skip to main content
research-article
Free Access

How UX Practitioners Produce Findings in Usability Testing

Published:30 January 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Usability testing has long been a core interest of HCI research and forms a key element of industry practice. Yet our knowledge of it harbours striking absences. There are few, if any detailed accounts of the contingent, material ways in which usability testing is actually practiced. Further, it is rare that industry practitioners’ testing work is treated as indigenous and particular (instead subordinated as a ‘compromised’ version). To service these problems, this article presents an ethnomethodological study of usability testing practices in a design consultancy. It unpacks how findings are produced in and as the work of observers analysing the test as it unfolds between moderators taking participants through relevant tasks. The study nuances conventional views of usability findings as straightforwardly ‘there to be found’ or ‘read off’ by competent evaluators. It explores how evaluators/observers collaboratively work to locate relevant troubles in the test's unfolding. However, in the course of doing this work, potential candidate troubles may also routinely be dissipated and effectively ‘ignored’ in one way or another. The implications of the study suggest refinements to current understandings of usability evaluations, and affirm the value to HCI in studying industry practitioners more deeply.

References

  1. Carol M. Barnum. 2010. Usability Testing Essentials: Ready, Set ... Test! (1st ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Jordan Beck and Hamid R. Ekbia. 2018. The theory-practice gap as generative metaphor. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’18). ACM, New York, NY, Paper 620, 11 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Martin Belam. 2010. 10 tips for ‘ambush guerilla user testing’. (June 2010). Retrieved October 29, 2018 from http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2010/06/10-tips-for-ambush-guerilla-us.php.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Douglas Benson and John Hughes. 1991. Method: Evidence and inference—evidence and inference in ethnomethodology. In Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences, Graham Button (Ed.), chapter 6. Cambridge University Press, 109--136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Herbert Blumer. 1986. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press, Berkley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Ted Boren and Judith Ramey. 2000. Thinking aloud: Reconciling theory and practice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 43, 3 (2000), 261--278.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Thea Borgholm and Kim Halskov Madsen. 1999. Cooperative usability practices. Communications of the ACM 42, 5 (1999), 91--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. John Bowers and James Pycock. 1994. Talking through design: Requirements and resistance in cooperative prototyping. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’94), Beth Adelson, Susan Dumais, and Judith Olson (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, 299--305. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Anders Bruun and Jan Stage. 2012. Training software development practitioners in usability testing: An assessment acceptance and prioritization. In Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (OzCHI’12), Vivienne Farrell, Graham Farrell, Caslon Chua, Weidong Huang, Raj Vasa, and Clinton Woodward (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, 52--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Anders A. Bruun and Jan Stage. 2015. An empirical study of the effects of three think-aloud protocols on identification of usability problems. In Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT’15), J. Abascal, S. Barbosa, M. Fetter, T. Gross, P. Palanque, and M. Winckler (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9297. Springer, Cham.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Graham Button (Ed.). 1991. Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Stuart K. Card, Thomas P. Moran, and Allen Newell. 1980. The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems. Communications of the ACM 23, 7 (1980), 396--410. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Stuart K. Card, Allen Newell, and Thomas P. Moran. 1983. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. L. Erlbaum Assoc. Inc., Hillsdale, NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Aaron V. Cicourel. 1964. Method and Measurement in Sociology. Free Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Torkil Clemmensen, Morten Hertzum, Kasper Hornbæk, Qingxin Shi, and Pradeep Yammiyavar. 2009. Cultural cognition in usability evaluation. Interacting with Computers 21, 3 (2009), 212--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Gilbert Cockton. 2014. A critical, creative UX community: CLUF. Journal of Usability Studies 10, 1 (2014), 1--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Gilbert Cockton. 2017. Usability evaluation. In The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed.). Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved September 20, 2017 from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/usability-evaluation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert Cockton and Alan Woolrych. 2002. Sale must end: Should discount methods be cleared off HCI's shelves? Interactions 9, 5 (2002), 13--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Gillbert Cockton, Alan Woolrych, Lynne Hall, and Mark Hindmarch. 2004. Changing analysts’ tunes: The surprising impact of a new instrument for usability inspection method assessment. In People and Computers XVII — Designing for Society, E. O'Neill, P. Palanque, and P. Johnson (Eds.). Springer, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lucas Colusso, Cynthia L. Bennett, Gary Hsieh, and Sean A. Munson. 2017. Translational resources: Reducing the gap between academic research and HCI practice. