Satisfying stakeholders' needs - balancing agile and formal usability test results

• Autorzy: Winter J. , Rönkkö K.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper deals with a case study of testing with a usability testing package (UTUM), which is also a tool for quality assurance, developed in cooperation between industry and research. It shows that within the studied company, there is a need to balance agility and formalism when producing and presenting results of usability testing to groups who we have called Designers and Product Owners. We have found that these groups have different needs, which can be placed on opposite sides of a scale, based on the agile manifesto. This becomes a Designer and a Product Owner Manifesto. The test package is seen as a successful hybrid method combining agility with formalism, satisfying organisational needs, and fulfilling the desire to create a closer relation between industry and research.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

usability testing package; cooperation between industry and research; Product Owner Manifest

• Wydawca: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej
• Czasopismo: e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal
• Rocznik: 2009
• Tom: Vol. 3, nr 1
• Strony: 119--138
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 46 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Winter J.

autor

Rönkkö K.

• School of Engineering, Dept. of Interaction & System Design, Blekinge Institute of Technology

Bibliografia

• [1] K. Beck. Extreme Programming Explained. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 2000.
• [2] P. Berander and P. Jönsson. Hierarchical cumulative voting (HCV) – prioritization of requirements in hierarchies. International Journal of Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering,16(6):819, 2006.
• [3] P. Berander and C. Wohlin. Identification of key factors in software process management –a case study. In 2003 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE ’03, pages 316–325, Rome, Italy, 2003.
• [4] B. W. Boehm. A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer, 21(5):61–72, 1988.
• [5] B. W. Boehm. Get ready for agile methods, with care. Computer, 35(1):64–69, 2002.
• [6] B. W. Boehm. Keynote address, 5th Workshop on Software Quality (WoSQ), 2007.
• [7] J. Brooke. System usability scale (SUS): a Quick-and-Dirty method of system evaluation user information, 1986.
• [8] BTH. UIQ, usability test. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IjIRlVwgeo, Aug. 2008.
• [9] A. Cockburn and J. Highsmith. Agile Software Development. The Agile Software Development Series. Addison-Wesley, Boston, 2002.
• [10] Y. Dittrich, C. Floyd, and R. Klischewski.Doing Empirical Research in Software Engineering:finding a path between understanding, intervention and method development, pages 243–262. MIT Press, 2002.
• [11] Y. Dittrich, K. Rönkkö, J. Erickson, C. Hansson, and O. Lindeberg. Co-operative method development: Combining qualitative empirical research with method, technique and process improvement. Journal of Empirical Software Engineering, 2007.
• [12] Y. Dittrich, K. Rönkkö, O. Lindeberg, J. Erickson, and C. Hansson. Co-operative method development revisited. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng.Notes, 30(4):1–3, 2005.
• [13] J. N. Gordon. Institutions as relational investors:A new look at cumulative voting.Columbia Law Review, 94(4):124–193, 1994.
• [14] M. J. Harrold. Testing: A roadmap. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering, Limmerick, Ireland, 2000. ACM Press.
• [15] M. Hassenzahl, E. L. Law, and E. T. Hvannberg.User experience – towards a unified view. In 138 Jeff Winter, Kari Rönkkö UX WS NordiCHI’06, pages 1–3, Oslo, Norway, 2006. cost294.org.
• [16] M. Hassenzahl and N. Tractinsky. User experience – a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2):91–97, 2006.
• [17] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9241-11 (1998): Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – part 11: Guidance on usability. Technical report, 1998.
• [18] International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9126-1 software engineering – product quality – part 1: Quality model, 2001.
• [19] Investopedia.com. Cumulative voting.http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cumulativevoting.asp, Apr. 2009.
• [20] D. Leffingwell and D. Widrig. Managing Software Requirements: A Use Case Approach, volume 2nd. Addison Wesley, 2003.
• [21] D. Martin, J. Rooksby, M. Rouncefield, and I. Sommerville. ‘Good’ organisational reasons for ‘Bad’ software testing: An ethnographic study of testing in a small software company. In ICSE ’07, Minneapolis, MN, 2007. IEEE.
• [22] E. Mumford. Advice for an action researcher.Information Technology and People, 14(1):12–27, 2001.
• [23] L. Osterweil. Strategic directions in software quality. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR),28(4):738–750, 1996.
• [24] B. Pettichord. Testers and developers think differently.STGE magazine, Vol. 2(Jan/Feb 2000 (Issue 1)), 2000.
• [25] S. L. Pfleeger and J. M. Atlee. Software Engineering,volume 3rd. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006.
• [26] B. Regnell, M. Höst, J. N. och Dag, P. Beremark, and T. Hjelm. An industrial case study on distributed prioritisation in Market-Driven requirements engineering for packaged software. Requirements Engineering, 6(1):51–62, 2001.
• [27] C. Robson. Real World Research, volume 2nd. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 1993.
• [28] K. Rönkkö. Making Methods Work in Software Engineering: Method Deployment as a Social achievement. PhD thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, 2005. Dissertation Series No. 2005:04; Doctoral Thesis.
• [29] K. Rönkkö. Ethnography. In P. Laplante, editor, Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. Taylor and Francis Group, New York, 2008.
• [30] W. W. Royce. Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques.In 9th international conference on Software Engineering,pages 328–338, Monterey, California, United States, 1987. IEEE Computer Society Press.
• [31] J. Sawyer and D. McRae, Jr. Game theory and cumulative voting in Illinois: 1902–1954. The American Political Science Review,56(4):936–946, 1994.
• [32] D. Schuler and A. Namioka. Participatory Design– Principles and Practices, volume 1st.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1993.
• [33] I. Sommerville. Software Engineering, volume 8. Addison Wesley, 1982.
• [34] D. Talby, O. Hazzan, Y. Dubinsky, and A. Keren. Agile software testing in a Large-Scale project. IEEE Software, 23(4):30–37, 2006.
• [35] The Agile Alliance. The agile manifesto. http://agilemanifesto.org/, Apr. 2009.
• [36] The Agile Alliance. Principles of agile software. http://www.agilemanifesto.org/principles.html, Apr. 2009.
• [37] U-ODD. Use-Oriented Design and Development. http://www.bth.se/tek/u-odd, Apr. 2009.
• [38] UIQ Technology. Company information. http://uiq.com/aboutus.html, June 2008.
• [39] UIQ Technology. UIQ Technology Usability Metrics. http://uiq.com/utum.html, June 2008.
• [40] UIQ Technology. UTUM website. http://uiq.com/utum.html, June 2008.
• [41] UXEM. User eXperience Evaluation Methods in product development (UXEM).http://www.cs.tut.fi/ihte/CHI08_workshop/slides/Poster_UXEM_CHI08_V1.1.pdf, June 2008.
• [42] UXNet: the user experience network. http: //uxnet.org/, June 2008.
• [43] Wikipedia. Cumulative voting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_voting, Apr. 2009.
• [44] J. Winter, K. Rönkkö, M. Ahlberg, M. Hinely, and M. Hellman. Developing quality through measuring usability: The UTUM test package. In ICSE 2007, 5th Workshop on Software Quality, at ICSE 2007, 2007.
• [45] WoSQ. Fifth workshop on software quality, at ICSE 07. http://attend.it.uts.edu.au/icse2007/, June 2008.
• [46] R. K. Yin and S. Robinson. Case Study Research – Design and Methods, volume 3rd of Applied Social Research Methods Series. SAGE publications, 5, 2003.