Content uploaded by Eric Brangier
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eric Brangier on Apr 07, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Usability evaluation of a mobile system
through a “design-for-all” oriented approach.
Robin Vivian & Eric Brangier
Abstract:
This communication restores a research about the
validation of the usability of a mobile-information
system intended to help the travelers by means of
interactions with mobile technologies -mobile
telephone, portable computer, PDA, pocket PC…). As
this system is developed for all types of users, its
usability must be adapted to the greatest possible
number of people, otherwise the gap between the
users’ numerical skills is just to be amplified. With
the objective to guaranty a high level of human
performance, this paper presents evaluation processes
which associate techniques of ergonomic inspection
based on criteria, on tests in a laboratory specialized
in usability and on satisfaction surveys carried out in
live situations. These processes also try to integrate
the design-for-all prospects to the evaluation. As a
whole, the heuristic inspection results carried out by
two experts -by means of tests on 60 people and of
questionnaires given to 500 users live- emphasize the
need to associate these methods in order to create
highly adapted systems.
1. INTRODUCTION
The development of the mobile systems such as
PDAs (Personal DIGITAL Assistants), pocket PCs
and 3rd-generation telephones has contributed to
develop the problems induced in the field of
visualisation, of the continuity in service and more
generally in that of the human-machine interaction.
With these systems, the environment is more and
more seen as a means of getting a source of
information by way of a wireless network. As for
the user, he is considered as being the agent of an
interface system which enables him to be
connected, work, play, get information or purchase
while interacting from afar with a complex network
of systems.
These systems are nonetheless meant for
everybody, including people with specific needs
who -by their ages, their experiments, their
impediments- are not accustomed to such devices.
It is indeed a major issue to try to adapt mobile
systems to everyone because it refers to both
technical and ergonomic aspects but also to social
and political dimensions concerning the role these
people play in our society. Thus, this
communication aims at introducing and debating
upon an evaluation-correction procedure
concerning a mobile device which was presented to
samples of highly contrasted users (elderly people,
beginners, experts). The procedure is based on a
simple idea: a device is said to offer satisfactory
conditions of use if it can be used by people with
specific needs as well as by experts.
In order to develop this idea, we will first of all
present a theoretical framework focussing on the
evaluation of the usability of mobile systems for
everyone. We will then specify the problem tackled
here and the methodology hence developed.
Eventually, the result analysis -carried out both live
and in a laboratory- will bring us to debate on the
interest of a validation procedure about the usability
of mobile systems through a design-for-all
approach.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: EVALUATION OF
THE USABILITY OF THE MOBILE SYSTEMS
Generally speaking, the research undertaken on the
evaluation of the uses of mobile systems insisted
either on the contents of the difficulties met by the
users or on proposals for evaluation procedures. Let
us quickly present these two complementary
positions.
2.1. Contents of the evaluations of the usability
of the mobile systems
So far, mobile technologies were evaluated from
various points of view. Some research works dealt
with the problems of the user’s movement
coordination [1, 5], others with that of the use of
multimode supports to restore information [3], and
some others only studied interactions with the
system [2]. In fact, these studies showed that the
user’s expectations towards these mobile tools were
important. The multiplicity of supports and the
increasing number of the possibilities for services
explain why these new technologies are meant for
categories of population with very different
profiles as for age, technical experience or specific
needs. This diversity in the users forces us to
conceive efficient and easy to use systems [4]
which will enable the greatest number of people to
get easy and fast appropriation. To this purpose,
some research works dealt with the coordinated
management of movement and thus with the
interaction capacities with tools which often require
the use of a stylet [1]. Other works dealt with
navigation in a physical space [4]. If it is often an
easy task to point at a menu while not in motion
Vivian, R., & Brangier, E. (2007). Usability evaluation of a mobile system through a “design-for-all” directed
approach. Proceedings of International Conference on Human Machine Interaction. HuMaN 2007. Timinoun.
IEEE. 185-191.