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS’17). 957--968. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Andy Crabtree, Peter Tolmie, and Mark Rouncefield. 2013. ‘How many bloody examples do you want?’—Fieldwork and generalisation. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’13). Springer, 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Susan M. Dray. 2009. Engaged scholars, thoughtful practitioners: The interdependence of academics and practitioners in user-centered design and usability. Journal of Usability Studies 5, 1 (2009), 1--7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Joseph S. Dumas and Beth A. Loring. 2008. Moderating Usability Tests: Principles and Practices for Interacting (1st ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Joseph S. Dumas and Janice C. Redish. 1999. A Practical Guide to Usability Testing (Revised ed.). University of Chicago Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jodi Forlizzi. 2018. Moving beyond user-centered design. Interactions 25, 5 (2018), 22--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Erin Friess. 2012. Do usability evaluators do what we think usability evaluators do? Communication Design Quarterly Review 13, 1 (2012), 9--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Erik Frøkjær and Kasper Hornbæk. 2005. Cooperative usability testing: Complementing usability tests with user-supported interpretation sessions. In Proceedings of CHI’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’05). ACM, New York, NY, 1383--1386. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Asbjørn Følstad and Kasper Hornbæk. 2010. Work-domain knowledge in usability evaluation: Experiences with cooperative usability testing. Journal of Systems and Software 83, 11 (2010), 2019--2030. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Asbjørn Følstad, Effie Law, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2012. Analysis in practical usability evaluation: A survey study. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’12). ACM, New York, NY, 2127--2136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Asbjørn Følstad, Effie Lai-Chong Law, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2012. Outliers in usability testing: How to treat usability problems found for only one test participant? In Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense through Design (NordiCHI'12). ACM, New York, NY, 257--260. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Dominic Furniss. 2008. Beyond Problem Identification: Valuing Methods in a ‘System of Usability Practice’. Ph.D. thesis, University College London, London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Julia Gardner. 1999. Strengthening the focus on users' working practices. Communications of the ACM 42, 5 (1999), 78--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Harold Garfinkel. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Harold Garfinkel. 2002. Ethnomethodology's Program. Rowman and Littlefield, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Harold Garfinkel, Michael Lynch, and Eric Livingston. 1981. The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11, 2 (1981), 121--158.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Harold Garfinkel, Harvey Sacks. 1986. On formal structures of practical actions. In Ethnomethodological Studies of Work, Harold Garfinkel (Ed.). Routledge 8 Kegan Paul, London, UK, 160--193.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Igor Garnik, Marcin Sikorski, and Gilbert Cockton. 2014. Creative sprints: An unplanned broad agile evaluation and redesign process. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (NordiCHI’14). ACM, New York, NY, 1125--1130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Elizabeth Goodman. 2013. Delivering Design: Performance and Materiality in Professional Interaction Design. Ph.D. Thesis. University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Charles Goodwin. 1980. Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry 50, 3--4 (1980), 272--302.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Colin M. Gray. 2016. What is the nature and intended use of design methods? In Proceedings of the Design Research Society. Design Research Society, Brighton, UK.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Colin M. Gray. 2016. “It's more of a mindset than a method”: UX practitioners’ conception of design methods. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16). ACM, New York, NY, 4044--4055. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Colin M. Gray, Erik Stolterman, and Martin A. Siegel. 2014. Reprioritizing the relationship between HCI research and practice: Bubble-up and trickle-down effects. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS’14). ACM, New York, NY, 725--734. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Colin M. Gray, Austin L. Toombs, and Shad Gross. 2015. Flow of competence in UX design practice. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’15). ACM, New York, NY, 3285--3294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Wayne D. Gray and Marilyn C. Salzman. 1998. Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human-Computer Interaction 13, 3 (1998), 203--261. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Tovi Grossman, George Fitzmaurice, and Ramtin Attar. 2009. A survey of software learnability: Metrics, methodologies and guidelines. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’09). ACM, New York, NY, 649--658. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Steven Harrison, Maribeth Back, and Deborah Tatar. 2006. “It's just a method!”: A pedagogical experiment in interdisciplinary design. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive systems (DIS’06). ACM, New York, NY, 261--270. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Christian Heath and Paul Luff. 2000. Technology in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Christian Heath, Jon Hindmarsh, and Paul Luff. 2010. Video in Qualitative Research. Sage, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Alexa Hepburn and Galena B. Bolden. 