IJDIWC - Developing Usable Software Product Using Usability Risk Assessment Model
IJDIWC - Developing Usable Software Product Using Usability Risk Assessment Model
The Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications, 2014 (ISSN: 2225-658X)
95
International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC) 4(1): 95-102
The Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications, 2014 (ISSN: 2225-658X)
improve the interaction and quality of the systems potential usability risks at earlier phases of
[19][20]. However, software developers face development process. If development team
difficulties when new usability practices are continues to develop software products without
introduced [21]. Some usability approaches are identifying, analyzing and prioritizing usability
only integrated in requirement and design phase risks, the chances of producing less usable
[22]. In fact, their practical implementation is software products are higher.
largely missing. Usability practices as well are not
part of requirement engineering [19], so In relation to this, development of Usability Risk
developers are often given an incomplete, Assessment Model could guide development team
confusing, and sometimes contradictory on identifying, analysing and prioritizing potential
requirement. As a result, many development teams usability risks that could arise during SDLC in
are facing difficulties in avoiding and minimizing order to produce more usable software products
usability problems. with less usability problems.
Besides this, various usability evaluation activities This paper is structured as follows. Section 2
such as inspection, empirical testing, and metrics reviews existing studies on usability, usability
for usability standards in computing has been problem, usability risk, software risk assessment
integrated into software development process to processes and software risk assessment models. A
measure and improve usability of software [23]. conceptual view of proposed Usability Risk
However, it only evaluates a completed system Assessment Model is illustrated in Section 3.
and does not intervene at earlier stages of Section 4 explains on contribution and Section 5
development process [24]. An International includes conclusion and future work.
standard, ISO 13407 [25] also had proposed a
framework for integration of usability in all phases 2 RELATED WORKS
of software development process. Even so, current
usability engineering practices had failed to reduce Existence of usability problems creates many
usability problems in software products. quality problems in software and contributes to its
failure. Risk management approach can be used to
Alternatively, studies have shown that problems in overcome usability problem in software by
software products can also be controlled using identifying and analysing usability risk earlier in
Software Risk Management methods, even though the SDLC.
these problems cannot be eliminated totally
[26][27]. Using Software Risk Management, 2.1 Usability
problems in software products are dealt before it
occurs, so that risk control activities can be Usability is considered as one of the significant
planned and implemented as needed. factor of software product quality. Even, five most
mentioned quality models, McCall [9], Boehm [6],
Tim Altom [28] had suggested that usability FURPS [30], Dromey [8] and ISO 1926/2001 [7]
should be portrayed as risk management and not had defined usability as significant factor in
as an abstraction, to avoid later arguments, improving product acceptability and reliability,
encourages discussion and allows management to increasing user satisfaction, and it is also
see the benefit of usability in software products. financially beneficial to companies [31]. Usability
Study has also shown that usability problems can is the best factor that balances between technical
be considered as a significant usability risk factor and human aspects of a software product which is
[13]. However, there are great ignorance on important in defining quality [32]. Hence, it’s
managing usability risk compared to managing important to ensure usability characteristics are
other risks such as technology risk, market risk integrated well in software products to ensure its
and money risk [32]. Furthermore, there is little success.
effort in identifying, analyzing and prioritizing
96
International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC) 4(1): 95-102
The Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications, 2014 (ISSN: 2225-658X)
97
International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC) 4(1): 95-102
The Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications, 2014 (ISSN: 2225-658X)
98
International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC) 4(1): 95-102
The Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications, 2014 (ISSN: 2225-658X)
(ii) Usability Risk Analysis Initially, each expert will be given a brief
explanation on the goal of the session and how the
Once potential usability risks have been identified, outcome of the session contributes to the
these risks will be analyze using risk analysis development Usability Risk Assessment Model.
technique to determine the likelihood and impact Then, the first round questionnaire will be
of each usability risks towards phases in SDLC. distributed to the experts to collect information on
likelihood of each usability risk for analysis. Since
Likelihood and impact of each usability risks are Delphi method is done in an iterative manner, the
identified using the Delphi method. Classification information from first round of survey will be fed
of usability risk based on SDLC phases is also back to the experts for comments and as a basis
determined from this method. for the second round which is to determine the
impact of usability risk to SDLC phases. This
Delphi is a method to iteratively gather process is repeated in third round until common
experiences, knowledge, and opinions of the understandings between experts are achieved. All
experts on an issue or development process under questionnaires in this survey is developed using
study by using normally by interview or survey five point Likert scale.
