7

Usability of Interfaces
Mário Simões-Marques1 and Isabel L. Nunes2
1Portuguese Navy,
2Centre
of Technologies and Systems,
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa,
Portugal

1. Introduction
In recent years human society evolved from the “industrial society age” and transitioned
into the “knowledge society age”. This means that knowledge media support migrated from
“pen and paper” to computer-based Information Systems.
This evolution introduced some technological, organizational, and methodological changes
affecting the demand, workload and stress over the workers, many times in a negative way.
Due to this fact Ergonomics assumed an increasing importance, as a science/technology that
deals with the problem of adapting the work to the man, namely in terms of usability.
Usability is a quality or characteristic of a product that denotes how easy this product is to
learn and to use (Dillon, 2001); but it is also an ergonomic approach, and a group of
principles and techniques aimed at designing usable and accessible products, based on user-
centred design.
User-centred design is a structured development methodology that focuses on the needs
and characteristics of users, and should be applied from the beginning of the development
process in order to make software applications more useful and easy to use (Averboukh,
2001; Nunes, 2006).
Formally, usability is defined as "the extent to which a product can be used by specified users
to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of
use" (ISO 9241 - Part 11) (ISO 9241, 1998). Therefore usability is a relative concept, which is
dependent on several factors. It applies equally both to hardware and software design.
Adequate usability is important because it is a characteristic of product quality that leads to
improving product acceptability, increasing user satisfaction, improving product reliability
and it is also financially beneficial to companies. Such benefit can be seen from two points of
view, one related with workers’ productivity (less training time and faster task completion),
and the other with product sells (products are easier to sell and market themselves, when
users had positive experiences) (Nunes, 2006).
A product designed with the user psychological and physiological characteristics in mind, is
more efficient to use (less time to accomplish a particular task), easier to learn (operations
can be learned by observing the object), and more satisfying to use (Nielsen, 1993).

www.intechopen.com
156
Ergonomics – A Systems Approach

Usability covers a broad spectrum of aspects regarding a product. Goud (Gould, 1995)
argues that, despite several of these aspects are least discussed in literature, usability of
components include components as System performance, System functions, User interface,
Reading materials, Language translation, Outreach program, Ability for costumers to
modify and extend, Installation, Field maintenance and serviceability, Advertising or
Support-group users. However, some authors see this broad spectrum of issues as a step
beyond usability, which is designated as User Experience Design. This theme is addressed
in another chapter of the present book. The present chapter addresses usability in a
traditional way, the one that relates mainly with the usability of interfaces, including aspects
of system performance and system functions.
Literature describes a number of methodologies and tools that contribute to ensure the
usability of a product considering, namely, the phase of development in which they are
applied, the amount of resources they require and how they are applied (e.g., synthesized in
(Usability Partners, 2011)). Most of these tools or methods are dedicated to a specific phase
of project development (design phase, preliminary design and prototyping phase, and test
and evaluation phase), some are applied in two different phases, and very few are
appropriate to be applied in the three phases. In this chapter we will discuss with some
detail the test and evaluation phase considering different methods, such as, analytic and
heuristic evaluations, and SUMI.
A quite new challenge in terms of usability is the context of use of applications that exploit
new forms of interfacing with the product, such as the use of touch and multitouch
interfaces. The body of knowledge available is still limited, nevertheless, there is a vast
literature on guidelines and good practices for generic usability, which can also be adapted
to the context of touch and multitouch interfaces (e.g., (Microsoft, 2009), (MSDN, 2011),
(HHS, 2006), (Largillier et al., 2010), (Meador et al., 2010), (Kreitzberg & Little, 2009), (Capra,
2006)).
The present chapter presents an overview of the general principles to observe when a user-
centred design is adopted, provides a summary of methods and tools that are available to
support the design and evaluation of products with good usability, offers examples of
guidelines and good practices that can be adopted.

