Usability Engineering¶
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. Academic Press.
Cited by¶
7 citations across 7 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Minimalism
- Every remaining feature is essential, carries visible weight, and demands user attention
This sourceFoundational usability text whose "minimalist design" heuristic (one of ten) requires that dialogues contain no irrelevant or rarely needed information; basis for minimalist UI evaluation.
- Every remaining feature is essential, carries visible weight, and demands user attention
- Progressive Disclosure
Domain-specific¶
- Curse Of Knowledge
- Pedagogy — expert teachers overestimate student understanding, skip steps that feel obvious, and compress acquisition timelines; pretesting and novice-paired teaching are the counter-moves. User-experience design — designers who built a system cannot reliably predict where naive users get stuck, which is much of why usability testing exists.
This sourceEstablishes why designers cannot predict where naive users get stuck, grounding usability testing as the route-through-the-audience corrective.
- Pedagogy — expert teachers overestimate student understanding, skip steps that feel obvious, and compress acquisition timelines; pretesting and novice-paired teaching are the counter-moves. User-experience design — designers who built a system cannot reliably predict where naive users get stuck, which is much of why usability testing exists.
- Progress Indicator
- In HCI design the progress indicator is the canonical solution to the problem of a finite-but-non-instantaneous system action that the user must wait through, and its design conventions (Nielsen's feedback heuristic, the Apple HIG bar vs. spinner distinction, Material Design's linear vs. circular variants) are codified in industry guidelines
This sourceResponse-time guidance in Usability Engineering calling for feedback on delays and a percent-done indicator for operations longer than about ten seconds.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- In HCI design the progress indicator is the canonical solution to the problem of a finite-but-non-instantaneous system action that the user must wait through, and its design conventions (Nielsen's feedback heuristic, the Apple HIG bar vs. spinner distinction, Material Design's linear vs. circular variants) are codified in industry guidelines
- Visibility of System Status
- The failure mode is silent: a user who presses submit and sees nothing has no information with which to decide whether to wait, retry, or assume success; in the documented pattern they retry, and the system records two submissions
This sourceThe requirement that informative feedback be given when an operation fails, so the user can tell success from failure. Usability Engineering's HCI interface-guidance material, including its reference to the Apple interface guidelines.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“Informative feedback should also be given in case of system [failure].”
- The failure mode is silent: a user who presses submit and sees nothing has no information with which to decide whether to wait, retry, or assume success; in the documented pattern they retry, and the system records two submissions
Mechanisms¶
- Guided Tour Flow
- Because it checks each step, it doubles as its own validation; the standard discipline is to watch real users move through it, thinking aloud, and see where they drop, rather than assume the scripted route is the travelled one.
This sourcePresents thinking aloud by representative users performing tasks as a principal usability-testing method for discovering problems.
- Because it checks each step, it doubles as its own validation; the standard discipline is to watch real users move through it, thinking aloud, and see where they drop, rather than assume the scripted route is the travelled one.
- Usability Test
- Users are given concrete goals, not features to admire, and are usually asked to think aloud so the tester hears the reasoning behind a stall, not just the stall itself.
This sourceDescribes representative task-based usability testing and thinking aloud as a way to learn what users experience while performing those tasks.
- Users are given concrete goals, not features to admire, and are usually asked to think aloud so the tester hears the reasoning behind a stall, not just the stall itself.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 7 citations: 2 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.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 3 other ways.
- https://books.google.com/books/about/Usability_Engineering.html?id=fnvJ9PnbzJEC ×1
- https://books.google.com/books?id=fnvJ9PnbzJEC ×1
- https://www.nngroup.com/books/usability-engineering/ ×1
Registry ID ref:969247f35903 · see in the full table