@inproceedings{Vrendenburg2002, abstract = {This paper reports the results of a recent survey of user-centered design (UCD) practitioners.}, author = {Vredenburg, Karel and Mao, Ji-Ye and Smith, Paul W. and Carey, Tom}, booktitle = {Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Changing Our World Changing Ourselves}, citeulike-article-id = {4860237}, comment = {== survey aims == * to find out what methods are used and why * what are the perceived benefits and weaknesses of each method * what a typical UCD project looks like targets had at least 3 years experience and considered UCD as primary role in their job. target population was attendees of CHI2000 and UPA members. response rate for both was around 3\% - 103 respondents From demographic data they conclude diverse backgrounds, broad range of approaches and "likely opinion leaders in the UCD community, playing a leading role in their own organization's UCD practive." p473 mean experience in UCD 7.6 years std dev 5.49 ... large std dev suggests that they were not fixed in requirements for 3 years experience. == measures == 72\% "agreed that UCD methods had made a significant impact on product development buy indicating 5 or higher on a 7-point scale" p474 but they could not quantify it. Only 6 measures were mentioned by more than 10 people (10\%), external customer satisfaction getting 33. But they note on p477 that in describing the progress of a typical UCD project there were "no references to setting satisfaction targets or comparing user feedback results to them". They conclude that this process must be outside the UCD team. Internal measures of success were even poorer, only 3 being mentioned by more than 10\% and is led by internal design team satisfaction and acceptance of UCD by designers. == top 5 methods ranked by impact on product development == \# field studies \# user requirements analysis \# iterative design \# usability evaluation \# task analysis \# focus groups \# formal heuristic evaluation \# user interviews \# prototype without user testing \# surveys \# informal expert review \# card sorting \# participatory design 13 items listed. The list is in the order of rank of impact but the usage does not follow the same pattern. In order of usage there is \# iterative design (65) \# usability evaluation (43) \# task analysis (34) \# informal expert review (31) \# field studies (28) \# focus groups (16) \# prototype without user testing (15) \# heuristic evaluation (15) \# etc the authors get excited however that "to of the top three effective UCD methods indentified by Gunther 2001 [http://www.ovostudios.com/upa2001/6\_successes/mostsuccmethods.htm] (labeled differently as usability testing, paper or other prototyping, and heuristic evaluation) appear high in our list." p475 I am not clear which two of the three they are excited about. Usability evaluation = usability testing and appears 2nd and 4th. Give them that. But HE \& prototypes are 7th and 9th in the first list and 7th and 8th in the second list. Placings in the 3rd quartile is not 'high in our list'. == benefits and weaknesses == Just for HE * low cost - 9 benefit * availability of expertise - 3 weakness [implying they need it] * speed - 10 benefits * user involvement - 7 weakness [they recognise the benefits if they were involved] * validity and quality of results - 6 benefit, 10 weakness To be fair, 6 other methods with more than 8 votes for weakness but none had the same high ration of weakness to benefit. == typical project == a free form textual answer. "Also observed in the responses to this question were the following : Heuristic evaluations were frequent." p477 == summary == "key finding is the lack of measurement of UCD effectiveness" p478 Practitioners know that some things are more effective but still do the ones that are quicker and less costly (like HE). they are self reports so take survey results with caution}, keywords = {heuristic-evaluation, practitioners, survey}, location = {Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA}, pages = {471--478}, posted-at = {2009-06-15 14:08:23}, priority = {0}, title = {A Survey of User-Centered Design Practice}, year = {2002} }

TY - CONF ID - Vrendenburg2002 L3 - citeulike-article-id:4860237 N2 - This paper reports the results of a recent survey of user-centered design (UCD) practitioners. CY - Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA EP - 478 TI - A Survey of User-Centered Design Practice T2 - Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Changing Our World Changing Ourselves SP - 471 KW - heuristic-evaluation KW - practitioners KW - survey N1 - == survey aims == * to find out what methods are used and why * what are the perceived benefits and weaknesses of each method * what a typical UCD project looks like targets had at least 3 years experience and considered UCD as primary role in their job. target population was attendees of CHI2000 and UPA members. response rate for both was around 3% - 103 respondents From demographic data they conclude diverse backgrounds, broad range of approaches and "likely opinion leaders in the UCD community, playing a leading role in their own organization's UCD practive." p473 mean experience in UCD 7.6 years std dev 5.49 ... large std dev suggests that they were not fixed in requirements for 3 years experience. == measures == 72% "agreed that UCD methods had made a significant impact on product development buy indicating 5 or higher on a 7-point scale" p474 but they could not quantify it. Only 6 measures were mentioned by more than 10 people (10%), external customer satisfaction getting 33. But they note on p477 that in describing the progress of a typical UCD project there were "no references to setting satisfaction targets or comparing user feedback results to them". They conclude that this process must be outside the UCD team. Internal measures of success were even poorer, only 3 being mentioned by more than 10% and is led by internal design team satisfaction and acceptance of UCD by designers. == top 5 methods ranked by impact on product development == # field studies # user requirements analysis # iterative design # usability evaluation # task analysis # focus groups # formal heuristic evaluation # user interviews # prototype without user testing # surveys # informal expert review # card sorting # participatory design 13 items listed. The list is in the order of rank of impact but the usage does not follow the same pattern. In order of usage there is # iterative design (65) # usability evaluation (43) # task analysis (34) # informal expert review (31) # field studies (28) # focus groups (16) # prototype without user testing (15) # heuristic evaluation (15) # etc the authors get excited however that "to of the top three effective UCD methods indentified by Gunther 2001 [http://www.ovostudios.com/upa2001/6_successes/mostsuccmethods.htm] (labeled differently as usability testing, paper or other prototyping, and heuristic evaluation) appear high in our list." p475 I am not clear which two of the three they are excited about. Usability evaluation = usability testing and appears 2nd and 4th. Give them that. But HE & prototypes are 7th and 9th in the first list and 7th and 8th in the second list. Placings in the 3rd quartile is not 'high in our list'. == benefits and weaknesses == Just for HE * low cost - 9 benefit * availability of expertise - 3 weakness [implying they need it] * speed - 10 benefits * user involvement - 7 weakness [they recognise the benefits if they were involved] * validity and quality of results - 6 benefit, 10 weakness To be fair, 6 other methods with more than 8 votes for weakness but none had the same high ration of weakness to benefit. == typical project == a free form textual answer. "Also observed in the responses to this question were the following : Heuristic evaluations were frequent." p477 == summary == "key finding is the lack of measurement of UCD effectiveness" p478 Practitioners know that some things are more effective but still do the ones that are quicker and less costly (like HE). they are self reports so take survey results with caution AU - Vredenburg, Karel AU - Mao, Ji-Ye AU - Smith, Paul AU - Carey, Tom PY - 2002/// ER -