workplace-oriented research tool to guide laboratory efforts. In: Proceedings of ACM INTERCHI’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM; 1993;p. 321–326
48. Palen L, Salzman M. Voice-mail diary studies for naturalistic data capture under mobile conditions. In: CSCW’02. New York, NY: ACM; 2002;