Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/18035
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBorsci, S-
dc.contributor.authorFederici, S-
dc.contributor.authorMalizia, A-
dc.contributor.authorDe Filippis, ML-
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-09T15:08:54Z-
dc.date.available2019-05-04-
dc.date.available2019-05-09T15:08:54Z-
dc.date.issued2018-11-02-
dc.identifier.citationBehaviour and Information Technology, 2019, 38 (5), pp. 519 - 532en_US
dc.identifier.issn0144-929X-
dc.identifier.issnhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1541255-
dc.identifier.issn1362-3001-
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/18035-
dc.description.abstractA 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.en_US
dc.format.extent519 - 532-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherTaylor & Francisen_US
dc.subjectHuman–machine interfaceen_US
dc.subjectInteraction designen_US
dc.subjectISO 9241- 11en_US
dc.subjectUsabilityen_US
dc.subjectUsability factorsen_US
dc.subjectUsability testingen_US
dc.titleShaking the usability tree: why usability is not a dead end, and a constructive way forwarden_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1541255-
dc.relation.isPartOfBehaviour and Information Technology-
pubs.issue5-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
pubs.volume38-
dc.identifier.eissn1362-3001-
Appears in Collections:Dept of Computer Science Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdf1.93 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.