The global digitization drive, accelerated by the 2020 health pandemic brought renewed research interest in the use and usability of learning management systems (LMSs). The purpose of this study was to propose validated usability guidelines for an LMS in an open distance and electronic learning (ODeL) context based on lecturers’ views of students’ needs. A set of usability requirements was abstracted from the literature and used as the basis for a heuristic evaluation (HE) of the institution’s LMS. The results were triangulated with the results of three other usability evaluation methods including usability testing with eye tracking, a post-test system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire and interviews. The primary contribution is the validated usability requirements for ODeL LMSs. A secondary contribution is the triangulation approach, which allowed a comparison of the usability evaluation methods’ results and confirmed HE as an effective and efficient evaluation method for LMSs.

Abstract There are major geopolitical challenges for human-computer interaction (HCI): there may be little or no global HCI knowledge with a shared approach and identity; Western HCI theory and methods may not be adequate for regional or local models of education and practice; and the global organization of HCI research communities may be biased. This article explores geopolitical tensions in HCI research and practice fields. In particular, it offers an action-oriented framework to support systematic analysis and comparison of what HCI, as a field of knowledge and practice, is in different geopolitical contexts. We use activity theory combined with the knowledge mobilization framework to develop an actionable comparative analysis framework of geopolitical HCI challenges. The proposed framework is demonstrated by using it to analyse geopolitical HCI tensions in three case studies: the first one is focused on cultural and ideological issues surrounding the introduction of global HCI curricula in South Africa; the second one documents how local design practices in China are undermined by foreign narratives of the value of global HCI knowledge; and the third one offers an account of how global HCI could stimulate subversive local action in Colombia. The discussion takes up HCI tensions within and across countries, proposes a research agenda for geopolitical HCI research and presents theoretical contributions to activity theory and knowledge mobilization approaches. The conclusion answers research questions derived from the above challenges and summarizes how our framework and research agenda can be used to identify and assess geopolitical tensions in HCI ensuring diversity and pluralism in the field.