A Weighted QFD-Based Usability Evaluation Method for Elderly in Smart Cars

REFERENCES

• Alonso-Ríos, D., Mosqueira-Rey, E., & Moret-Bonillo, V. (2014). A Taxonomy-based usability study of an intelligent speed adaptation device. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 30, 585–603.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson, B. F. W., Bennett, T. O., Bahr, G. S., & Nelson, M. M. W. (2007, July). Development of a multiple heuristics evaluation table (MHET) to support software development and usability analysis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th International conference on Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction: Coping With Diversity, Beijing, China.
   Google Scholar
• Bastien, J. M. C., & Scapin, D. L. (1995). Evaluating a user interface with ergonomic criteria. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 7, 105–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batavia, A. I., & Hammer, G. S. (1989). Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 27, 425–436.
   Google Scholar
• Bevan, N. (2001). International standards for HCI and usability. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 55, 533–552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, L.-K., & Wu, M.-L. (2002). Quality function deployment: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 143, 463–497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demirbilek, O., & Demirkan, H. (2004). Universal product design involving elderly users: A participatory design model. Applied Ergonomics, 35, 361–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denno, S., Isle, B., Ju, G., Joch, C., Metz, S., Penner, R., … & Ward, J. (1992). Human factors design guidelines for the elderly and people with disabilities. Technical Report SSDC-SYS/AI-C92-009. Minnapolis: Honeywell.
   Google Scholar
• Dünser, A., Grasset, R., & Billinghurst, M. (2008). A survey of evaluation techniques used in augmented reality studies. Paper presented at the ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2008 courses, Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Fisk, A. D., Rogers, W. A., Charness, N., Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (2012). Designing for older adults: Principles and creative human factors approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gong, J., & Tarasewich, P. (2004). Guidelines for handheld mobile device interface design. Proceedings of the 2004 DSI Annual Meeting, 3751–3756.
   Google Scholar
• Gregor, P., Newell, A. F., & Zajicek, M. (2002). Designing for dynamic diversity: Interfaces for older people. Proceedings of the Fifth International ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies, p. 151–156.
   Google Scholar
• Hartson, H. R., Andre, T. S., & Williges, R. C. (2003). Criteria for evaluating usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 15, 145–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartson, H. R., Andre, T. S., Williges, R. C., & Rens, L. V. (1999, August). The user action framework: A theory-based foundation for inspection and classification of usability problems. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction: Ergonomics and User Interfaces—Volume 1, 1058–1062.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, C., Stanton, N. A., Pickering, C. A., McDonald, M., & Zheng, P. (2011). A usability evaluation toolkit for in-vehicle information systems (IVISs). Applied Ergonomics, 42, 563–574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauser, J. R., & Clausing, D. (1988, May). The house of quality. Harvard Business Review, pp. 63–73.
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization, 1991. ISO 9126. Software product evaluation2quality characteristics and guidelines for their use. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards Organization. Also available from the British Standards Institute, London.
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization, 1998. ISO 9241. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – part 11: guidance on usability.
   Google Scholar
• Iwarsson, S., & Ståhl, A. (2003). Accessibility, usability and universal design-positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disability & Rehabilitation, 25, 57–66.
   Google Scholar
• Ji, Y. G., Choi, J., Lee, J. Y., Han, K. H., Kim, J., & Lee, I. K. (2010). Older adults in an aging society and social computing: A research agenda. Intl. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(11–12), 1122–1146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin, B. S., Ji, Y. G., Choi, K., & Cho, G. (2009). Development of a usability evaluation framework with quality function deployment: From customer sensibility to product design. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 19, 177–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joanisse, M., Gagnon, S., & Voloaca, M. (2013). The impact of stereotype threat on the simulated driving performance of older drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 50, 530–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jokela, T., Iivari, N., Matero, J., & Karukka, M. (2003, August). The standard of user-centered design and the standard definition of usability: analyzing ISO 13407 against ISO 9241-11. In Proceedings of the Latin American conference on Human-computer interaction, 53–60.
   Google Scholar
• Jung, S., & Qin, S. (2014). Development of safe-driving-system features for elderly drivers. Systems Science & Control Engineering: An Open Access Journal, 2, 699–706.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, H. J., Kim, M. H., Chio, J. K., & Ji, Y. G. (2008). A study of evaluation framework for tangible user interface. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics AHFE2008, p. 191–198.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, S., Dey, A. K., Lee, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2011). Usability of car dashboard displays for elder drivers. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 493–502.
   Google Scholar
• Kirakowski, J., & Corbett, M. (1993). SUMI: The software usability measurement inventory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 210–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ko, S. M., Chang, W. S., & Ji, Y. G. (2013). Usability principles for augmented reality applications in a smartphone environment. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 29, 501–515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kong, J., Zhang, W. Y., Yu, N., & Xia, X. J. (2011). Design of human-centric adaptive multimodal interfaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69, 854–869.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lager, T. (2005). The industrial usability of quality function deployment: A literature review and synthesis on a meta-level. R&D Management, 35, 409–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lansdale, M. W., & Ormerod, T. C. (1994). Understanding interfaces: A handbook of human–computer dialogue. Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Livingston, M. A. (2005). Evaluating human factors in augmented reality systems. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 25(6), 6–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macleod, M., & Rengger, R. (1993). The development of DRUM: A software tool for video-assisted usability evaluation. Proceedings of HCI’93, 293–309.
   Google Scholar
• Madan, A., & Dubey, S. K. (2012). Usability evaluation methods: A literature review. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 4, 590–599.
   Google Scholar
• Marchetti, R. (1994). Using usability inspections to find usability problems early in the lifecycle. Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference, 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• May, A., Ross, T., & Osman, Z. (2005). The design of next generation in-vehicle navigation systems for the older driver. Interacting with Computers, 17, 643–659.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newell, A. F., & Gregor, P. (2002). Design for older and disabled people—Where do we go from here? Universal Access in the Information Society, 2, 3–7.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson, S., & Johansson, B. (2006). User experience and acceptance of a mixed reality system in a naturalistic setting—A case study. Proceedings of the 5th IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, 247–248.
   Google Scholar
• Pfleging, B., Schneegass, S., & Schmidt, A. (2012, October). Multimodal interaction in the car: combining speech and gestures on the steering wheel. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 155–162.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, A., Dey, A. K., Kun, A. L., & Spiessl, W. (2010, April). Automotive user interfaces: Human–computer interaction in the car. In CHI’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3177–3180.
   Google Scholar
• Sears, A. (1997). Heuristic walkthroughs: Finding the problems without the noise. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 9, 213–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, S. L., & Mosier, J. N. (1986). Guidelines for designing user interface software. Bedford, MA: Mitre Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Song, K., & Lee, S. (2008). Mapping user accessibility needs systematically to universal design principles. 8th Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer–Human Interaction, 446–456.
   Google Scholar
• Story, M. F. (1998). Maximizing usability: The principles of universal design. Assistive Technology, 10, 4–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanderheiden, G. C., & Vanderheiden, K. R. (1992). Accessible design of consumer products: Guidelines for the design of consumer products to increase their accessibility to persons with disabilities or who are aging (Version 1.7). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Trace R&D Center.
   Google Scholar