A comparative evaluation of heuristic-based usability inspection methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given that heuristic evaluation (HE) is a popular evaluation method among practitioners despite criticisms surrounding its performance and reliability, there is a need to improve the method's performance. Several studies have shown HE-Plus, an emerging variant of HE, to outperform HE in both effectiveness and reliability. HE-Plus uses the same set of heuristics as HE; the only difference between these two methods is the 'usability problems profile' element in HE-Plus. This paper reports our attempt to verify the original profile employed in HE-Plus based on usability problem classification in the User Action Framework and an experiment evaluating its outcome by comparing HE with two HE variants using a profile (HE-Plus and HE++) and a control group. Our results confirmed the role of the 'usability problems profiles' on improving the performance and reliability of heuristic evaluation: both HE-Plus and HE++ outperformed HE in terms of effectiveness as well as reliability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it