Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Terence S. Andre
dblp:07/4519
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2003
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 3 · 1 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Usability and user experience research · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Requirements engineering and software design · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Usability and user experience research
usability engineering |
0.0 | 1 | 2001 | The user action framework: a reliable foundation for usability engineering support tools · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2001 |
Requirements engineering and software design
user-centered design |
0.0 | 1 | 2001 | The user action framework: a reliable foundation for usability engineering support tools · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2001 |
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | Criteria For Evaluating Usability Evaluation MethodsabstractThe current variety of alternative approaches to usability evaluation methods (UEMs) designed to assess and improve usability in software systems is offset by a general lack of understanding of the capabilities and limitations of each. Practitioners need to know which methods are more effective and in what ways and for what purposes. However, UEMs cannot be evaluated and compared reliably because of the lack of standard criteria for comparison. In this article, we present a practical discussion of factors, comparison criteria, and UEM performance measures useful in studies comparing UEMs. In demonstrating the importance of developing appropriate UEM evaluation criteria, we offer operational definitions and possible measures of UEM performance. We highlight specific challenges that researchers and practitioners face in comparing UEMs and provide a point of departure for further discussion and refinement of the principles and techniques used to approach UEM evaluation and comparison. H. Rex Hartson, Terence S. Andre, Robert C. Williges |
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. | 2 |
| 2001 | Criteria For Evaluating Usability Evaluation MethodsabstractThe current variety of alternative approaches to usability evaluation methods (UEMs) designed to assess and improve usability in software systems is offset by a general lack of understanding of the capabilities and limitations of each. Practitioners need to know which methods are more effective and in what ways and for what purposes. However, UEMs cannot be evaluated and compared reliably because of the lack of standard criteria for comparison. In this article, we present a practical discussion of factors, comparison criteria, and UEM performance measures useful in studies comparing UEMs. In demonstrating the importance of developing appropriate UEM evaluation criteria, we offer operational definitions and possible measures of UEM performance. We highlight specific challenges that researchers and practitioners face in comparing UEMs and provide a point of departure for further discussion and refinement of the principles and techniques used to approach UEM evaluation and comparison. H. Rex Hartson, Terence S. Andre, Robert C. Williges |
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. | 2 |
| 2001 | The user action framework: a reliable foundation for usability engineering support tools
Terence S. Andre, H. Rex Hartson, Steven M. Belz, Faith A. McCreary |
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. | 1 |