2
(at home), it can become quite awkward in the case
of chaotic movements or travels -like on a bus. This
extension in the user’s space [2] or its modification
-according to the time of day- is one of the
characteristics which have led to developing the
mobile terminals. The management of the
interactions of such systems shows that the
interface and the management of dialogue take a
dominating or even fundamental place in the
development of a communication with mobile
devices.
A first series of researches tried to specify the
conditions of acceptance or rejection of such
devices: They explained the difficulties in their use
by indicators of complexification in the interaction
situation, as compared with the motionless
situations. These studies emphasized the
importance of the constraints linked to the
geographical limitations of use (residence, bus, car,
street, etc), to the services availability (diversity,
limited or long opening hours, etc) and to the users’
profiles.
2.2. The approaches of the evaluation of mobile
system usability
In order to develop a usability mobile technology,
other kinds of studies considered that an effective
usability evaluation method is fundamental.
According to [19, 20, 21, 22], various usability
evaluation methods have been developed, like
laboratory-based usability testing which gives high-
quality usability data with actual users. But the
effectiveness of such assessment can dramatically
vary, depending on who takes part in the tests, on
what data are collected and on how they are
analysed.
In recent years, Lee, Hong and Smith-Jackson [18]
presented a systematic methodology called SEM-
CPU (systematic evaluation method) to evaluate
cell phone user’s interfaces in laboratory-based
usability testing. SEM-CPU aims at guiding
usability engineers when integrating five empirical
methods (scenario-based task performance,
questionnaires, think aloud retrospective, after-task
interviews, and user observation) in a laboratory to
discover valid usability problems, and to generate
proper design specifications. The whole of the
SEM-CPU procedure -in terms of data collecting,
analysis and integration- was described to give a
frame in organizing usability evaluation for mobile
systems. On the same point of view, [23] suggested
a method to help interactive software reengineering:
They suggested a common study support between
Software Engineering and Human Factor
specialists. This method explicitly combines Petri
Nets and ergonomic criteria.
Although integrated approaches of usability
evaluations are specifically designed in particular
fields (medicine, mobile phone, PDA…), the
validation of mobile systems on a large scale of
users is not achieved yet. The problem of the
validation of a mobile interface for everyone is still
up-to-date. And the question is: how can we make
sure that a system originally meant for young users
is useful, efficient and easy-to-use for elderly ones
with special needs?
2.3. Integrating the design-for-all aspect to the
evaluation
Designing a product for everyone means taking into
account a maximum of users in a maximum of
contexts of use at the time of its conception. This
definition well applies to the mobile systems (even
if some of them, like the PDAs, are still of limited
use) which now widely belong to the usual
everyday objects –like mobile telephones- owned
and used by all the social classes. The design-for-
all approach tends to combine two antagonistic
procedures: One consists in designing a product
meant for an ordinary individual, and one aims at
meeting the needs of people with specific
impediments (either physically or mentally
handicapped). Adding to the ethical question about
the reduction of the numerical gap, Newell and
Gregor [15] consider the design-for-all approach as
a means of showing that people with specific needs
are not necessarily at odds with those labelled as
“normal”. They consider that there is a continuity
space in which every individual can one day or the
other, under particular circumstances and to
differing degrees, find himself with the same
specific needs.
Designing for all forces us to develop this idea: The
slighter the difference between the performances
among contrasted populations, the better the
product for everyone.
In other words: The tighter the test results between
different populations, the lower the increase in the
numerical gap between the users -especially if some
of them are with specific needs.
3. PROBLEM AND METHODS
3.1. General approach
The development of the citizens’ mobility involves
major challenges in adapting the systems to every
user, or else certain citizen rights will be restricted
to some parts of the population. The mobile
systems, in particular those dedicated to transports,
must thus have a quality of use to make them easy
to use for everyone. The researches here before
presented first emphasized problems about the
system’s ergonomics and their interactive
characteristics. They secondly focussed on the
3
importance of the mobile system evaluation
structuring in order to guaranty the validity of the
results thus obtained. But thirdly, these two
perspectives do not show that the mobile system
evaluated is adapted to a broad part of the
population. So, can we suggest a validation
procedure which would be based both on the results
obtained with systematic methods and on integrated
procedures of evaluation, and which would also
take into account the validation of use on
heterogeneous populations?