2. Usability and interfaces – Basic principles and heuristics

In some countries usability is a legal obligation. For instance, in European Union according
to the Council Directive, 90/270/EEC, of 29 May, on the minimum safety and health
requirements for work with display screen equipment, when designing, selecting,
commissioning and modifying software the employer shall take into account the following
principles:



The software must be suitable for the task;
The software must be easy to use and adaptable to the operator’s level of knowledge or


experience;


Systems should provide users with information on its operation;
Systems must display information in a format and at a pace adapted to users;

www.intechopen.com
 157
Usability of Interfaces

 The principles of software ergonomics must be applied, in particular to human data

processing.
Therefore to meet these requirements the software development should be accompanied by
an evaluation of its usability.
In simple terms, the usability of a system can be seen as the ease with which the system is
used by its users, i.e., with the characteristic of being easy to use, or as is often said, to be
“user friendly”.
Therefore, usability is a feature of interaction between the user and the system. Usability
evaluation can be based on a set of attributes, such as, operator performance (completing a
task with reduced turnaround times and low error rates), satisfaction or ease of learning.
Usability can also be seen as synonymous of product quality, namely of software quality.
Usability is a critical aspect to consider in the development cycle of applications which
requires a user-centred design and carrying out usability testing. Such tests cannot ignore
the context of use of the software, which is essential to conduct usability studies.
When human-machine interfaces are built taking into account usability criteria, interfaces
are capable of allowing an intuitive, efficient, memorable, effective and enjoyable
interaction. As Nielsen refers these characteristics influence systems’ acceptability by users
(Nielsen, 1993). Figure 1 schematically represents the relationship of these particular
characteristics with others that influence system usability.

Fig. 1. A Model of the Attributes of System Acceptability (Nielsen, 1993).

www.intechopen.com
158
Ergonomics – A Systems Approach

Therefore, because of their influence in the usability of a system, it is important to define the
concepts inherent to this set of characteristics (Nielsen, 1993):
 Ease to learn - the system must be intuitive, i.e. easy to use, allowing even an


inexperienced user to be able to work with it satisfactorily;
Efficiency of use - the system must have an efficient performance, allowing high
productivity, i.e., the resources spent to achieve the goals with accuracy and


completeness should be minimal;
Memorability - the use of the system must be easy to remember, even after a period of


interregnum;
Errors frequency - the accuracy and completeness with which users achieve specific
objectives. It is a measure of usage, i.e. how well a user can perform his task (e.g. set of


actions, physical or cognitive skills necessary to achieve an objective);
Satisfaction - the attitude of the user towards the system (i.e., desirably a positive
attitude and lack of discomfort). Ultimately measures the degree to which each user
enjoys interacting with the system.
According to Jordan (1998), when designing a product to achieve an appropriate usability
developers should adopted the following 10 principles:
1. Consistency - similar tasks are performed in the same way;
2. Compatibility - the method of operation is compatible with the expectations of users,
based on their knowledge of other types of products and the "outside world";
3. Consideration of user resources - the operation method takes into account the demands
imposed to the resources of users during the interaction;
4. Feedback - actions taken by the user are recognized and a meaningful indication of the
results of such activities is given;
5. Error Prevention and Recovery - designing a product so that the user likely to err is
minimized and that, if errors occur, there may be a quick and easy recovery;
6. User Control - user control over the actions performed by the product and the state in
which the product is are maximized;
7. Visual Clarity - the information displayed can be read quickly and easily without
causing confusion;
8. Prioritization of Functionality and Information - the most important functionality and
information are easily accessible by users;
9. Appropriate Transfer of Technology - appropriate use of technology developed
elsewhere in order to improve the usability of the product;
10. Explicitness - offer tips on product functionality and operation method.
The design has also to consider the finite capability of humans to process information, to
take decisions, and to act accordingly. These human characteristics have been thoroughly
studied in the last decades, considering the Human Computer Interaction. Researchers that
became a reference are, for instance, Hick (1952), Fitts (1954), or Miller (1956).
William Hick was a pioneer of experimental psychology and ergonomics. One of his most
notorious researches was focused on the time a person takes to make a decision as a result of
the possible alternatives, considering the cognitive information capacity, which was
expressed as formula known as the Hick’s Law (Hick, 1952).

www.intechopen.com
 159
Usability of Interfaces

Paul Fitts was a psychologist and a pioneer in human factors, which developed a
mathematical model of human motion, known as Fitt’s Law, based on rapid aimed
movements (Fitts, 1954). This model is used, in the realm of ergonomics and human-
computer interaction, to predict the time required to rapidly move to a target area, for
instance to point with a hand or a finger, or with a pointing device in a computer interface.
George Miller was a cognitive psychologist that studied the average capacity of the human
working memory to hold information. His studies concluded the number of objects an
average person can hold is 7 ± 2 (Miller, 1956). This is known as the Miller’s Law or the
"magical number 7". One relevant consequence of this finding relates with the ability of
humans to evaluate and judge alternatives, which is limited to 4 to 8 alternatives.
Accommodating all these research contributions in a set simple of design principles is
problematic; therefore a different approach is the definition of heuristics for the assessment
of the interfaces usability. An example of such approach is the work of (Gerhardt-Powals,
1996) that developed a set of heuristics to improve performance in the use of computers,
which includes the following rules:
 Automate unwanted load:
- Free cognitive resources for high-level tasks;


