Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBorsci, Simone
dc.contributor.authorFederici, Stefano
dc.contributor.authorMalizia, Alessio
dc.contributor.authorDe Filippis, Maria Laura
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-20T02:10:32Z
dc.date.available2018-11-20T02:10:32Z
dc.date.issued2018-11-02
dc.identifier.citationBorsci , S , Federici , S , Malizia , A & De Filippis , M L 2018 , ' Shaking the usability treewhy usability is not a dead end, and a constructive way forward : why usability is not a dead end, and a constructive way forward ' , Behaviour and Information Technology . https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1541255
dc.identifier.issn0144-929X
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 15680267
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: db01e269-1458-46c1-98ed-8ed620202900
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85056078167
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/20807
dc.description.abstractA recent contribution to the ongoing debate concerning the concept of usability and its measures proposed that usability reached a dead end–i.e. a construct unable to provide stable results and to unify scientific knowledge. Extensive commentaries rejected the conclusion that researchers need to look for alternative constructs to measure the quality of interaction. Nevertheless, several practitioners involved in this international debate asked for a constructive way to move forward the usability practice. In fact, two key issues of the usability field were identified in this debate: (i) knowledge fragmentation in the scientific community, and (ii) the unstable relationship among the usability metrics. We recognise both the importance and impact of these key issues, although, in line with others, we may not agree with the conclusion that the usability is a dead end. Under the light of the international debate, this work discusses the strengths and weaknesses of usability construct and its application. Our discussion focuses on identifying alternative explanations to the issues and to suggest mitigation strategies, which may be considered the starting point to move forward the usability field. However, scientific community actions will be needed to implement these mitigation strategies and to harmonise the usability practice.en
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofBehaviour and Information Technology
dc.rightsOpen
dc.subjectHuman–machine interface
dc.subjectinteraction design
dc.subjectISO 9241-11
dc.subjectusability
dc.subjectusability factors
dc.subjectusability testing
dc.subjectDevelopmental and Educational Psychology
dc.subjectArts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
dc.subjectSocial Sciences(all)
dc.subjectHuman-Computer Interaction
dc.titleShaking the usability treewhy usability is not a dead end, and a constructive way forward : why usability is not a dead end, and a constructive way forwarden
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Hertfordshire
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056078167&partnerID=8YFLogxK
dc.description.versiontypeFinal Published version
dcterms.dateAccepted2018-11-02
rioxxterms.versionAM
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1541255
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue
herts.rights.accesstypeOpen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record