ISO 9241-210:2019 — Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210

International Organization for Standardization. (2019). ISO 9241-210:2019 — Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems.

Type

Standard

Intellectual base

Reference work

Year

2019

Link

https://www.iso.org/standard/77520.html

Cited from

art_aesthetics, cognitive_science, engineering_design, human_computer_interaction, psychology

Cited by

12 citations across 12 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Accommodation

  • This sourceISO. (Bibliography-only; uncited residual from HCI template.)

• Affordance
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• Contrast
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• Design Prototyping
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• Gestalt Principles
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• Human-Centered Accommodation
  • The systematic elicitation and representation of actual human capabilities and constraints
• Mental Model
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• Processing Fluency
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.

Domain-specific

• Cognitive Load
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• Design Practice
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• User-Centered Design
  • The primacy of user observation and research over designer intuition or organizational requirements

    Supported in partVerified against the work's full text

    The standard's scope confirms it governs the human-centred design process, but the text obtained names none of the claim's specific techniques (ethnography, contextual inquiry, personas).

    “Although it addresses the planning and management of human-centred design, it does not address all aspects of project management.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

• User Research
  • The practice includes generative work that discovers problems and unmet needs, formative work that improves an emerging design, and evaluative work that tests a design or live service.

Verification

Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 12 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:2b4c33117c56 · see in the full table