- Eliminate mental calculations, estimations, comparisons, and unnecessary thinking.
Reduce uncertainty:


- Display data in a clear and obvious format.
Condense the data:
- Reduce the cognitive load, low-level aggregated data turning them into high-level


information.
Present new information with meaningful ways to support their interpretation:
- Use a familiar framework, making it easier to absorb;


- Use day-to-day terms, metaphors, etc..
Use names that are conceptually related to functions:
- Context-dependent;
- Trying to improve recall and recognition;


- Grouping data consistently significantly reduces the search time.
Limit data-oriented tasks:
- Reduce time spent in acquiring raw data.


- Make the appropriate use of colour and graphics.


Include only information on the screens that the user needs at any given time.


Provide multiple coding of data, where appropriate.
Practice a judicious redundancy.
A software program developed taking into account usability principles offers advantages, as
decreased time to perform a task; reduced number of errors; reduced learning time, and
improved satisfaction of system’s users.

3. Reference standards on Usability

The international standard reference on the Usability is ISO 9241 - Part 11 from the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO 9241, 1998). ISO 9241-11 emphasizes the

www.intechopen.com
160
Ergonomics – A Systems Approach

usability of computers is dependent on the context of use, i.e., that the level of usability
achieved depends on the specific circumstances in which the product is used. The context of
use includes users, tasks, equipment (hardware, software and materials) and the physical
and social environment, since all these factors can influence the usability of a product within
a working system. Measures of performance and user satisfaction are used to evaluate the
work system as a whole, and when the focus of interest is a product, these measures provide
information about the usability of the product in the particular context of use provided by
the work system. The performance and user satisfaction can also be used to measure the
effect of changes in other components of the work system. Figure 3 shows schematically the
set of factors to consider in evaluating the usability of a system, within the framework of
ISO 9241-11.
ISO/IEC FDIS 9126-1 (ISO/IEC9126-1, 2000) follows the same general line. This standard for
software quality that suggests a model based on quality attributes, divided into six main
features, and the usability of them. According to this standard, usability is "the capability of
the software product to be understood, learned, used and attractive to the user, when used
under specified conditions".
This definition reinforces the idea that a product has no intrinsic usability, only a capability
to be used under specified conditions (in a particular context). Usability depends on who are
the users, what are their goals and where the users perform their tasks. Therefore, to analyze
the usability of a software product, it is necessary to identify who are the users and what are
its characteristics; what are the needs of users and what are their tasks; and what is the
environmental context (social, organizational and physical).

Fig. 2. Usability framework, according to ISO 9241-11 (ISO 9241, 1998).

Generally, the usability is evaluated based on the following dimensions (ISO 9241, 1998):
 Effectiveness (i.e., accuracy and completeness with which users achieve specified goals)
as measured by success/failure that presents a user in the use of a product (e.g.,% of
tasks completed, error rate or ratio hits /failures);

www.intechopen.com
 161
Usability of Interfaces

 Efficiency (i.e., resources expended in relation to the accuracy and completeness with
which users achieve goals) as, for example, the time to complete the task, workload


(physical and mental), deviations from the critical path or error rate;
Satisfaction (i.e., freedom from discomfort and positive attitudes while using the
product), as based on subjective judgments, e.g. ease of use (absolute or relative),
usefulness of features, or like/dislike the product.

4. User-centred design
One approach to the use of the concept of software usability is the user-centred design. The
user-centred design is a structured development methodology that focuses on the needs and
characteristics of users, should be applied from the beginning of the development process in
order to produce applications software more useful and easier to use (Averboukh, 2001);
(Nunes, 2006).
According to ISO 13407 (ISO 13407, 1999), there are four key activities related to user-
centred design, which should be planned and implemented in order to incorporate the
requirements of usability in the process of software development (see Figure 3). The
activities aim to:


Understand and specify context of use;


Specify the user and organizational requirements;


Produce design solutions;
Evaluate design against requirements.
These activities are performed iteratively, with the cycle being repeated until the usability
goals have been achieved.

