Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:36:09.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Usability Evaluation of Software Tools for Engineering Design

Part of: Design Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Helena Hashemi Farzaneh  and
Lorenz Neuner

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Much of the work in design research focusses on the development of methods and tools to support engineering designers. Many of these tools are nowadays implemented in software. Due to the strongly growing use of computers and smart devices in the last two decades, the expectations of users increased dramatically. In particular users expect good usability, for example little effort for learning to apply the software. Therefore, the usability evaluation of design software tools is crucial. A software tool with bad usability will not be used in industrial practice. Recommendations for usability evaluation of software often stem from the field of Human Computer Interaction. The aim of this paper is to tailor these general approaches to the specific needs of engineering design. In addition, we propose a method to analyse the results of the evaluation and to derive suggestions for improving the design software tool. We apply the usability evaluation method on a use case - the KoMBi software tool for bio-inspired design. The case study provides additional insights with regards to problem, causes and improvement categories.

Keywords

User centred designComputational design methodsEvaluationBio-inspired design / biomimetics
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1303 - 1312
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Blessing, L.T. and Chakrabarti, A. (2009), DRM, a Design Research Methodology, Springer, London.10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A., Sarkar, P., Leelavathamma, B. and Nataraju, B.S. (2005), “A functional representation for aiding biomimetic and artificial inspiration of new ideas”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (AIEDAM), Vol. 19, pp. 113–132.Google Scholar
Card, S.K., Newell, A. and Moran, T.P. (1983), The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction, CRC Press, New York.Google Scholar
Diaper, D. (1989), “Observation for Human-Computer Interaction”, Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 210–237.Google Scholar
Eason, K.D. (1984), “Towards the experimental study of usability”, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 133–143.10.1080/01449298408901744Google Scholar
Gediga, G., Hamborg, K. C. and Düntsch, I. (2002), “Evaluation of software systems”, Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology, Vol. 45 No. 30.Google Scholar
Goel, A., Rugaber, S. and Vattam, S. (2009), “Structure, behavior, and function of complex systems. The structure, behavior, and function modeling language”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 23, pp. 23–35.Google Scholar
Hashemi Farzaneh, H., Helms, K. and Lindemann, U. (2015), “Visual representations as a bridge for engineers and biologists in bio-inspired design collaborations”, In: Weber, C., Husung, S., Cantamessa, M., Cascini, G., Marjanovic, D. and Srinivasan, V. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design, Milan, Milan, 27.–30.07.2015, Design Society, Glasgow, UK, pp. 215–224.Google Scholar
Hix, D. and Hartson, H. R. (1993), Developing User Interfaces: Ensuring Usability Through Product & Process, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
ISO 9241-11. (1998), “Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) - Part 11 Guidance on usability”.Google Scholar
Jokela, T., Iivari, N., Tornberg, V. and Electro, P. (2004), “Using the ISO 9241-11 definition of usability in requirements determination: case studies”, In Proceedings of HCI2004: Design for Life, the 18th British HCI Group Annual Conference, Eds. Dearden, A. and Watts, L., Leeds Metropolitan University, UK.Google Scholar
Kirakowski, J. and Corbett, M. (1993), “SUMI: The software usability measurement inventory”, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 210–212.10.1111/j.1467-8535.1993.tb00076.xGoogle Scholar
Lewis, C. (1982), “Using the “thinking-aloud” method in cognitive interface design”, IBM Research Report RC9265, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center.Google Scholar
Lewis, C., Polson, P. G., Wharton, C. and Rieman, J. (1990), “Testing a walkthrough methodology for theory-based design of walk-up-and-use interfaces”, In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.10.1145/97243.97279Google Scholar
Lenau, T., Keshwani, S., Chakrabarti, A. and Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2015), “Biocards and level of abstraction”, In: Weber, C., Husung, S., Cantamessa, M., Cascini, G., Marjanovic, D. and Srinivasan, V. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design, Milan, Milan, 27.–30.07.2015, Design Society, Glasgow, UK, pp. 177–186.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J. (1993), Usability Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam.10.1016/B978-0-08-052029-2.50007-3Google Scholar
Oppermann, R., Murchner, B., Reitner, H. and Koch, M. (1992), “Software-Ergonomische Evaluation”, Der Leitfaden EVADIS II, de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
Prümper, J. (1999), “Test IT: ISONORM 9241/10”, In: Bullinger, H.J. and Ziegler, J. (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction - Communication, Cooperation and Application Design (pp. 1028–1032). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Sarodnick, F. and Brau, H. (2006), Methoden der Usability Evaluation, Verlag Hans Huber.Google Scholar
Savin-Baden, M. and Major, C.H. (2013), Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Shneiderman, B. (1987), Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, Addison-Wesley, Reading.Google Scholar