Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Terence S. Andre

dblp:07/4519 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Usability and user experience research
usability engineering
0.012001
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
0.012001
The user action framework: a reliable foundation for usability engineering support tools · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2001
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2003 Criteria For Evaluating Usability Evaluation Methods
abstract
The 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 Methods
abstract
The 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