UX, Usability and ISO Standards

Nigel Bevan Abstract

Professional Usability Services The paper explores the relationship between UX and
12 King Edwards Gardens current approaches to usability in ISO standards, and
London W3 9RG how the ISO approach could potentially be extended to
UK incorporate UX in guidance for product developers.
[email protected]
Three approaches to usability are identified:

1. System Usability: Meeting organizational goals for

user performance, safety and satisfaction resulting
from interaction.
2. User Experience (satisfaction): Meeting user
pragmatic and hedonic goals related to the
experience and outcomes of interaction.
3. Product usability: providing product attributes to
support system usability and the user experience.

Keywords
Usability, UX, user experience, quality in use,
satisfaction, standards

ACM Classification Keywords

H5.2 User Interfaces: Interaction styles, theory and
methods.

Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). Introduction

CHI 2008, April 5 – April 10, 2008, Florence, Italy What is user experience? A typical definition is “Every
ACM 1-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. aspect of the user's interaction with a product, service,
or company that make up the user's perceptions of the
x.
 2

whole” [14]. Many authors have differentiated usability The ISO definition is in terms of the results of using the
and user experience. For example, Baekdal [1] product: effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction are
contrasts the usability of a long straight highway with measures of the whole system (product, user, task and
the user experience of a mountain road. But what is environment), not just of the product. It includes user
the real difference between usability as practiced and satisfaction, defined by ISO as “Freedom from
user experience? discomfort, and positive attitudes towards the use of
the product”.
Approaches to usability
One view of usability that is popular among product This ISO view of usability has been extended in the
developers is that it is the attributes of the user definition of quality in use in ISO 9126-1 [10] to
interface that makes the product easy to use. This is include “safety”: adverse consequences of use
consistent with one the view of usability in HCI, for (including not only health and safety, but the potential
example in Nielsen’s [12] 1993 breakdown where a business and financial consequences of errors in
product can be usable, even if it has no utility: usage). One apparent difference is that ISO 9126-1
emphasizes the importance of identifying implicit needs
system acceptability to avoid adverse consequences, for example for the
social acceptability health and safety of the user to avoid RSI.
practical acceptability
cost This perspective of usability is closely aligned with
compatibility business goals: effectiveness, efficiency and safety
reliability have a direct impact on profitability for systems used
usefulness by organizations [2]. Satisfaction is critical for
utility discretionary use, especially of web sites.
usability
A product with design features that jeopardize
Another popular definition of usability is that from ISO effectiveness, efficiency, safety or satisfaction creates a
9241-11 [6]: “The extent to which a product can be risk that it will not meet its business objectives.
used by specified users to achieve specified goals with
effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified While ISO 9241-11 is not very specific about goals, the
context of use”. 9241-11 measures can be interpreted from the
perspectives of different stakeholders. This may lead
This difference between these two views of usability is to a conflict of interest, for example where users, staff
in their scope. Nielsen’s breakdown refers to the and managers may have different goals.
usability of the product: i.e. whether a product has
characteristics that make it easy to use (in a particular One reason for the popularity of this definition with
context of use). usability professionals, is that when interpreted from
 3

the perspective of the organisation’s goals it provides a Stimulation (i.e. personal growth, an increase of
business rationale for the importance of usability which knowledge and skills).
is more compelling than mere ease of use. Identification (i.e. self-expression, interaction with
relevant others).
UX and usability
Evocation (i.e. self-maintenance, memories).
Usability can also be seen from the inside out as
meeting the user’s goals, rather than the organisation’s To these I would add:
goals, which takes usability back closer to its original Pleasurable emotional reactions to the product
meaning. From this perspective the key element in the (Norman’s visceral category [13]).
ISO definition is satisfaction. However, as Hassenzahl
points out, current approaches to satisfaction typically This suggests that if ISO intends usability to cover the
assess primarily the users’ perception of effectiveness whole user experience (as suggested in the revised
and efficiency, so that if users perceive the product as draft of ISO 13407 [8]), it needs to encompass both
effective and efficient, they are assumed to be satisfied usability from an organizational perspective and
[4]. usability from a user perspective.

