MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251115000 · doi:10.1145/634126.634127

On the reliability of usability testing

2001· article· en· W4251115000 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Kessner, Jo Wood, Richard F. Dillon, Robert West

Bibliographic record

VenueCHI '01 extended abstracts on Human factors in computer systems - CHI '01 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityDialog boxUsability labComputer scienceUsability inspectionReliability (semiconductor)Test (biology)Pluralistic walkthroughSystem usability scaleHeuristic evaluationWeb usabilityUsability engineeringHuman–computer interactionKnowledge managementWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Six professional usability testing teams conducted a usability test on an early prototype of a dialog box. Altogether, they identified 36 usability problems. No problem was detected by every team, 2 were found by five teams, 4 by four teams, 7 by three teams, 7 by two teams, and 18 problems were identified by one team only. There was more agreement among teams in this study compared to a previous study [1] and there was more agreement among the teams on severe vs. minor problems. Implications for the cooperation between usability testers and their clients are discussed.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCHI '01 extended abstracts on Human factors in computer systems - CHI '01Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207