Tom Chi, Kevin Cheng
Usability as craft, art, intuition, inspiration, yes; but science? Well, no. And why would you want to lead folks down that path anyway? Let's debunk this notion of science in the name of a) practicality and b) preserving our right to change our (subjective) minds. Presenting usability testing as science ignores that a typical human-computer interaction is crafted from multiple perspectives: business, design, human factors, individual emotions. "Science" sounds like a rather lofty term for the quick-hit studies in vogue. With some development cycles as short as two weeks, and as few as five users per test advocated by…
You must be a member of SIGCHI, a subscriber to ACM's Digital Library, or an interactions subscriber to read the full text of this article.
GET ACCESSJoin ACM SIGCHI
In addition to all of the professional benefits of being a SIGCHI member, members get full access to interactions online content and receive the print version of the magazine bimonthly.
Subscribe to the ACM Digital Library
Get access to all interactions content online and the entire archive of ACM publications dating back to 1954. (Please check with your institution to see if it already has a subscription.)
Subscribe to interactions
Get full access to interactions online content and receive the print version of the magazine bimonthly.