In order to tackle this general question, our central
idea is to think about a validation procedure which:
- First inspects the ergonomics of the system
according to tested criteria [16, 24];
- Then carries out usability tests in a laboratory
on contrasted groups, so as to see whether the
skilled subjects are more successful than the
other people. If there are few differences to be
found, then it would mean that the system
shows a relatively wide facility of use, i.e. that it
is by extension adapted to everyone.
- Thirdly carries out a real life survey in order to
evaluate the user’s overall level of satisfaction
whatever his category.
This research aims at debating on the hypothesis
according to which the skilled users’ performances
are decidedly the target to be reached by every
individual.
In other words:
- We arbitrarily postulate that –with relation to
the context- the performances in the expert
category are the best possible ones (provided the
ergonomic criteria are satisfied).
- We suppose that the experts’ level of
performance must be an objective to reach for
all the other users (elderly, beginners, etc), and
thus that the systems must enable the other
people to achieve this objective.
- We also suppose that tight results between
experts vs seniors and between experts vs
beginners is an indicator of the good usability
level of the technology involved.
- We finally suppose that if experimental
measurements aiming at group comparison- show a
relative proximity between the groups, then life-
size ecological measurements will give results that
are acceptable for all people.
3.2. Field work: ECIM: Communication
Environment for mobile information.
Today, technology enables people to have
continuous access to data whatever their nature
(video, mail, local news), the support (telephone,
PDA, Pocket, computers), the place, the
surroundings and the time of day. Thus, when the
people’s surroundings start communicating, when
objects become partly interactive or when a bus
changes into a media support, the usability
evaluation methods of a mobile system have to be
revised. It is a major issue to deal with the validity
of the analyses obtained, and this represents the
majority of the studies on remote evaluation.
Though it was raised years ago, this question is still
a current issue as it involves results that are
sometimes contradictory.
ECIM is a European project concerning
information-mobility, a part of which concerns
transport by bus in the city of Metz. Figure 1 shows
the principle of extraction and automatic working
of information. The use of information technologies
is a means of supporting the coherent use of the
various means of transport because it immediately
provides practical, relevant and detailed
information.
FIGURE 1: EXTRACTION WORKING CHAIN AND INFORMATION
BROADCASTING ON THE BUSES IN METZ.
news supplier
News (web, paper,
Radio, TV)
Movies, theatre, cultural
events
Weather
horoscope
data processing; broadcasting Reception
WEB
Web for PDA
To the bus
Road trafic
Local news
Train plane, bus timetable
GPRS SWIFT
GPRS UMTS
Internet
The project was developed in order to make the
mobile information chain reliable and to come up to
the users’ various expectations. ECIM gives access
to information in an interactive way on private
terminals. It offers consultation services for local
information on private supports, all this as a take
over or as an addition to the already existing
services on fixed and embarked supports. These
services are accessible on already marketed and
widely used supports (mobile telephones and
personal assistants). Here are the consultation
services offered: data (texts and pictures) in a
connected mode (wap, imode, HTML), request
services, SMS alarms and audio services.
If people want to have full use of their mobile
devices, then we must make sure that the usability
of the services offered is in keeping with their tasks
and their psychological characteristics, or else the
systems will be insufficiently and badly used.
3.3. Methods
Different researches have showed the necessity to
collect data from the users. In this evaluation, the
following data should be collected:
- A heuristic inspection (expert walkthroughs)
performed by two ergonomists with a guideline
developed from [16, 24]
4
- A video recording of the user’s interaction with
the mobile technologies; Four scenarios were
followed by each user in a usability laboratory.
- Task performance data (task completion time and
error rate)
- Verbal protocol data,
- Audio recording of post-task interview session,
- Usability questionnaire ratings during a survey; It
consists of a short trip on a bus equipped with
mobile technologies; 500 end-users were
questioned.
Each part of the result presentation will develop the
specific methods used to produce and collect the
data.
4. ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN RESULTS
Evaluating the usability of a mobile system aims at
determining the capacity of the device to cooperate
with any user. The procedure consisted in setting up
three kinds of evaluation, as follows:
- an ergonomic inspection carried out by two expert
ergonomists;
- tests performed in a usability laboratory on three
groups of 20 users each;
- and eventually a satisfaction survey directly made
in real-life situation.
The presentation of the results will follow these
three points.
4.1. Ergonomic inspection of the PDA site.
The analytical evaluation methods of user interfaces
(as opposed to the empirical evaluation methods
like test users) are not directly based on the users’
performances or opinions when collected in real-
life situation or in a laboratory. They are based on
the examination, which is more or less directed and
more or less automated, of specified and simulated
or operational interfaces. All this derives from
theories, from formal models of the man-computer
interaction, from guides, from checklists or from
heuristics. A subset of these methods can be
labelled as “methods of ergonomic inspection”.
These are methods of interface examination made
by specialists (expert evaluation) or non-specialists,
with various inspection techniques primarily based
on certain dimensions of usability
Broadly speaking, the results show that the site
does not respect many of these criteria: bad
categorization in the data, informational
overloading, legibility problems, sometimes
unsatisfactory human-task compatibility …
The heuristic inspection also noticed a great
number of navigation menus and real inconsistency
in their organization.
Figure 2 shows an example where two menu zones
are on the same screen with pieces of information
that are classified in a different order.
FIGURE 2: MULTIPLICATION OF THE NAVIGATION OPTIONS
This inspection technique enabled us to come next
to the limits of the Web developments on the
mobile systems. The size and the screen resolution
force us to completely reconsider the organization
and the presentation of information. A user does not
easily admit that he cannot find all the richness
(image, organization.) of a conventional Web site.
Hence some recommendations deriving from this
study in order to improve the usability of the
system.
4.2. Usability test for a PDA site, in a
laboratory
In order to evaluate the facility of use through a
design- for-all approach, the population on test was
divided into three categories of 20 people each. The
first category was called “beginner” and it included
subjects which had never used mobile terminals of
the pocket PC type. The second category was
labelled “expert” and was made up with people who
had been PDA users for more than 6 months. The
last category consisted of “senior” individuals, i.e.
of people over 60 years old who knew how to use
the Web but did not own a PDA.
These three categories were asked to follow four
scenarios:
The first one (SC1) was the search for two
horoscopes on the site. The second one (SC2) was
the search for indoor spectacles on pre-established
dates. This information was not categorized. The
third scenario (SC3) aimed at looking for local
information taken from a daily newspaper. The last
(SC4) scenario was simply to go back to the home
page.
As a starting point, we assumed that the experts
were to prove more effective and more efficient
than the beginners and the seniors in following the
whole of the scenarios. Is their mastering of the
system an advantage for them? Or on the contrary,
are the interfaces designed so as not to leave
anyone behind?
5
The table below shows for the four scenarios the
success rates in the expert, the beginner and the
senior categories.
FIGURE 3: COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS OF THE RATES OF SUCCESS
EXPERT beginner SENIOR
Success Part Fail Success Part Fail Success Part Fail
SC1 20 0 0 19 0 1 18 1 1
SC2 1 14 5 0 12 8 0 6 14
SC3 20 0 0 15 0 5 15 0 5
SC4 18 0 2 14 0 6 15 0 5
Figure 3 shows that, as expected, the experts get the
best scores including in scenario 2 which was more
difficult than the others. Added to this, the
difference in success between experts, beginners
and seniors is nonsignificant in terms of
effectiveness. The average calculation of success
shows that the three categories have tight results
though the experts have an advantage.
FIGURE 4: COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS CHART OF THE AVERAGE
TIMES (IN SECONDS) AND THE NUMBER OF ITEMS SELECTED,
WITHIN EACH OF THE 4 SCENARIOS.