But there is evidence that fun or enjoyment is an The importance of usability measures
aspect of user experience that also contributes The most common reasons for measuring user
significantly to overall satisfaction with a product [3]. experience in product development are to obtain a
better understanding of users’ needs and to improve
So in order to encompass the overall user experience, the product in order to provide a better user
UX needs to be concerned with satisfying both experience.
pragmatic and hedonic user goals.
But it is also important to establish criteria for usability
The pragmatic user goals are: goals at an early stage of design. As suggested by
Whiteside et al [15], these criteria should if possible be
Acceptable perceived experience of use (pragmatic
based on:
aspects including efficiency).
An existing system or previous version
Acceptable perceived results of use (including
effectiveness). Competitive systems (with good market share
and/or acclaimed user interface)
Acceptable perceived consequences of use
(including safety). Carrying out the task without the use of a
computer system
Hassenzahl identifies three hedonic goals [5]: It is important to consider the potential adverse
consequences of not meeting the goals. For instance in
Cockton’s example [3] of designing a van hire system,
 4

from a business perspective, what are the potential Users answer existing satisfaction questionnaires in
consequences of: relation to their expectations. The same would
probably be true hedonic questionnaires, which would
Not offering exactly the type of van preferred by a
make comparisons across products meaningful.
potential user group?
The user mistakenly making a booking for the Implications for International Standards
wrong dates or wrong type of vehicle? I am involved in the development of the revision of ISO
The booking process taking longer than with 13407 [7], and am co-editor of the definition of a new
competitor systems? quality model for usability as part of quality in use [11],
and of the revision of the standard for usability
For a consumer product or game, what are the methods [9]. I believe that as all these standards are
potential adverse consequences of a lack of pleasurable intended to support product development, they should
emotional reactions or of achievement of other hedonic broaden their scope to incorporate aspects of UX.
goals?
I look forward to further inspiration from the workshop
These high level requirements may feed back into on how this could be achieved.
detailed user interface design requirements to
maximize the quality of the user experience and to References
minimize the likelihood of adverse consequences. The [1] Baekdal, T. (2006) The Battle Between Usability
criteria should also be considered for usability testing and User-Experience.
www.baekdal.com/articles/usability/usabilty-vs-user-
with users during design, depending on the potential
experience-battle/
risks to the project if the objectives are not achieved.
[2] Bevan, N. (2005) Cost benefits framework and case
studies. In R.G. Bias, & D.J. Mayhew (eds), Cost-
Measuring User Experience Justifying Usability: An Update for the Internet Age.
In a product development environment, pragmatic Morgan Kaufmann.
aspects of user experience have been successfully
measured with psychometric questionnaires (although [3] Cockton, G. (2008) Putting Value into E-valu-
not so far acceptable consequences of use). ation. In: Maturing Usability. Quality in Software,
Interaction and Value. Law, E. L., Hvannberg, E. T.,
Questionnaires would also appear to be the most
Cockton, G. (eds). Springer.
reliable way to measure the achievement of hedonic
goals [5]. [4] Hassenzahl, M. (2002). The effect of perceived
hedonic quality on product appealingness. International
Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 479-497.
Existing satisfaction questionnaires are often also used
[5] Hassenzahl, M. (2003) The thing and I:
for summative purposes, either for comparing
understanding the relationship between user and
satisfaction with a previous version, or to find out product. In Funology: From Usability to Enjoyment, M.
whether a requirement for satisfaction has been met.
 5

Blythe, C. Overbeeke, A.F. Monk and P.C. Wright (Eds), [11] ISO/IEC CD 25010 (2007) Software product Quality
pp. 31 – 42 (Dordrecht: Kluwer). Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – Quality
[6] ISO 9241-11 (1998) Ergonomic requirements for model. ISO.
office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) Part [12] Nielsen, J. (1993) Usability Engineering. Academic
11: Guidance on Usability. ISO. Press.
[7] ISO 9241-210 (2007) Human-centred design [13] Norman, D. (2004) Emotional design: Why we love
process for interactive systems (formerly known as (or hate) everyday things (New York: Basic Books).
13407). Working Draft. ISO.
[14] UPA (Usability Professionals’ Association) (2007)
[8] ISO 13407 (1999) Human-centred design Usability Body of Knowledge. Online glossary at
processes for interactive systems. ISO. http://www.usabilitybok.org/glossary
[9] ISO/TR 16982 (2002) Usability methods supporting
human centred design. ISO. [15] Whiteside, J., Bennett, J., & Holtzblatt, K. (1988).
Usability engineering: Our experience and evolution. In
[10] ISO/IEC 9126-1 (2001) Software engineering - M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer
Product quality - Part 1: Quality model. ISO. Interaction (1st Ed.) (pp. 791–817). North-Holland.