Fig. 3. Activities of user-centred design, adapted from ISO 13407 (ISO 13407, 1999).

www.intechopen.com
162
Ergonomics – A Systems Approach

According to (Howarth et al., 2009), the Usability Engineering process, which aims to
implement the activities mentioned above regarding usability evaluation, includes (Figure 4):


Identify and record critical usability data;


Data analysis;
Preparing the report of the evaluation results.

Fig. 4. Usability Evaluation, adapted from (Howarth et al., 2009).

In the section below that discusses guidelines and best practices are some recommendations
on testing procedures, and reporting on the description of usability problems.

5. Methodologies and tools to support user-centred design

Usability analysis can occur at various stages of the development of a product (i.e., design,
development and after implementation), although, hopefully, this analysis must be present
at all stages, and should be iterative, allowing a continuous evolution of product quality.
There are several possible approaches to evaluate the usability, based, for example, on
observation of users, application of questionnaires to users or analytical methods. The
observation can be made in laboratory, but since the context of use is very important in
usability studies, performing the study in the working environment where the system is
intended to be used should be considered.
The assessment should draw on a representative sample of users for whom the system was
designed.
Table 1 shows and describes a set of methodologies and tools for evaluating the usability
considering, namely the phase(s) of development to which they apply, the amount of
resources they require and how they are applied (based on (Usability Partners, 2011)). In

www.intechopen.com
 163
Usability of Interfaces

this source, which offers a more complete list of tools or methods (in a total of 38
alternatives) it is possible to notice that most of the tools/methods are dedicated to a
specific phase of project development (8 for the design phase, 10 for the preliminary
design and prototyping, and 8 for the test phase and evaluation), 11 methods can be
applied in two different phases, and only one (group discussion) is suitable to be applied
in three phases.
Considering the early design and prototyping phase, the introduction of software
development packages containing strong tools for developing the user interfaces, made
easier and faster the prototyping of the graphical user interface (GUI) and of the basic
interaction functionalities, turning almost obsolete other prototyping methods such as the
paper- or video-based prototyping. Naturally, having real GUI prototypes helps the task of
evaluating the usability of the products.
It should also be considered that there are many commercial support tools available to aid
Usability Engineering activities. In most cases they are platforms for processing
observational records. Some examples are:

 Morae, from TechSmith Corporation's (http://www.techsmith.com/morae.asp);

 Logger Egg, from Egg Studios LLC (http://www.ovostudios.com/ovologger.asp);
 Spectator, from BIOBSERVE GmbH (http://www.biobserve.com/products/
spectator/index.html);
 Remote Usability Tester, from Pidoco (https://pidoco.com/en/benefits/products/
remote-usability-tester).

Stage in
Resources required
(Low, Med., High)

development
Context & user

Early design &

requirements

prototyping

Purpose/
evaluation

Tool/Method Summary Description

Test and

Strength

This is a group creativity technique (Osborn, 1953) by

which a group of experts meet seeking to spontaneously
Produce
Brainstorming X L generate new ideas by freeing the mind to accept any idea
design ideas
that is suggested. At the end a set of good ideas is
generated.
Cognitive workload (mental effort) can be measured
Assesses if subjectively using questionnaires which ask users how
Cognitive
X L mental effort difficult they find performing a specific task. Examples of
workload
is acceptable questionnaires are Subjective Mental Effort Questionnaire
(Zijlstra, 1993) and the Task Load Index (NASA, 1986).
Cognitive walkthrough (Wharton et al., 1994) is a usability
Checks
inspection method whose objective is to identify usability
Cognitive structure and
X X M problems, focusing on how easy it is for new users to
walkthrough flow against
accomplish pre designed tasks. The reactions/comments
user goals
of the users as the walkthrough proceeds are recorded.

Table 1. Examples of methods & tools for user-centered design, adapted from (Usability
Partners, 2011).

