However, it is important to note that they must be interpreted and applied based on the context of use of the particular product in question. Parts 2 and 3 of ISO deal with external and internal quality metrics respectively.
Part 4 deals with measurement of quality in use. This part introduces the multi-part standard ISO for the ergonomic requirements for the use of visual display terminals for office tasks and explains some of the basic underlying principles. It provides some guidance on how to use the standard and describes how conformance to parts of ISO should be reported.
This part deals with the design of tasks and jobs involving work with visual display terminals. It provides guidance on how task requirements may be identified and specified within individual organisations and how task requirements can be incorporated into the system design and implementation process.
Note: Coming ISO series standards are superseding this part. This part specifies the ergonomics requirements for display screens which ensure that they can be read comfortably, safely and efficiently to perform office tasks. Although it deals specifically with displays used in offices, it is appropriate to specify it for most applications that require general purpose displays to be used in an office-like environment.
This part specifies the ergonomics design characteristics of an alphanumeric keyboard which may be used comfortably, safely and efficiently to perform office tasks.
This part specifies the ergonomics requirements for a Visual Display Terminal workplace which will allow the user to adopt a comfortable and efficient posture.
This part specifies the ergonomics requirements for the Visual Display Terminal working environment which will provide the user with comfortable, safe and productive working conditions. This part specifies methods of measurement of glare and reflections from the surface of display screens, including those with surface treatments.
This part specifies the requirements for multicolour displays which are largely in addition to the monochrome requirements in Part 3. This part specifies the ergonomics requirements for non-keyboard input devices which may be used in conjunction with a visual display terminal.
It also includes a suggestion for a user-based performance test as an alternative way of showing conformance. The standard covers such devices as the mouse, trackball and other pointing devices, but it does not address voice input. This part deals with general ergonomic principles which apply to the design of dialogues between humans and information systems: suitability for the task, suitability for learning, suitability for individualisation, conformity with user expectations, self descriptiveness, controllability, and error tolerance.
This part contains specific recommendations for presenting and representing information on visual displays. To properly measure and manage the usability of interfaces, we need to first agree on a definition of usability. In this article, we cover where ISO Part 11 came from and where it seems to be going.
The term usability existed well before the s ; for example, it appeared as a key feature in a refrigerator advertisement in the Palm Beach Post on March 8, The modern industrial use of the term started in the late s. Related terms from that time were user friendliness and ease of use , both of which usability has since displaced in professional and technical writing on the topic. There are two major conceptions of usability : measurement-based goals summative evaluation versus detection and elimination of problems formative or diagnostic evaluations.
Where did the defining begin? Starting in the early s, the goal of the European MUSiC project was to develop specific usability measurement methods for the high-level constructs of effectiveness , efficiency , and satisfaction.
Attempts to measure these constructs did not start with MUSiC. Systematic collection of task completion rates , task completion times , and sometimes satisfaction had been common in industrial usability testing since the early s.
IBM conducted an internal competitive usability testing project named SUMS System Usability MetricS in the late s that collected usability benchmarks of success rates, completion times, and satisfaction for three office software suites, with the SUMS data used to develop one of the first standardized usability questionnaires, the PSSUQ. The MUSiC project was, however, one of the first, if not the first, comprehensive public investigations into the systematic collection of what we now think of as prototypical usability metrics.
This empirical work was conducted to support the development of ISO , which had its first draft in One of the early work efforts in the MUSiC project Rengger, was the production of a list of potential usability measurements. The list was based on 87 papers that had described some quantification of usability, with the measures categorized into four classes:. These objective usability metrics are familiar to most modern usability and UX practitioners, but note the absence of any subjective metrics.
Using this as a starting point, the MUSiC usability measures proposed in included. Efficiency complements that by measuring the resources that were needed to achieve these goals. Satisfaction can be assessed by users in term of their experience during the use. That would typically be measured during or after a user has interacted with a product through observation or a questionnaire that is in line with ISO recommendations. If they win both, the club was very effective. Their effectiveness is the degree to which their objectives could be reached.
If they had to buy new players and spend cash instead, and then won as a result, they were effective, but not efficient. Lastly, if players, fans, media, and investors love how the club behaved, the satisfaction rate is very high. If, on the other hand, most of the fans now hate the club because they sold their favorite player and ticket prices in the stadium went up, the satisfaction rate is potentially low.
Part and Part 12 are also great resources of ISO , particularly when used in tandem. Part , Dialogue Principles, helps to evaluate interactive systems for their efficiency.
It deals with general ergonomic principles for designing dialogues between humans and information systems. Part covers the following aspects:. Part 12, Presentation of Information, also connects to design evaluations.
A design should support all of these principles and recommendations. If a UX problem is discovered during usability testing, it can be categorized into one of these areas, which will help designers to find a solution for the problem. One simple example is the checkout process on a website.
0コメント