Usability and public administration: experiences of a difficult marriage

T. Catarci, G. Matarazzo, G. Raiss
{"title":"Usability and public administration: experiences of a difficult marriage","authors":"T. Catarci, G. Matarazzo, G. Raiss","doi":"10.1145/355460.355468","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Approximately one and half year ago, the Italian authority which controls the software diffusion in Public Administrations (Autorità per l'Informatica nella Pubblica Amministrazione - AIPA) created a working group, the Usability Working Group, with the main purposes of assessing the extent to which both suppliers of computer technologies and the public administration pay attention to product usability and of surveying the level of comfort (or discomfort) the public administration users reach when interacting with new software systems. The group had also the duty of determining possible improvements and indicating how to obtain them in the short-medium term. Among the various activities of the group, two tests carried out for the public administration on two different development designs of interactive systems gave several hints. This paper reports about such tests and their outcomes. In particular, it concentrates on: 1) work methods of the design teams; 2) participation modes of the public administration in the design process; 3) users' evaluation of the system usability with respect to their implicit and explicit needs. Finally, the lessons learned from this experience are discussed.","PeriodicalId":179665,"journal":{"name":"Conference on Universal Usability","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conference on Universal Usability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/355460.355468","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Approximately one and half year ago, the Italian authority which controls the software diffusion in Public Administrations (Autorità per l'Informatica nella Pubblica Amministrazione - AIPA) created a working group, the Usability Working Group, with the main purposes of assessing the extent to which both suppliers of computer technologies and the public administration pay attention to product usability and of surveying the level of comfort (or discomfort) the public administration users reach when interacting with new software systems. The group had also the duty of determining possible improvements and indicating how to obtain them in the short-medium term. Among the various activities of the group, two tests carried out for the public administration on two different development designs of interactive systems gave several hints. This paper reports about such tests and their outcomes. In particular, it concentrates on: 1) work methods of the design teams; 2) participation modes of the public administration in the design process; 3) users' evaluation of the system usability with respect to their implicit and explicit needs. Finally, the lessons learned from this experience are discussed.
可用性与公共管理:一段艰难婚姻的经历
大约一年半以前,控制公共管理软件传播的意大利当局(autoritper l'Informatica nella publicica Amministrazione - AIPA)创建了一个工作组,可用性工作组,其主要目的是评估计算机技术供应商和公共行政部门对产品可用性的关注程度,以及调查公共行政部门用户在与新软件系统交互时所达到的舒适(或不舒服)程度。该小组还有责任确定可能的改进,并指出如何在中短期内实现这些改进。在小组的各种活动中,针对两种不同的互动系统开发设计为公共行政部门进行的两次测试给出了一些提示。本文报道了这类测试及其结果。特别关注:1)设计团队的工作方法;2)公共管理在设计过程中的参与模式;3)用户根据其隐性需求和显性需求对系统可用性的评价。最后,讨论了这一经验的教训。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信