Comparing heuristic evaluation and MALTU model in interaction evaluation of ubiquitous systems

José Cezar de Souza Filho, Marcos Randel Freitas Brito, A. L. Sampaio
{"title":"Comparing heuristic evaluation and MALTU model in interaction evaluation of ubiquitous systems","authors":"José Cezar de Souza Filho, Marcos Randel Freitas Brito, A. L. Sampaio","doi":"10.1145/3424953.3426639","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ubiquitous systems are made up of sensors and smart devices that communicate with each other to achieve certain goals. They have specific characteristics, such as transparency, attention, calmness, mobility, and context-awareness. Given that the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) evaluation methods have been proposed for traditional systems, these characteristics present challenges that may require their adaptation. In this paper, we conducted an exploratory study aimed to compare the suitability of Heuristic Evaluation and the MALTU Model to evaluate the Usability and User eXperience (UX) of ubiquitous systems. For this, we apply both methods for evaluating a healthcare system and perform a comparative analysis. From our findings, MALTU is indicated for UX evaluation, being a low-cost approach when compared to Heuristic Evaluation, which is indicated for usability evaluation. Both methods were able to identify the problems that emerge from ubiquity and can provide better results when applied in aggregate. Furthermore, we provide recommendations to apply both methods for the Usability and UX evaluation of ubiquitous systems.","PeriodicalId":102113,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 19th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 19th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3424953.3426639","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Ubiquitous systems are made up of sensors and smart devices that communicate with each other to achieve certain goals. They have specific characteristics, such as transparency, attention, calmness, mobility, and context-awareness. Given that the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) evaluation methods have been proposed for traditional systems, these characteristics present challenges that may require their adaptation. In this paper, we conducted an exploratory study aimed to compare the suitability of Heuristic Evaluation and the MALTU Model to evaluate the Usability and User eXperience (UX) of ubiquitous systems. For this, we apply both methods for evaluating a healthcare system and perform a comparative analysis. From our findings, MALTU is indicated for UX evaluation, being a low-cost approach when compared to Heuristic Evaluation, which is indicated for usability evaluation. Both methods were able to identify the problems that emerge from ubiquity and can provide better results when applied in aggregate. Furthermore, we provide recommendations to apply both methods for the Usability and UX evaluation of ubiquitous systems.
泛在系统交互评价中启发式评价与MALTU模型的比较
无处不在的系统由传感器和智能设备组成,它们相互通信以实现特定目标。它们具有特定的特征,如透明、专注、冷静、机动性和上下文感知。鉴于人机交互(HCI)评估方法已被提出用于传统系统,这些特点提出了挑战,可能需要他们的适应。在本文中,我们进行了一项探索性研究,旨在比较启发式评估和MALTU模型在评估泛在系统的可用性和用户体验(UX)方面的适用性。为此,我们应用这两种方法来评估医疗保健系统并进行比较分析。从我们的研究结果来看,MALTU用于用户体验评估,与启发式评估相比,它是一种低成本的方法,启发式评估用于可用性评估。这两种方法都能够识别由于普遍存在而出现的问题,并且在综合应用时可以提供更好的结果。此外,我们还建议将这两种方法应用于无处不在的系统的可用性和用户体验评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信