IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tbitxx/v33y2014i2p195-206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Must evaluation methods be about usability? Devising and assessing the utility inspection method

Author

Listed:
  • Guðrún Hulda Jónsdóttir Johannessen
  • Kasper Hornbæk

Abstract

Whereas research in usability evaluation abounds, few evaluation approaches focus on utility. We present the utility inspection method (UIM), which prompts evaluators about the utility of the system they evaluate. The UIM asks whether a system uses global platforms, provides support infrastructure, is robust, gives access to rich content, allows customisation, offers symbolic value and supports companionship among users and between users and developers. We compare 47 participants’ use of UIM and heuristic evaluation (HE). The UIM helps identify more than three times as many problems as HE about the context of activities; HE helps identify 2.5 times as many problems as UIM about the interface. Usability experts consider the problems found with UIM more severe and more complex to solve compared to those found with HE. We argue that UIM complements existing usability evaluation methods and discuss future research on utility inspection.

Suggested Citation

  • Guðrún Hulda Jónsdóttir Johannessen & Kasper Hornbæk, 2014. "Must evaluation methods be about usability? Devising and assessing the utility inspection method," Behaviour and Information Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 195-206, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:tbitxx:v:33:y:2014:i:2:p:195-206
    DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2012.751708
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/0144929X.2012.751708
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0144929X.2012.751708?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:tbitxx:v:33:y:2014:i:2:p:195-206. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tbit .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.