사용성(Usability)에 대한 준거
| (Shneiderman et al., 2009) | learnability, efficiency, memorability, number of errors, user satisfaction |
| (International Organization for Standardization, 1996) | suitability for the task, controllability, suitability for individualization, error tolerance, suitability for learning, conformity with user expectations, and self-descriptiveness |
| (Holcomb & Tharp, 1991) | functional, user control, natural and intuitive, feedback, user help, consistent, and minimal memorization; |
| (Ravden & Johnson, 1989) | appropriate functionality, flexibility and control, error prevention and correction, compatibility, information feedback, user guidance and support, consistency, visual clarity, and explicitness; |
| (Scapin, 1990) | user explicit control, adaptability, error management, compatibility, guidance, consistency, user workload, and significance of codes. |
| (Park & Hwan Lim, 1999) | Suitability for the task (appropriate functionality) The system should meet the needs and requirements of users when carrying out tasks. User Control (controllability, user explicit control) The system should be designed to let users control the interface as much as possible. Flexibility (suitability for individualization, adaptability) The interface should be sufficiently flexible in structure, in the way information is presented and in terms of what the user can do, to suit the needs and requirements of all users. Error Management (error tolerance, error prevention and correction) The system should be designed to minimize the possibility of user errors, with built-in facilities for detecting and handling those which do occur. Compatibility (conformity with user expectations, natural and intuitive) The way the system looks and works should be compatible with user conventions and expectations. Self-descriptiveness (information feedback, user guidance and support) Information feedback, guidance and support should be provided to help the user understand and use the system. Consistency (consistency in location, format, syntax, and naming) The way the system looks and works should be consistent at all times. User workload (minimal memorization, brevity, mental load) The system should be designed to keep the user’s mental load (particularly memory load) within acceptable limits and to increase the speed of interaction by increasing brevity. |
| (Kalawsky, 1999) | Part 1 Functionality The interface should be able to provide the level of functionality (control) the user expects in order to complete a task Part 2 User input The user should be able to interact with and control the virtual environment in a natural manner Part 3 System output (Display) Information displayed to the user should be understood, unambiguous and necessary to complete the task Part 4 User guidance and help The user should be able to request help via online assistance Part 5 Consistency The operation of a VR system should be consistent with the user’s understanding and convention Part 6 Flexibility The VR system should not constrain the user who should be able to interact with the system in a flexible manner Part 7 Simulation fidelity In order to be useful a VR system needs an underlying model or simulation to control the virtual environment. Part 8 Error correction/handling and robustness All computer systems should provide error correction and recovery before a permanent change is made Part 9 Sense of immersion/Presence A VR system should allow a user to feel part of (or immersed in) a virtual environment Part 10 Overall system usability Overall a VR system should be intuitive and easy to use |
| (Nassar, 2012) review | Consistency, user control, ease of learning, flexibility, error management, reduction of excess, visibility of system status |
| (Frøkjær et al., 2000) | Effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction |
Frøkjær, E., Hertzum, M., & Hornbæk, K. (2000). Measuring usability: Are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1145/332040.332455
Holcomb, R., & Tharp, A. L. (1991). What users say about software usability. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 3(1), 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447319109525996
International Organization for Standardization. (1996). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)—Part 10: Dialogue principles (ISO Standard No. 9241-10:1996). https://www.iso.org/standard/16882.html
Kalawsky, R. S. (1999). VRUSE—a computerised diagnostic tool: For usability evaluation of virtual/synthetic environment systems. Applied Ergonomics, 30(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(98)00047-7
Nassar, V. (2012). Common criteria for usability review. Work, 41, 1053–1057. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0282-1053
Park, K. S., & Hwan Lim, C. (1999). A structured methodology for comparative evaluation of user interface designs using usability criteria and measures. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 23(5), 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-8141(97)00059-0
Ravden, S., & Johnson, G. (1989). Evaluating usability of human-computer interfaces: A practical method. Halsted Press.
Scapin, D. L. (1990). Organizing human factors knowledge for the evaluation and design of interfaces. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2(3), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447319009525981
Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M., & Jacobs, S. (2009). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction.
