Software usability

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Software usability: a comparison between two tree-structured data transformation languages

Full text

Pdf (118 KB)

Source

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series; Vol. 82 archive
Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction table of contents

Tampere, Finland

Pages: 145 - 148

Year of Publication: 2004

ISBN:1-58113-857-1

Authors

Nikita Schmidt	University College Dublin, Belfield, Ireland
Corina Sas	Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 9, Downloads (12 Months): 58, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

abstract references index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTex EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1028014.1028037 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the results of a software usability study, involving both subjective and objective evaluation. It compares a popular XML data transformation language (XSLT) and a general purpose rule-based tree manipulation language which addresses some of the XML and XSLT limitations. The benefits of the evaluation study are discussed.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Andersson, T. A survey on software quality metrics. Abo Akademi Univ. Unpublished manuscript, (1990).
	2	Basili, V. R. Qualitative software complexity models: A summary. In Tutorial on Models and Methods for Software Management and Engineering. IEEE, CA, (1980).
	3	David M. Beazley , Guido Van Rossum, Python Essential Reference, New Riders Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2001
	4	Brooke, J. SUS: A 'quick and dirty' usability scale. In Usability evaluation in industry, pages 189--194. Taylor & Francis, London, (1996).
	5	Dushay, N. and Hillmann, D. Analyzing metadata for effective use and re-use. NSDL Meeting, WA, (2003).
	6	Fraser, B. and Gluck, M. Usability of geospatial metadata or space-time matters. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 25(6): 24--28.(1999).
	7	Joseph P. Kearney , Robert L. Sedlmeyer , William B. Thompson , Michael A. Gray , Michael A. Adler, Software complexity measurement, Communications of the ACM, v.29 n.11, p.1044-1050, Nov. 1986 [doi>10.1145/7538.7540]
	8	Jakob Nielsen, Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity, New Riders Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1999
	9	Perlman, G. Web-based user interface evaluation with questionnaires. http://www.acm.org/~perlman/question.html.
	10	Schmidt, N. A Common Architecture for Manipulating Tree-Structured Data. PhD thesis. University College Dublin, Ireland, (2003).
	11	Schmidt, N. and Patel, A. Rule-driven processing of tree-structured data using pointed trees. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 25(5):463--475, (2003).
	12	Venners, B. Programming at Python speed: A conversation with Guido van Rossum, part III. Published online by Artima Software, http://www.artima.com/intv/speed.html.
	13	World Wide Web Consortium. XML Path Language (XPath) 1.0, W3C Recommendation, (1999).
	14	World Wide Web Consortium. XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version 1.0, W3C Recommendation, (1999).