基于交互点的一般描述性概念,对量化用户界面特征的四种不同度量进行了实证验证

G.W.M. Rauterberg
{"title":"基于交互点的一般描述性概念,对量化用户界面特征的四种不同度量进行了实证验证","authors":"G.W.M. Rauterberg","doi":"10.1109/ECBS.1996.494571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The main problem of standards (e.g. ISO 9241) in the context of usability of software quality is that they cannot measure all relevant product features in a task independent way. We present a new approach to measure user interface quality in a quantitative way. First, we developed a concept to describe user interfaces on a granularity level, that is detailed enough to presence important interface characteristics, and is general enough to cover most of known interface types. We distinguish between different types of \"interaction points\". With these kinds of interaction points we can describe several types of interfaces (CUI: command, menu, form-fill-in; GUI: desktop, direct manipulation, multimedia, etc.). We carried out two different comparative usability studies to validate our quantitative measures. The results of one other published comparative usability study can be predicted. Results of six different interfaces are presented and discussed. One of the most important result is that the dialog flexibility must exceed a threshold of 15-measured with two of our metrics-to increase significantly the usability.","PeriodicalId":244671,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings IEEE Symposium and Workshop on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An empirical validation of four different measures to quantify user interface characteristics based on a general descriptive concept for interaction points\",\"authors\":\"G.W.M. Rauterberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ECBS.1996.494571\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The main problem of standards (e.g. ISO 9241) in the context of usability of software quality is that they cannot measure all relevant product features in a task independent way. We present a new approach to measure user interface quality in a quantitative way. First, we developed a concept to describe user interfaces on a granularity level, that is detailed enough to presence important interface characteristics, and is general enough to cover most of known interface types. We distinguish between different types of \\\"interaction points\\\". With these kinds of interaction points we can describe several types of interfaces (CUI: command, menu, form-fill-in; GUI: desktop, direct manipulation, multimedia, etc.). We carried out two different comparative usability studies to validate our quantitative measures. The results of one other published comparative usability study can be predicted. Results of six different interfaces are presented and discussed. One of the most important result is that the dialog flexibility must exceed a threshold of 15-measured with two of our metrics-to increase significantly the usability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":244671,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings IEEE Symposium and Workshop on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1996-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings IEEE Symposium and Workshop on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ECBS.1996.494571\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings IEEE Symposium and Workshop on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ECBS.1996.494571","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

在软件质量可用性方面,标准(例如ISO 9241)的主要问题是它们不能以任务独立的方式度量所有相关的产品特性。本文提出了一种定量测量用户界面质量的新方法。首先,我们开发了一个在粒度级别上描述用户界面的概念,该概念足够详细,可以呈现重要的界面特征,并且足够通用,可以涵盖大多数已知的界面类型。我们区分不同类型的“交互点”。通过这些交互点,我们可以描述几种类型的接口(CUI):命令、菜单、表单填充;GUI:桌面、直接操作、多媒体等)。我们进行了两个不同的可用性比较研究来验证我们的定量测量。另一项已发表的比较可用性研究的结果是可以预测的。给出并讨论了六种不同接口的结果。最重要的结果之一是,对话框的灵活性必须超过15的阈值——用我们的两个指标来衡量——才能显著提高可用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An empirical validation of four different measures to quantify user interface characteristics based on a general descriptive concept for interaction points
The main problem of standards (e.g. ISO 9241) in the context of usability of software quality is that they cannot measure all relevant product features in a task independent way. We present a new approach to measure user interface quality in a quantitative way. First, we developed a concept to describe user interfaces on a granularity level, that is detailed enough to presence important interface characteristics, and is general enough to cover most of known interface types. We distinguish between different types of "interaction points". With these kinds of interaction points we can describe several types of interfaces (CUI: command, menu, form-fill-in; GUI: desktop, direct manipulation, multimedia, etc.). We carried out two different comparative usability studies to validate our quantitative measures. The results of one other published comparative usability study can be predicted. Results of six different interfaces are presented and discussed. One of the most important result is that the dialog flexibility must exceed a threshold of 15-measured with two of our metrics-to increase significantly the usability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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