2012. The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, J. Sidnell and T. Stivers (Eds.). John Wiley 8 Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Kasper Hornbæk. 2008. Usability evaluation as idea generation. In Maturing Usability, Effie Lai-Chong Law, Ebba Thora Hvannberg, and Gilbert Cockton (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction Series, chapter 12. Springer, London, 267--286.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Kasper Hornbæk. 2010. Dogmas in the assessment of usability evaluation methods. Behaviour 8 Information Technology 29, 1 (2010), 97--111. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Morten Hertzum. 2016. A usability test is not an interview. Interactions 23, 2 (2016), 82--84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Morten Hertzum, Kristin D. Hansen, and Hans H. K. Andersen. 2009. Scrutinising usability evaluation: Does thinking aloud affect behaviour and mental workload? Behaviour 8 Information Technology 28, 2 (2009), 165--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Morten Hertzum and Neils Ebbe Jacobsen. 2001. The evaluator effect: A chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 13, 4 (2001), 421--443.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Robin Jeffries, James R. Miller, Cathleen Wharton, and Kathy Uyeda. 1991. User interface evaluation in the real world: A comparison of four techniques. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’91), Scott P. Robertson, Gary M. Olson, and Judith S. Olson (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, 119--124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Jesper Kjeldskov, Mikael B. Skov, and Jan Stage. 2004. Instant data analysis: Conducting usability evaluations in a day. In Proceedings of the 3rd Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI’04). ACM, New York, NY, 233--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Steve Krug. 2009. Rocket Surgery Made Easy: The Do-it-yourself Guide to Finding and Fixing Usability Problems (1st ed.). New Riders Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Mike Kuniavsky. 2003. Observing the User Experience. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Carine Lallemand and Vincent Koenig. 2017. Lab testing beyond usability: Challenges and recommendations for assessing user experiences. Journal of Usability Studies 12, 3 (2017), 133--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Darryn Lavery, Gilbert Cockton, and Malcolm P. Atkinson. 1997. Comparison of evaluation methods using structured usability problem reports. Behaviour and Information Technology 16, 4--5 (1997), 246--266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Gitte Lindgaard. 2006. Notions of thoroughness, efficiency, and validity: Are they valid in HCI practice? International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 36, 12 (2006), 1069--1074.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Eric Livingston. 1987. Making Sense of Ethnomethodology. Routledge 8 Kegan Paul, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Michael Lynch. 2000. Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. Theory, Culture 8 Society 17, 3 (2000), 26--54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Ritch Macefield. 2009. How to specify the participant group size for usability studies: A practitioner's guide. Journal of Usability Studies 5, 1 (2009), 34--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Michael Mair, Chris Elsey, Paul V. Smith, and Patrick G. Watson. 2018. War on video: Combat footage, vernacular video analysis and military culture from within. Ethnographic Studies 15 (2018), 83--105.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Tara Matthews, Tejinder Judge, and Steve Whittaker. 2012. How do designers and user experience professionals actually perceive and use personas? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’12). ACM, New York, NY, 1219--1228. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Sharon McDonald, Helen Edwards, and Tingting Zhao. 2012. Exploring think-alouds in usability testing: The findings of an international survey. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 55, 1 (2012), 2--19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Michael Medlock, Dennis Wixon, Bill Fulton, Mark Terrano, and Ramon Romero. 2002. Using the RITE Method to Improve Products: A Definition and a Case Study. Usability Professionals Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Rolf Molich, Meghan R. Ede, Klaus Kaasgaard, and Barbara Karyukin. 2004. Comparative usability evaluation. Behaviour and Information Technology 23, 1 (2004), 65--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Rolf Molich and Joseph S. Dumas. 2008. Comparative usability evaluation (CUE-4). Behaviour and Information Technology 27, 3 (2008), 263--281. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Mike Monteiro. 2012. Design Is a Job. A Book Apart.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Jakob Nielsen and Thomas K. Landauer. 1993. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’93). ACM, New York, NY, 206--213. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Mie Nørgaard and Kasper Hornbæk. 2006. What do usability evaluators do in practice?: An explorative study of think-aloud testing. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS’06). ACM, New York, NY, 209--218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Gary M. Olson and Thomas P. Moran. 1998. Commentary on “Damaged merchandise?”. Human-Computer Interaction 13, 3 (1998), 263--323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Trevor Pinch. 1993. “Testing -- one, two, three ... testing!”: Toward a sociology of testing. Science, Technology, 8 Human Values 18, 1 (1993), 25--41.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Melvin Pollner. 1991. Left of ethnomethodology: The rise and decline of radical reflexivity. American Sociological Review 56, 3 (1991), 370--380.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. Stuart Reeves. 2017. Usability in vivo. Human-Computer Interaction 33 (2017), 190--194. Commentary on The Usability Construct: A Dead End?Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Stephanie Rosenbaum. 2008. The future of usability evaluation: Increasing impact on value. In Maturing Usability, Effie Lai-Chong Law, Ebba Thora Hvannberg, and Gilbert Cockton (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction Series, chapter 15. Springer, London, 344--378.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Harvey Sacks. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Oxford, Blackwell.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 4, Part 1 (1974), 696--735.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Harvey Sacks. 1984. Notes on methodology. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, John Heritage and J. Maxwell Atkinson (Eds.). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1987. Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly 50, 2 (1987), 101--114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  83. Emanuel A. Schegloff. 2007. A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 3 (2007), 462--482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Emmanuel A. Schegloff and Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening Up Closings. Semiotica 8, 4 (1973), 289--327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. Wes Sharrock and Robert J. Anderson. 1986. The Ethnomethodologists. Ellis Horwood, Chichester.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Qingxin Shi. 2008. A field study of the relationship and communication between Chinese evaluators and users in thinking aloud usability tests. In Proceedings of the 5th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Building Bridges (NordiCHI’08). ACM, New York, NY, 344--352. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. Janet M. Six and Ritch Macefield. 2016. How to determine the right number of participants for usability studies. UXmatters (2016). Retrieved from https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2016/01/how-to-determine-the-right-number-of-participants-for-usability-studies.php.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  88. Jared Spool and Will Schroeder. 2001. Testing web sites: Five users is nowhere near enough. In Proceedings of Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’01). ACM, New York, NY, 285--286. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. Philippe Sormani, Esther González-Martínez, and Alain Bovet. 2011. Discovering work: A topical introduction. Ethnographic Studies 12 (2011), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. Lucy A. Suchman. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. Margaret H. Szymanski, Erik Vinkhuyzen, Paul M. Aoki, and Allison Woodruff. 2006. Organizing a remote state of incipient talk: Push-to-talk mobile radio interaction. Language in Society 35, 3 (2006), 393--418.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. Maryam Tohidi, William Buxton, Ronald Baecker, and Abigail Sellen. 2006. User sketches: A quick, inexpensive, and effective way to elicit more reflective user feedback. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles (NordiCHI’06), Anders Mørch, Konrad Morgan, Tone Bratteteig, Gautam Ghosh, and Dag Svanaes (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, 105--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  93. Noam Tractinsky. 2018. The usability construct: A dead end? Human--Computer Interaction 33, 2 (2018), 131--177.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  94. Thomas Tullis and William Albert. 2013. Measuring User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  95. Arnold Vermeeren. 2009. What's the Problem? Studies on Identifying Usability Problems in User Tests. Ph.D. Thesis. Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft, Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. Dirk vom Lehn. 2014. Harold Garfinkel: The Creation and Development of Ethnomethodology. Routledge, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. Stephanie Wilson, Mathilde Bekker, Peter Johnson, and Hilary Johnson. 1997. Helping and hindering user involvement — A tale of everyday design. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’97). ACM, New York, NY, 178--185. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. Dennis Wixon. 2003. Evaluating usability methods: Why the current literature fails the practitioner. Interactions 10, 4 (2003), 28--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  99. Tracee Vetting Wolf, Jennifer A. Rode, Jeremy Sussman, and Wendy A. Kellogg. 2006. Dispelling “design” as the black art of CHI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’06), Rebecca Grinter, Thomas Rodden, Paul Aoki, Ed Cutrell, Robin Jeffries, and Gary Olson (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, 521--530. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  100. Ludwig Wittgenstein. 2009. Philosophical Investigations, P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte (Eds.). Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Steve Woolgar. 1990. Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review 38, 1 (1990), 58--99.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  102. Alan Woolrych, Kasper Hornbæk, Erik Frøjær, and Gilbert Cockton. 2011. Ingredients and meals rather than recipes: A proposal for research that does not treat usability evaluation methods as indivisible wholes. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 27, 10 (2011), 940--970.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. How UX Practitioners Produce Findings in Usability Testing

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
        ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction  Volume 26, Issue 1
        February 2019
        178 pages
        ISSN:1073-0516
        EISSN:1557-7325
        DOI:10.1145/3310282
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 30 January 2019
        • Revised: 1 November 2018
        • Accepted: 1 November 2018
        • Received: 1 May 2018
        Published in tochi Volume 26, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format