www.intechopen.com
164
Ergonomics – A Systems Approach

Stage in

Resources required
(Low, Med., High)
development

Context & user

Early design &

requirements

prototyping
Purpose/

evaluation
Tool/Method Summary Description

Test and
Strength

Context of use analysis (Thomas & Bevan, 1996) is a

technique used for eliciting detailed information on user,
Specifies user, tasks and environment. This information is collected
Context of use tasks and during meetings of product stakeholders, which should
X L
analysis environment occur early in the product lifecycle. The results should
characteristics being continually updated and used for reference.
Questionnaires can be used to evaluate current systems as
an input or baseline for development of new systems.
Analyzes Eye-tracking is a procedure for measuring either the point
how users where we are looking or the motion of an eye relative to
Eye-tracking X H look at parts the head, using an eye tracker (Nielsen & Pernice, 2009).
of an This method can be used to detect what users look at when
interface interacting with an interface.
Heuristic evaluation is a usability inspection method that
helps to identify usability problems. It involves users, at
Provides least three, looking at an interface and judging its
Heuristic feedback on compliance with recognized usability
X X L
evaluation user principles/guidelines (the "heuristics").
interfaces The most well know heuristics are Nielsen Heuristics
(Nielsen, 1994). Often the users are asked to rank the
identified usability problems in terms of severity.
Defines what a user is required to do (actions and/or
cognitive processes) to achieve a task. A detailed task
Analyses analysis can be conducted to understand a system and the
current user information flow within it. Failure in performing this
Task analysis X M
work in activity increases the potential for costly problems in the
depth develop-ment phase. Once the tasks are defined, the
functionality required to support the tasks can be
accurately specified.
SUMI is a method of measuring software quality from the end
user's point of view (Kirakowski, 1994). Is based on a
psychometric questionnaire (with 50 statements) designed to
Provides an
SUMI - collect subjective feedback from users. The SUMI data is
objective way
Software analysed by a program called SUMISCO. The raw question
of assessing
Usability X L data is coded, combined, and transformed into a Global
user
Measurement subscale, and five additional subscales: Efficiency, Affect,
satisfaction
Inventory Helpfulness, Controllability, and Learnability. SUMI is
with software
mentioned in the ISO 9241 as a recognised method of testing
user satisfaction. It is translated into several languages, for
instance to Portuguese (Nunes & Kirakowski, 2010).
WAMMI measures user-satisfaction by asking website
users to compare their expectations with what they actually
WAMMI - Provides an
experience on the website. It is based on standarised 20-
Web site objective way
statement questionnaire. This method uses five key scales:
Analysis and X L of assessing
Attractiveness, Controllability, Efficiency, Helpfulness and
Measurement satisfaction
Learnability and an overall Global Usability Score for how
Inventory w/ a web site
well visitors rate the website (http://www.wammi.com/
index.html).

Table 1. (cont.). Examples of methods & tools for user-centered design, adapted from
(Usability Partners, 2011).

www.intechopen.com
 165
Usability of Interfaces

Nowadays new types of interface technology and forms of interaction are gaining
importance, for instance touch and multitouch screens and gestures interaction devices. The
use of touch screens has several potential benefits, usually because they are intuitive, easy to
use and flexible, reducing the need of other input devices (e.g., keyboards, mouse). Touch
screens are particularly adequate for devices that require high mobility and low data entry
and precision of operation. This is typically the case of tablets and smartphones. Other
examples of applications where touch screens are gaining terrain are information kiosks or
checkout terminal.
However, designing for touchscreens presents some usability challenges. For instance,
designers must take into account issues such as: fingers/hand/arm can hide the screen, the
lack of tactile feedback, the parallax error resulting from the angle of view or the display
may be overshadowed by dirt, stains or damage on the screen or on the protective film.
To the best of our knowledge, currently there is no usability assessment methodologies
specifically developed to this type of interfaces. This fact has not prevented the usability
studies multitouch devices, such as the studies by Budiu and Nielsen (Budiu & Nielsen,
2011) on the usability of applications iPad. These studies were based on methods commonly
applied to other types of screens. Also (Heo et al., 2009) analyzing the question of usability
of mobile phones covers a range of issues that are relevant also for other emerging interfaces
such as touch and multitouch screens.

(Microsoft, 2009)

(Waloszek, 2000)
Reference
Reynolds, 2008)

(Sjöberg, 2006)
(MSDN, 2011)
(Haywood &

(HHS, 2006)

(Lea, 2011)

Guidelines

Touch X X X X X X
Multitouch X X X
Multi-users X
Mobile Devices X
Web Design X
Controls Usage X X X X X X
Controls Dimensions X X X X X X
Controls layout and spacing X X X X
Interaction X X X X X
Touch gestures X X X X
Error Tolerance X X
Screen layout X X X X X
Feedback X X X X
Biomechanical considerations X X
Design process & Usability
X
Testing
Table 2. Summary of references containing Guidelines applicable to touch and multitouch
devices.

