Commentary on "Damaged Merchandise?"
- 1 September 1998
- journal article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Human–Computer Interaction
- Vol. 13 (3) , 263-323
- https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1303_3
Abstract
(1998). Commentary on 'Damaged Merchandise?' Human–Computer Interaction: Vol. 13, Experimental Comparisons of Usability Evaluation Methods, pp. 263-323. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci1303_3Keywords
This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evaluating a multimedia authoring toolJournal of the American Society for Information Science, 1997
- Sample Sizes for Usability Studies: Additional ConsiderationsHuman Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1994
- Toward a deeper comparison of methodsPublished by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) ,1994
- Project Ernestine: Validating a GOMS Analysis for Predicting and Explaining Real-World Task PerformanceHuman–Computer Interaction, 1993
- Estimating the relative usability of two interfacesPublished by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) ,1993
- Refining the Test Phase of Usability Evaluation: How Many Subjects Is Enough?Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1992
- Comparison of empirical testing and walkthrough methods in user interface evaluationPublished by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) ,1992
- Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluationPublished by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) ,1992
- User interface evaluation in the real worldPublished by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) ,1991
- Heuristic evaluation of user interfacesPublished by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) ,1990