针对老年人的数字解决方案的可用性专家评估:审查的范围审查

A. Silva, A. Martins, Hilma Caravau, A. M. Almeida, Telmo Silva, Óscar Ribeiro, G. Santinha, N. Rocha
{"title":"针对老年人的数字解决方案的可用性专家评估:审查的范围审查","authors":"A. Silva, A. Martins, Hilma Caravau, A. M. Almeida, Telmo Silva, Óscar Ribeiro, G. Santinha, N. Rocha","doi":"10.1145/3439231.3439238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: it is important to standardize the evaluation and reporting procedures across usability studies to guide researchers, facilitate comparisons, and promote high-quality studies. A first step to standardizing is to have an overview of how experts-based usability evaluation studies are reported across the literature. Objectives: to describe and synthesize the procedures of usability evaluation by experts that are being reported to conduct inspection usability assessments of digital solutions relevant for older adults. Methods: a scoping review of reviews was performed using a five-stage methodology to identify and describe relevant literature published between 2009 and 2020 as follows: i) identification of the research question; ii) identification of relevant studies; iii) select studies for review; iv) charting of data from selected literature; and v) collation, summary, and report of results. The research was conducted on five electronic databases: PubMed, ACM Digital Library, IEEE, Scopus, and Web of Science. The articles that met the inclusion criteria were identified, and data extracted for further analysis, including evaluators, current usability inspection methods, and instruments to support usability inspection methods. Results: a total of 3958 articles were identified. After a detailed screening, 12 reviews matched the eligibility criteria. Conclusion: overall, we found a variety of unstandardized procedures and a lack of detail on some important aspects of the assessment, including a thorough description of the evaluators and of the instruments used to facilitate the inspection evaluation such as heuristics checklists. These findings suggest the need for a consensus framework on the experts’ assessment of usability that informs researchers and allows standardization of procedures.","PeriodicalId":210400,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Experts Evaluation of Usability for Digital Solutions Directed at Older Adults: a Scoping Review of Reviews\",\"authors\":\"A. Silva, A. Martins, Hilma Caravau, A. M. Almeida, Telmo Silva, Óscar Ribeiro, G. Santinha, N. Rocha\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3439231.3439238\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: it is important to standardize the evaluation and reporting procedures across usability studies to guide researchers, facilitate comparisons, and promote high-quality studies. A first step to standardizing is to have an overview of how experts-based usability evaluation studies are reported across the literature. Objectives: to describe and synthesize the procedures of usability evaluation by experts that are being reported to conduct inspection usability assessments of digital solutions relevant for older adults. Methods: a scoping review of reviews was performed using a five-stage methodology to identify and describe relevant literature published between 2009 and 2020 as follows: i) identification of the research question; ii) identification of relevant studies; iii) select studies for review; iv) charting of data from selected literature; and v) collation, summary, and report of results. The research was conducted on five electronic databases: PubMed, ACM Digital Library, IEEE, Scopus, and Web of Science. The articles that met the inclusion criteria were identified, and data extracted for further analysis, including evaluators, current usability inspection methods, and instruments to support usability inspection methods. Results: a total of 3958 articles were identified. After a detailed screening, 12 reviews matched the eligibility criteria. Conclusion: overall, we found a variety of unstandardized procedures and a lack of detail on some important aspects of the assessment, including a thorough description of the evaluators and of the instruments used to facilitate the inspection evaluation such as heuristics checklists. These findings suggest the need for a consensus framework on the experts’ assessment of usability that informs researchers and allows standardization of procedures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":210400,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3439231.3439238\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3439231.3439238","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:标准化可用性研究的评估和报告程序对指导研究人员、促进比较和促进高质量研究具有重要意义。标准化的第一步是概述如何在文献中报告基于专家的可用性评估研究。目标:描述和综合正在报告的专家对老年人相关数字解决方案进行检查可用性评估的可用性评估程序。方法:采用五阶段方法进行综述的范围综述,以确定和描述2009年至2020年期间发表的相关文献,具体如下:i)确定研究问题;Ii)确定相关研究;Iii)选择研究进行审查;Iv)选定文献的数据图表;(五)结果的整理、总结和报告。该研究在PubMed、ACM数字图书馆、IEEE、Scopus和Web of Science五个电子数据库上进行。识别出符合纳入标准的文章,并提取数据以进行进一步分析,包括评估者、当前可用性检查方法和支持可用性检查方法的工具。结果:共鉴定出3958篇。经过详细的筛选,有12项审查符合资格标准。结论:总体而言,我们发现评估的一些重要方面存在各种不标准化的程序和缺乏细节,包括对评估人员和用于促进检查评估的工具(如启发式检查清单)的全面描述。这些发现表明,专家评估可用性需要一个共识框架,为研究人员提供信息,并允许程序标准化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Experts Evaluation of Usability for Digital Solutions Directed at Older Adults: a Scoping Review of Reviews
Background: it is important to standardize the evaluation and reporting procedures across usability studies to guide researchers, facilitate comparisons, and promote high-quality studies. A first step to standardizing is to have an overview of how experts-based usability evaluation studies are reported across the literature. Objectives: to describe and synthesize the procedures of usability evaluation by experts that are being reported to conduct inspection usability assessments of digital solutions relevant for older adults. Methods: a scoping review of reviews was performed using a five-stage methodology to identify and describe relevant literature published between 2009 and 2020 as follows: i) identification of the research question; ii) identification of relevant studies; iii) select studies for review; iv) charting of data from selected literature; and v) collation, summary, and report of results. The research was conducted on five electronic databases: PubMed, ACM Digital Library, IEEE, Scopus, and Web of Science. The articles that met the inclusion criteria were identified, and data extracted for further analysis, including evaluators, current usability inspection methods, and instruments to support usability inspection methods. Results: a total of 3958 articles were identified. After a detailed screening, 12 reviews matched the eligibility criteria. Conclusion: overall, we found a variety of unstandardized procedures and a lack of detail on some important aspects of the assessment, including a thorough description of the evaluators and of the instruments used to facilitate the inspection evaluation such as heuristics checklists. These findings suggest the need for a consensus framework on the experts’ assessment of usability that informs researchers and allows standardization of procedures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Can children of typical development benefit from inclusion intervention with Daisy Robot - a socially assistive robot? Pedagogical Triangulations: from the online forum to the e-magazine: a praxiological experience about school and its actor during COVID19 confinement CovidSense: A Smartphone-based Initiative for Fighting COVID-19 Spreading Apple Siri (input) + Voice Over (output) = a de facto marriage: An exploratory case study with blind people Is Simple English Wikipedia As Simple And Easy-to-Understand As We Expect It To Be?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1