Average time(sec) nbclics time(sec) nbclics time(sec) nbclics
SC1 67 11 59 7,5 83 8,1
SC2 375 33 345 26 475 24
SC3 78 9,2 157 11 91 6
SC4 23 4,4 22 2,5 19,5 2,1
expert
beginner
seniors
The analysis of performing times and of the number
of mouse-clicks necessary to carry out the various
tasks (figure 4) does not put forward significant
difference between the experts and the two other
groups which could be considered as “backward”
(beginners and seniors). Except for scenario 3, the
experts have performing times that can be
compared with the beginners’. We also notice that
the number of interactions is quite higher in the
expert group. Would this mean that they have a
penalizing exploratory strategy? Indeed, they do not
hesitate to temporarily leave the objective aside to
navigate in unexpected sites and pages.
In short, the tests carried out in a usability
laboratory emphasize that there is no statistical
difference between the expert group and the groups
with short or no experience (beginners) or with
elderly individuals, both in terms of effectiveness
and of efficiency. Thus the results follow the idea
according to which there is an similitude between
the performances of the individuals accustomed to
the use of mobile devices and the neophytes’.
For our study, the age factor does not seem to be
determining when dealing with the ability to simply
carry out a research on Web sites. The information
restitution format (a PDA screen) and the
interaction mode (a stylet) do not act as
impediments for the senior category at all. We even
noticed that this group had slightly better results in
time and interaction number on scenario 3 and, to a
lower degree, on scenario 4.
4.3. Ecological tests: Satisfaction survey in
real-life situation.
First of all, the evaluation through ergonomic
criteria enabled us to bring out recommendations
for improvement. Then the laboratory tests
emphasized that there is a relative proximity in the
uses made within the three groups. The point is now
to know whether the positive aspects of the initial
evaluations will come up again in a life-size
evaluation with a large public (500 people).
In order to know whether the life-size evaluation
confirms previous evaluations, 500 questionnaires –
relating to information broadcast on the bus
screens- were given so as to evaluate the users’
satisfaction degree [17] over a 2-month period.
People were asked about general ergonomics
(screen size, site, legibility), on the relevance of
information, on their overall perception of the
service and the developments they hoped for. Half
of the questionnaires were collected in the morning
and the other half in the afternoon. This study helps
us to complete indirectly the validation tests carried
out in the laboratory, since it only evaluates one
satisfaction rate of the system.
This reveals that 68% of the people questioned have
a good perception of the service and 83% are in
favour of its development. It is noticed that the
level of satisfaction is also dependent on the time of
day, with sometimes difficulty to access to
information after midday because of the higher
number of people on the bus. Accessibility to
information is on the whole satisfactory (the
character size is only mentioned 5 times whereas
the person’s location or position on the bus is
mentioned 52 times). The relevance of the
broadcast contents is quite satisfactory even if the
users seem to be asking for intermodal information,
for example like regional city traffic, car park
vacancies, schedules or transport connections.
5. DISCUSSION - CONCLUSION
The effectiveness and the efficiency in the use of
the system enable categories of disadvantaged
individuals (beginners, seniors) to reach
performance levels that are close to those obtained
by experts. The tool shows usability characteristics
which enable the greatest number of people to
handle easily the whole of the functionalities
offered by the system. It appears to be adapted to
various populations and, therefore, is adapted to a
large public. The use tests that we carried out in a
laboratory on the mobile systems (which were a
reproduction of the contents offered on the buses
6
plus with an access to the Web) showed that it is
important to set up connexions between the various
information systems and to make them available via
the Web. A priori, the studies we undertook before
augur well of a good level of satisfaction in the use
of the system. In short, we may think that the
device offers important guaranties of adaptation.
Beyond these results, this experiment offers a type
of particular reasoning on the validation of
usability. Let us resume it here after:
1. There are ergonomic characteristics which, once
integrated into the system, make it possible to
have systems that can be adapted to the greatest
number of people.
2. These ergonomic characteristics are based on a
scientific and methodological corpus, i.e.
ergonomic recommendations and criteria.
3. The integration of the ergonomic characteristics
must really induce an easier and better use of
the system for “handicapped” individuals or for
people with specific needs.