[50]. It uses a number of questionnaire rounds,
feedback from responses of experts and gives The advantage of this method is that all
opportunity to the experts to modify their knowledge from experts is evaluated and
responses and anonymity of responses are assured, commented by other experts, producing
collectively agreed information on likelihood,
In this study, using Delphi method, a three- impact, and classification and mitigation plan of
iteration questionnaire survey will be conducted usability risks on SDLC phases.
with experts. The first round gives opportunity for
the experts to suggest new potential usability risks Then, the exposure level for each potential
and determine the likelihood of each usability usability risk is calculated based on likelihood and
risks. The second round determines the impact of impact of each usability risks. Each usability risk
each usability risks to SDLC phases. The third will be classified according to phases in SDLC
round involves the activities of experts to classify and correlation analysis will be done to determine
and suggest mitigation plan for each usability relationship between potential usability risk and
risks. phases in SDLC.
Experts are selected based on their experiences in (iii) Usability Risk Prioritization
software development and/or risk management.
Experts with more than 10 years of experience in Prioritization of each potential usability risk is
dealing with software development projects or done by sorting respective risk exposure level in
who are seek advice from when dealing with descending order to know the impact of usability
software development projects, are chosen. There risk in each phase in SDLC. Higher the risk
is no rules on the number of experts that is exposure, more priority and attention should be
required in a Delphi survey since the decision on given to that particular usability risk because it has
the number of experts needed is taken after more impact in creating less usable software
consideration of factors such as time and expenses product.
[51]. The representation of experts is assessed
with the qualities and experiences acquired than Prioritization is important because it gives insight
its numbers [53]. Study has suggest that a suitable of critical and noncritical usability risk based on
expert size from 4 to 3000 [50][51][52] but for the SDLC phases, among usability risks and in overall
context of this research, five experts will be software product development.
chosen due to time factor.
99
International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC) 4(1): 95-102
The Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications, 2014 (ISSN: 2225-658X)
100
International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC) 4(1): 95-102
The Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications, 2014 (ISSN: 2225-658X)
12. S. K. Dubey, and A. Rana, “Analytical Roadmap to 27. Z. Jun-guang, and X. Zhen-chao, “Method study of
Usability Definitions and Decompositions,” in software project risk management,” in International
International Journal of Engineering Science and Conference on Computer Application and System
Technology, 2(9), 4723-4729, 2010. Modeling (ICCASM), IEEE, 8, 8-9, October 2010.
13. A. Inversini, L. Cantoni, and D. Bolchini, “Connecting 28. T. Altom, “Usability as risk management,” Interactions,
Usages with Usability Analysis through the User 14(2), 16-17, 2007.
Experience Risk Assessment Model: A Case Study in the 29. A. B. Platt, “The usability risk,” in Proceedings of the
Tourism Domain,” In Design, User Experience, and 18th IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems,
Usability. Theory, Methods, Tools and Practice,” 283- IEEE, 396-400, Proceedings of the First Asia-Pacific
293, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011. Conference on Quality Software, IEEE, 297-305,1999.
14. Modernization and Management Planning Unit 30. R. B. Grady, and D. L. Caswell, “Software metrics:
(MAMPU), “Kajian Baseline Perkhidmatan E-Kaunter establishing a company-wide program,” 1987.
& Paperless Government,” 2011. 31. M. Simes-Marques and I. Nunes, “Usability of
15. W. A. M. Isa, M. R. Suhami, N. I. Safie, and S. S. interfaces,” 155-170, 2012.
Semsudin, “Assessing the usability and accessibility of 32. M. Sangeetha, C. Arumugam, P.G. Sapna, and S. K. A
Malaysia e-government website,” American Journal of KM, “Cooperative approach to ensure software product
Economics and Business Administration,3(1),40-46, quality,” International Journal of Computer Science, 8.