www.intechopen.com
166
Ergonomics – A Systems Approach

6. Guidelines and good practices

As previously mentioned, the use of touch devices, and particularly multitouch is recent and
not yet widely adopted by most users. Despite the touch devices are common in kiosks or cash
registers, the set of applications used and the requirements that have to obey is reduced.
Therefore, the body of references that discuss generic usability for multitouch devices and
present guidelines and best practices for the design of applications is still not significant.
Despite this limitation, some references applicable to touch and multitouch devices that offer
recommendations on basic features for these interfaces is presented in Table 2. The type of
references differs significantly, as well as their emphasis on different types of interfaces. For
instance, Microsoft (2009) and MSDN (2011) focus on touch applications. (HHS, 2006) is not
specifically dedicated to touch interfaces, is a compilation of about 500 general guidelines to
consider in developing applications, including the ones devoted to Web environments.
In addition to these references, others such as (Largillier et al., 2010) and (Meador et al.,
2010), discuss the evaluation of characteristics of multitouch devices but are not exclusively
focused on the guidelines perspective.
Tables 3 and 4 offer other elements that might be relevant to specific aspect of usability
evaluation, namely related with usability testing and usability problem reporting as
suggested by (Kreitzberg & Little, 2009) and (Capra, 2006).

About the Tests About Reporting Process

1. Decide what to test & develop test Reports on Usability testing should cover:
objectives; 1. The objectives of the test and an
2. Decide the type of participant in the executive summary;
tests and how many people to recruit; 2. As participants were recruited;
3. Decide on the tasks and to use an 3. Description of the tasks of the project
experimental design and produce a and the test facility used;
script; 4. The main problems found and
4. Decide if video recordings are made. If recommendations to address them;
so, consider the need for a consent 5. Small problems discovered and
form; recommendations to address them;
5. Consider a questionnaire pre- and 6. Direct quotations of participants;
post-test and an introduction and 7. Recommendations and next steps.
debriefing interview;
6. Recruit & schedule participants'
involvement;
7. Test the script, and materials to make
sure that the testing process will run
smoothly;
8. Perform the Testing;
9. Analyze results and prepare the report
and recommendations.

Table 3. Recommendations for testing Usability, adapted from (Kreitzberg & Little, 2009).

www.intechopen.com
 167
Usability of Interfaces

 Define the terms used, and be concrete, not

vague;
 Be practical and not theoretical;
 Use descriptions of what people do not like to
experts in HCI;
 Be clear and precise, avoiding  In the description avoid as details that no one
long words and jargon: wants to read;
 Describe the impact and severity of the
problem;
 Describe how the task affects the user;
 Describe how often the problem occurs, and
the components that are affected.

 State how many users experienced the

problem and how often;


Include objective data, both quantitative and
Base the findings on data qualitative, such as the number of times a task
was attempted or the time spent on task;
 Provide traceability of the problem in the
observed data.



Describe the main usability issue involved in
the problem;

Describe the cause of the
problem Avoid assumptions about the cause of the
problem or the thoughts of the user.

 Include background information about the

user and the task;


Include examples, such as user navigation
Describe the actions the user flow through the system, user's subjective
observed reactions, screenshots, and success / failure in
performing the tasks;
 State whether the problem was user reported
or experimenter observed.

 Offer alternatives and tradeoffs;



Be specific enough so as to help but without
Describe a solution to the
imposing a solution;

problem
Complementary to the principles of design
for usability.

Table 4. Guidelines to describe Usability problems, adapted from (Capra, 2006).

www.intechopen.com
168
Ergonomics – A Systems Approach

7. Conclusions
Usability is a critical aspect to consider in the development cycle of software applications,
and for this purpose, user-centred design and usability testing must be conducted. The
design and testing cannot ignore the context of use of software, whose knowledge is
essential.
Usability of a system is characterized by its intuitiveness, efficiency, effectiveness,
memorization and satisfaction. Good usability allows decreasing the time to perform tasks,
reducing errors, reducing learning time and improving system users’ satisfaction.
Usability, process design and development of software have necessarily to be framed by the
characteristics of users, tasks to perform and environmental context (social, organizational
and physical) for which the product is intended to.
The development of a product must consider the 10 basic usability principles: consistency,
compatibility, consideration by the resources of the user, feedback, error prevention and
error recovery, user control, clarity of vision, prioritization of functionality and information,
appropriate technology transfer, and clarity.
There is a wide range of tools and methodologies for identifying and evaluating the
usability of a system, thus contributing directly or indirectly, for its improvement. The
selection of these tools and methodologies depends on the objective to achieve, which
usually is related to the development phase the system is in. Some approaches are better
suited to the design stage (e.g., analysis of context of use and task analysis), while others are
more suited to early stages of development and prototyping (e.g., brainstorming,
prototyping) and others for the evaluation and testing (e.g., analytical and heuristic
evaluations, SUMI).
Finally, in developing a solution one has to consider the guidelines and best practices that
are relevant, taking into account the specific context. There is a vast literature on generic
guidelines for usability. As mentioned, the body of reference for touch and multi-touch
interfaces is very limited, since this is a quite new type of user interface. Nevertheless there
is a significant number of sources and formal or industrial standards that may be adopted.

