Shaking the usability tree: why usability is not a dead end, and a constructive way forward

Simone Borsci (Corresponding Author), Stefano Federici, Alessio Malizia, Maria Laura De Filippis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

52 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

A 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.
Original languageEnglish
JournalBehaviour & information technology
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print/First online - 2 Nov 2018

Fingerprint

Research Personnel
scientific community
fragmentation
interaction
knowledge
Community Participation
Usability

Keywords

  • UT-Hybrid-D
  • Interaction design
  • ISO 9241-11
  • Usability
  • Usability factors
  • Usability testing
  • Human–machine interface

Cite this

@article{f4521bd0fe1146669b4faf84782eb136,
title = "Shaking the usability tree: why usability is not a dead end, and a constructive way forward",
abstract = "A 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.",
keywords = "UT-Hybrid-D, Interaction design, ISO 9241-11, Usability, Usability factors, Usability testing, Human–machine interface",
author = "Simone Borsci and Stefano Federici and Alessio Malizia and {De Filippis}, {Maria Laura}",
note = "Taylor & Francis deal",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1080/0144929X.2018.1541255",
language = "English",
journal = "Behaviour & information technology",
issn = "0144-929X",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",

}

Shaking the usability tree : why usability is not a dead end, and a constructive way forward. / Borsci, Simone (Corresponding Author); Federici, Stefano; Malizia, Alessio; De Filippis, Maria Laura.

In: Behaviour & information technology, 02.11.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shaking the usability tree

T2 - why usability is not a dead end, and a constructive way forward

AU - Borsci, Simone

AU - Federici, Stefano

AU - Malizia, Alessio

AU - De Filippis, Maria Laura

N1 - Taylor & Francis deal

PY - 2018/11/2

Y1 - 2018/11/2

N2 - A 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.

AB - A 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.

KW - UT-Hybrid-D

KW - Interaction design

KW - ISO 9241-11

KW - Usability

KW - Usability factors

KW - Usability testing

KW - Human–machine interface

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056078167&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/0144929X.2018.1541255

DO - 10.1080/0144929X.2018.1541255

M3 - Article

JO - Behaviour & information technology

JF - Behaviour & information technology

SN - 0144-929X

ER -