4. There is a means of measuring the ergonomics
contribution to the use of the system: it is to
compare in a laboratory the performances
between expert groups and specially chosen
populations (in our case: elderly people because
they take the buses, and beginners because they
just use mobile telephones).
5. If the performance variations between the groups
are small, then we may imply that the system
can be used by most of the people. Hence the
relevance of the satisfaction evaluation in real
and life-size situation.
In fact, this communication aims at developing
forms of usability validations according to which
the similarity in the performances between the
different groups is an indirect indicator of the
adaptation of the technical systems. Consequently,
the groups with handicaps or disadvantages give
comparison indicators that are useful for the
creation and the evaluation of the technical systems.
These groups offer a real potential for the validation
of uses.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. E. Beck, Mr. Christiansen, J. Kjeldskov, NR. Kolbe, J.
Stage “experiemental evaluation off technical for usability
testing off mobile systems in A laboratory setting” in
proceedings off OZ CHI 2003 brisbane Australia 2003
2. P. Salembier, J. Kahn, G. Calvet, Mr. Zouinar, Mr. Relieu
“just follow me: Examining the uses/[wear] off has
multimode mobile device in natural settings” in
proceedings off international the HCI conference july 2005
22-27 Las Vegas.
3. B. Cabour, P. Salembier, C. Brassac, J.L. Bouraoui et al.
“methodologies for evaluating the emotional
experiment/[experience] off has mediated innovative
interaction” Workshop one approach to evaluating
emotional interfaces” CHI 2005 2-7 Portland Oregon
4. A. Pirthonen, S. Brewster, C. Holguin “Gestual and audio
metaphors have has means off mobile control for devices”
in proceeding off the ACM conf one human factors in
computing systems CHI'2002 ACM close Addison Wesley
Mineapolis 2002 291-298
5. K.P. Fishkin, T.P. Moran, B.L.Harrisson “embodied to
use/[wear] interfaces: towards invisible to use/[wear]
interfaces off” proceeding EHCI 98 Kluwer academic
publisher 1-16
6. F. Jambon, C. Golanski, P.J. Pommier “Evaluation of the
mobile devices: on the ground or in laboratory?”
Proceedings off IHM 2006, New York: ACM DIGITAL
library, Montreal p 35-42
7. F. Davis, R. Bagozzi, and P. Warshaw (1989). To
use/[wear] Acceptance Computer Technology off: In
Comparison off Two Theoretical Models, Management
Science 35 (8): 982-1003.
8. Mr. Hammontree, P. Weiler, NR. Nayak (1994) “Remote
Usability Testing” Interaction 1,3 1994 p 21-25
9. S. Wasterson, J.A. Landay, T. Matthews “In the lab and
out in the wild: remote mobile Web usability testing for
devices” CHI' O2 conference one human factors in
computing system extended abstract (Mineapolis
Minnesota, the USA) ACM close 2002 p 796-797
10. H.R. Hartson, J.C. Castillo, J. Kelso, W.C. Neal “Remote
evaluation: the network have off year extension the
usability laboratory” SIGCHI conference one human
factors in computing systems (CHI'96) Vancouver British
Columbia Canada ACM Press 1996 p 228-235.
11. V. Bartek, D. Cheathman “Experience remote usability
testing share 1 & 2” IBM' S Pervasive computing division
2003, URL:
http://www.106ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/war
musts1/
12. K.E. Thomson, E.P. Rozanski, A.R. Haake “Here there,
anywhere: remote usability testing that works” 5th
conference one information technology education Salt lake
City UT the USA ACM close 2004 p 132-137.
13. T. Tullis, S. Fleischman, Mr. Mc Nulty, C. Cianchette, Mr.
Bergel “Year amperical comparison off lab and remote
usability testing off Web sites” Usability professionals
association conference UPA 2002 (8-12 July Orlando FL
the USA) 2002.
14. B. Shackel “Ergonomics in design and usability” in people
and computers: design for usability, Harrison M & Monk
A (ED) Cambridge University Press Cambridge.