8. Acknowledgments
The work described in this paper was developed under the project BrainMap, a partnership
between Viatecla, University of Évora and Centre of Technologies and Systems of Uninova,
supported by the QREN - Programa Operacional de Lisboa.

9. References
Averboukh, E. A. (2001). Quality of Life and Usability Engineering. In: International
Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, W. Karwowski (Ed.), pp. 1317-1321,
Taylor & Francis
Budiu, R., Nielsen, J. (2011). Usability of iPad Apps and Websites. First Research Findings.
Available at http://www.nngroup.com/reports/mobile/ipad/.Nielsen Norman
Group

www.intechopen.com
 169
Usability of Interfaces

Capra, M. (2006). Usability Problem Description and the Evaluator Effect in Usability
Testing. Unpublished Dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
Dillon, A. (2001). Evaluation of Software Usability. In: International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics
and Human Factors, W. Karwowski (Ed), pp. 1110-1112, Taylor & Francis
Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the
amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 47, No 6, pp. 381-
391
Gerhardt-Powals, J. (1996). Cognitive engineering principles for enhancing human -
computer performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 8,
No 2, pp. 189–211
Gould, J. D. (1995). How to Design Usable Systems (Excerpt). In: Readings in Human-
Computer Interaction: Toward the Year 2000, R. M. Baecker, J. Grudin, W. A. S. Buxton
and S. Greenberg (Ed), pp. 93-121, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
Haywood, A., Reynolds, R. (2008). Usability guidelines. Touchscreens. Available at
http://experiencelab.typepad.com/files/design-guidelines-touchscreens-
1.pdf.Serco, ExperienceLab
Heo, J., Ham, D.-H., Park, S., Song, C., Yoon, W. C. (2009). A framework for evaluating the
usability of mobile phones based on multi-level, hierarchical model of usability
factors. Interacting with Computers, Vol. 21, pp. 263–275
HHS (2006). Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines. Available at:
http://usability.gov/guidelines/guidelines_book.pdf. .U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services’ (HHS)
Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 11-26
Howarth, J., Smith-Jackson, T. , Hartson, R. (2009). Supporting novice usability practitioners
with usability engineering tools. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 67, No 6, pp.
533-549
ISO 9241. (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) -
Part 11: Guidance on Usability. International Organization for Standardization
ISO 13407. (1999). Human-centred design processes for interactive systems. International
Organization for Standardization
ISO/IEC9126-1. (2000). ISO/IEC TR 9126- 1. Software engineering - Product quality - Part 1:
Quality model. International Organization for Standardization
Jordan, P. (1998). An Introduction to Usability, Taylor & Francis
Kirakowski, J. (1994). The Use of Questionnaire Methods for Usability Assessment.
Kreitzberg, C. B. , Little, A. (2009). Usability in Practice. Usability Testing. Available at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd920305.aspx. MSDN Magazine, Jul
Largillier, G., Joguet, P., Recoquillon, C., Auriel, P., Balley, A., Meador, J., Olivier, J.,
Chastan, G. (2010). Specifying and Characterizing Tactile Performances for
Multitouch Panels: Toward a User-Centric Metrology. Available at
http://www.leavcom.com/stantum_092310.php. Leavitt Communications.
Lea, J. (2011). Unity Gesture UI Guidelines. Available at:
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dfkkjjcj_1482g457bcc7.
Meador, J., Auriel, P., Chastan, G. (2010). How to Evaluate Multitouch While Standing in a
Store. Available at

