PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10929833

Usability testing in 2000 and beyond.

Abstract

Usability testing is a widely used technique to evaluate user performance and acceptance of products and systems. It was introduced in the late 1980s and rose to popularity in the past decade. This paper provides a view of the current status of usability testing as a method and describes how it will be used in the 21st century. Although usability testing may not be the most efficient technique for discovery of usability problems, it is a reliable way to estimate quantitatively users' performance and subjective satisfaction with products. Four major trends in usability testing include: common reporting formats and methods for industry; Internet application and website testing; testing of mobile, handheld devices; and testing in more naturalistic environments such as simulated homes and classrooms. In the 21st century, 'quick and clean' usability testing methods are needed to provide valid and reliable data on how well people use products and systems, and how they like using them.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A M Wichansky. 2000. Usability testing in 2000 and beyond.. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401300409170

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Comparison of review articles published in peer-reviewed and throwaway journals.

CONTEXT: To compare the quality, presentation, readability, and clinical relevance of review articles published in peer-reviewed and "throwaway" journals. METHODS: We reviewed articles that focused on the diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition published between January 1 and December 31, 1998, in the 5 leading peer-reviewed general medical journals and high-circulation throwaway journals. Reviewers independently assessed the methodologic and reporting quality, and evaluated each article's presentation and readability. Clinical relevance was evaluated independently by 6 physicians. RESULTS: Of the 394 articles in our sample, 16 (4.1%) were peer-reviewed systematic reviews, 135 (34.3%) were peer-reviewed nonsystematic reviews, and 243 (61.7%) were nonsystematic reviews published in throwaway journals. The mean (SD) quality scores were highest for peer-reviewed articles (0.94 [0.09] for systematic reviews and 0.30 [0.19] for nonsystematic reviews) compared with throwaway journal articles (0.23 [0.03], F(2,391) = 280.8, P<.001). Throwaway journal articles used more tables (P =.02), figures (P =.01), photographs (P<.001), color (P<.001), and larger font sizes (P<.001) compared with peer-reviewed articles. Readability scores were more often in the college or higher range for peer-reviewed journals compared with the throwaway journal articles (104 [77.0%] vs 156 [64.2%]; P =.01). Peer-reviewed article titles were judged less relevant to clinical practice than throwaway journal article titles (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although lower in methodologic and reporting quality, review articles published in throwaway journals have characteristics that appeal to physician readers.

Consumer Behavior↗