15. A.F. Newell & P. Gregor “to use/[wear] sensitive inclusive
design: in search off has new paradigm” acts of the
man/machine international conference & assistance Metz
Juillet 2001 p 18-20.
16. J. - Mr. Bastien & D. Scapin (1997) “Ergonomic will
critera for evaluating the ergonomic quality off interactiv
systems” Behaviour and information technology 16, p 220-
231.
17. J.M. Barnaba, J. Tate Rapport of work of project EQUAL
“Results: checking Phase/Site Metz). TDF/ University off
leeds.
18. Y.S. Lee, Hong, S.W., Smith-Jackson, T.L., Mr. A.
Nussbaum, & K. Tomioka, (2006). Systematic evaluation
methodology for concealment phon to use/[wear]
interfaces. Interacting with Computers, 18, 304–325
7
19. A. Crerar, & D. Benyon, (1998) Integrating usability into
systems development. In Trenner, L. and Bawa, J. (Eds)
The politics off usability. Springer
20. E. Brangier, ME. Bobillier-Chaumon & Strong J-P.,
(2003). Techniques, methods and steps/[procedure] of
evaluation of the technical assistances. In A. Pruski (ED),
technical Assistance with the handicap. Paris: Hermès. 49-
102.
21. I. Denley, & J. Long, (1997). With planning aid for human
factors practise evaluation. Behaviour and information
technology, 16, 203-219
22. B. Christie, R. Scane, & J. Collyer, (1995). Evaluation off
human-computer interaction At the to use/[wear] interface
to advanced I.T systems. In: J.R., Wilson, & E.N., Corlett,
Evaluation off human work (pp.310-356). London: Taylor
and Francis.
23. S. Bernonville, NR. Leroy, C. Kolski, Mr. C. Beuscart-
Zéphir, (2006, in near). Association of the Petri networks
and the criteria of ergonomics of the software for the
modeling and the reingeniery of interactive systems, case
of the therapeutic regulation in hospital medium. In E.
Brangier, C. Kolski, & J-R. Ruault, the human one like
factor of performance of the complex systems. Biarritz:
Estia.
24. C. Bach, E. Brangier, D.L. Scapin, (2005). How to ensure
itself/[ascertain]/[assure]/[insure]/[reassure] of the facility
of use of a new technology? In Levy-Leboyer, C,
Equivocal, C., & Roland, J-P (Eds)., Management of the
organisations, Paris: Editions of organisation. 413-428.
Authors
Robin VIVIAN: is a member of the ETIC laboratory. He passed
his pH D. in 1993 in computer sciences. He became a computer
scientist after specializing in the optimization of the calculation
of synthesized images. As he taught new information
technologies, he naturally joined in the ETIC laboratory to study
the man-machine interaction. The guidelines to his work are the
study, the analysis and the understanding of use and interaction
methods with mobile devices or with systems of virtual reality.
Eric BRANGIER: Pr. Dr. Eric Brangier is the head of the ETIC
laboratory. He passed his pH. D. in 1991 in work psychology.
After spending four years in a computer company (Data
processing-CDC, Paris) as a research engineer, he became an
assistant professor and then a professor at the University Paul
Verlaine in Metz. His researches deal with ergonomics of the
products, ergonomics of complex systems, psychology of new
technologies, analysis of specific needs (disabled groups,
experts, illiterate, students, technicians…). His recent
international scientific responsibilities were to be the chairman
of two scientific meetings (HCI, human computer interaction
French meeting, 2003, Caen; and Ergo' IA International
conference, Biarritz 2006). Pr. Eric Brangier also worked as an
expert for different committees (National Research and Safety
Institute, INRS, research and technology Department of the
French Ministry, Research Society of Quebec, National
Research Agency). His was also a guest Professor in Montreal
(LICEF/CIRTA, TV-University of Quebec, Polytechnic School
of Montreal) and in Lisbon (Piaget Institute). In 2004, Pr.
Brangier received the second Research prize by the Lorraine
Regional Council. He is the author of 2 books and more than
100 scientific papers.