www.intechopen.com
170
Ergonomics – A Systems Approach

http://www.stantum.com/medias/whitepapers/How_to_Evaluate_Multi-
Touch_While_Standing_in_a_Store.pdf. Stantum.
Microsoft. (2009). User Experience Guidelines. User Interaction and Design Guidelines for
Creating Microsoft Surface Applications. Available at
http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/8/E/A8ED7036-10DC-48AB-9FE8-
D031D9E28BBB/Microsoft Surface User Experience Guidelines.pdf
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magic number seven, plus or minus seven. Psychological Review, Vol.
63, No 2, pp. 81-97
MSDN (2011). Touch. Available at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc872774.aspx. Microsoft
NASA (1986). Collecting NASA Workload Ratings: A Paper-and-Pencil Package. NASA-Ames
Research Center, Human Performance Group Moffet Field, CA, NASA-Ames Research
Center, Moffet Field, CA.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering, Academic Press,
Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In: Usability Inspection Methods, J. Nielsen and R. L.
Mack (Ed), John Wiley & SonsNew York
Nielsen, J., Pernice, K. (2009). Eyetracking Web Usability, New Riders Press ISBN-10: 0-321-
49836-4
Nunes, I. L. (2006). Ergonomics & Usability - key factors in knowledge society. Enterprise and
Work Innovation Studies, Vol. 2, pp. 87-94
Nunes, I. L., Kirakowski, J. (2010). Usabilidade de interfaces – versão Portuguesa do
Software Usability Measurement Inventory (SUMI) [Interfaces Usability –
Portuguese version of the Software Usability Measurement Inventory (SUMI)].
Proceedings of Occupational Safety and Hygiene (SHO10), 978-972-99504-6-9,
Guimarães - Portugal
Osborn, A. (1953). Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving.
New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, ISBN 978-0-02-389520-3, New York
Sjöberg, S. (2006). A Touch Screen Interface for Point-Of-Sale Applications in Retail Stores.
Available at:
http://www8.cs.umu.se/education/ examina/Rapporter/ SamuelSjoberg.pdf.MSc
Thesis. Umea University, Sweden.
Thomas, C. & Bevan, N. (1996). Usability Context Analysis: A practical guide, Serco Usability
Services
Usability Partners. (2011). Methods. Selecting tools and methods. Available at:
http://www.usabilitypartners.se/about-usability/methods.
Waloszek, G. (2000). Interaction Design Guide for Touchscreen Applications. Available at:
http://www.sapdesignguild.org/resources/tsdesigngl/TSDesignGL.pdf.SAP
Design Guild Website
Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C., Polson, P. (1994). The cognitive walkthrough method: a
practitioner's guide. In: Usability Inspection Methods, J. Nielsen and R. L. Mack (Ed),
pp. 105-140, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0-471-01877-5
Zijlstra, F. R. H. (1993). Efficiency in Work Behaviour: a Design Approach for Modern Tools. Delft,
Delft University Press, Delft

www.intechopen.com
 Ergonomics - A Systems Approach
Edited by Dr. Isabel L. Nunes

ISBN 978-953-51-0601-2
Hard cover, 232 pages
Publisher InTech
Published online 25, April, 2012
Published in print edition April, 2012

This book covers multiple topics of Ergonomics following a systems approach, analysing the relationships
between workers and their work environment from different but complementary standpoints. The chapters
focused on Physical Ergonomics address the topics upper and lower limbs as well as low back musculoskeletal
disorders and some methodologies and tools that can be used to tackle them. The organizational aspects of
work are the subject of a chapter that discusses how dynamic, flexible and reconfigurable assembly systems
can adequately respond to changes in the market. The chapters focused on Human-Computer Interaction
discuss the topics of Usability, User-Centred Design and User Experience Design presenting framework
concepts for the usability engineering life cycle aiming to improve the user-system interaction, for instance of
automated control systems. Cognitive Ergonomics is addressed in the book discussing the critical thinking
skills and how people engage in cognitive work.

How to reference
In order to correctly reference this scholarly work, feel free to copy and paste the following:

Mário Simões-Marques and Isabel L. Nunes (2012). Usability of Interfaces, Ergonomics - A Systems
Approach, Dr. Isabel L. Nunes (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0601-2, InTech, Available from:
http://www.intechopen.com/books/ergonomics-a-systems-approach/usability-of-interfaces

InTech Europe InTech China

University Campus STeP Ri Unit 405, Office Block, Hotel Equatorial Shanghai
Slavka Krautzeka 83/A No.65, Yan An Road (West), Shanghai, 200040, China
51000 Rijeka, Croatia
Phone: +385 (51) 770 447 Phone: +86-21-62489820
Fax: +385 (51) 686 166 Fax: +86-21-62489821
www.intechopen.com