A key aspect of a website or any artifact is its usability—the ability of the artifact’s target audience to carry out tasks safely, effectively, efficiently, even joyfully. One class of usability evaluation methods is inspection methods, in which the usability professional systematically inspects the user interface to discern potential usability problems. Here the article proposes employing Concept Mapping, a proven method of knowledge elicitation and representation, as a new, structured usability inspection method. Nineteen students in a master’s-level usability class each generated a Concept Map (Cmap) of 1 of 5 websites. These Cmaps were shared with the sites’ webmasters, and the webmasters completed a questionnaire giving us feedback on the value of the Cmaps for subsequent site redesigns. The article presents those data, infers what improvements need to be made in the new Concept Mapping Usability Evaluation method, and invites others to join us in investigating the potential value of this method.

We sought to understand how users interpret meanings of symbols commonly used in information systems, especially how icons are processed by the brain. We investigated Chinese and English speakers' processing of 4 types of visual stimuli: icons, pictures, Chinese characters, and English words. The goal was to examine, via functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, the hypothesis that people cognitively process icons as logographic words and to provide neurological evidence related to human−computer interaction (HCI), which has been rare in traditional information system studies. According to the neuroimaging data of 19 participants, we conclude that icons are not cognitively processed as logographical words like Chinese characters, although they both stimulate the semantic system in the brain that is needed for language processing. Instead, more similar to images and pictures, icons are not as efficient as words in conveying meanings, and brains (people) make more effort to process icons than words. We use this study to demonstrate that it is practicable to test information system constructs such as elements of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) with neuroscience data and that, with such data, we can better understand individual or group differences related to system usage and user−computer interactions.

Abstract Font‐rendering technologies play a critical role in presenting clear and aesthetic fonts to enhance the experience of reading from computer screens. This article presents three studies investigating visual and psychological correlates of people's preferences toward different onscreen text enhancements such as ClearType developed by Microsoft. Findings suggested that (a) people's acuity and hue sensitivity were two major factors that affect their preferences to ClearType's color filtering of subpixels on fonts, and (b) specific personality traits such as disagreeableness also could correlate with people's impressions of different onscreen text enhancements that were used. These empirical data would inform digital typographers and human–computer interaction scientists who aim to develop better systems of onscreen reading.

Two experiments comparing user performance on ClearType and Regular displays are reported. In the first, 26 participants scanned a series of spreadsheets for target information. Speed of performance was significantly faster with ClearType. In the second experiment, 25 users read two articles for meaning. Reading speed was significantly faster for ClearType. In both experiments no differences in accuracy of performance or visual fatigue scores were observed. The data also reveal substantial individual differences in performance suggesting ClearType may not be universally beneficial to information workers.

In this article, we describe and analyze the emergence of a scientific discipline, usability science, which bridges basic research in cognition and perception and the design of usable technology. An analogy between usability science and medical science (which bridges basic biological science and medical practice) is discussed, with lessons drawn from the way in which medical practice translates practical problems into basic research and fosters technology transfer from research to technology. The similarities and differences of usability science to selected applied and basic research disciplines-human factors and human-computer interaction (HCI) is also described. The underlying philosophical differences between basic cognitive research and usability science are described as Wundtian structuralism versus Jamesian pragmatism. Finally, issues that usability science is likely to continue to address-presentation of information, user navigation, interaction, learning, and methods-are described with selective reviews of work in graph reading, controlled movement, and method development and validation.

The authors have conducted an informal poll of their IBM human factors engineering peers, asking them about the organizational placement of their department and about how that placement facilitates or inhibits good human-factors engineering. The results of that poll are summarized. Also summarized are the pluses and minuses of the various organizational models, as perceived by the IBM employees. The authors then address organizational factors at levels higher than the department level. Finally, they offer a personal model of the perfect organization for maximizing usability of software, hardware, and information products.>