2011. vol. 8 (4), 598, 2011.
16. T. Jokela, “Performance rather than capability problems. 33. S. U. Farooq and S. M. K. Quadri, “Quality Practices in
insights from assessments of usability engineering Open Source Software Development Affecting Quality
processes,” in Product Focused Software Process Dimensions,” Trends in Information Management, 7(2),
Improvement,115-127, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005. 2012.
17. A. Seffah, M. Donyaee, R. B. Kline, and H. K. Padda, 34. L. Hua, and Y. Gong, “Usability Evaluation of a
“Usability measurement and metrics: A consolidated Voluntary Patient Safety Reporting System:
model,” Software Quality Journal,14(2), 159-178, 2006. Understanding the Difference between Predicted and
18. G. Lindgaard, “Usability testing and system evaluation: Observed Time Values by Retrospective Think-Aloud
A guide for designing useful computer systems,” Protocols,” in Human-Computer Interaction.
London: Chapman & Hall,. 221-246, 1994. Applications and Services, Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
19. J. Heiskari, M. Kauppinen, M. Runonen, and T. 94-100, 2013.
Mannisto, “Bridging the gap between usability and 35. L. Liang, X. Deng, and Y. Wang, “Usability
requirements engineering,” in 17th IEEE International Measurement Using a Fuzzy Simulation Approach,” in
Requirements Engineering Conference, 303-308, 2009. International Conference on Computer Modeling and
20. H. Fischer, “Integrating usability engineering in the Simulation, 2009. ICCMS'09, IEEE, 88-92, 2009.
software development lifecycle based on international 36. S. Lee and J. E. Cho, “Usability Evaluation of Korean e-
standards,” in Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCHI Government Portal,” in Universal Access in Human-
symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Computer Interaction, Applications and Services,
Systems, ACM, 321-324, 2012. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 64-72, 2007.
21. P. Carlshamre, and M. Rantzer, “Business: 37. M. Abdul Aziz, W. A. R. Wan Mohd Isa, and N. Nordin,
Dissemination of Usability: Failure of a Success Story,” “Assessing the accessibility and usability of Malaysia
Interactions, vol 8(1), 31-41, 2001. Higher Education Website,” in 2010 International
22. A. Seffah, R. Djouab, and H. Antunes, “Comparing and Conference on User Science and Engineering(i-USEr),
reconciling usability-centered and use case-driven IEEE, 203-208, 2010.
requirements engineering processes,” in Australian 38. E. N. Asiimwe and N. Lim, “Usability of government
Computer Science Communications, IEEE Computer websites in Uganda,” Electronic Journal of
Society, 23, 5, 132-139, 2001. e-Government, vol 8(1), 1-12, 2010.
23. S. R. Humayoun, “Incorporating usability evaluation in 39. J. Sauro. (2010, September). How common are usability
software development environments, ” KI-Künstliche problems [Online]. Available:
Intelligenz, vol 26(2), 197-200, 2012. http://www.measuringusability.com/problem-
24. C. Lallemand, “Toward a closer integration of usability frequency.php
in software development: a study of usability inputs in a 40. P. Ketola, “Integrating usability with concurrent
model-driven engineering process,” in Proceedings of the engineering in mobile phone development,” Academic
3rd ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive Dissertation, Department of Computer and Information
computing systems, ACM, 299-302, 2011. Sciences, University of Tampere, Finland 2002.
25. Human-centred design processes for interactive systems, 41. C. Jones, “Assessment and Control of Software Risk,”
ISO 13407, 1999. Yourdon Press619, 1994.
26. R. S. MBA and J. C. Arias, “Review of Risk 42. B. Jin, S. Ko, J. Mun, and Y. G. Ji, “A study for usability
Management Methods,” Volume 4-Number 1-January risk level in physical user interface of mobile phone,” in
2011-Semiannual Publication, vol 4(1), 59, 2011.
101
International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC) 4(1): 95-102
The Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications, 2014 (ISSN: 2225-658X)
102