Usability Inspections - Their Potential Contribution

Abstract

A Usability Inspection is a specific formal design review methodology to identify and prioritize potential usability defects in a given design. More formal than heuristic evaluations (Nielsen – Molich, 1990), less complex than cognitive walkthroughs (Polson et al., 1992), the methodology is a task-oriented review process that started as an adaptation of the Kepner-Tregoe Potential Problem Analysis and further evolved to heavily leverage a formal generic inspections methodology in use at Hewlett-Packard. This evolution by adaptation of standard generic methods already understood by engineers in Hewlett-Packard has been a conscious design strategy in the hope that this would ease the adoption process. The key question for a practitioner in the field is - does the method provide sufficient return on investment to be worth including in a product development process. There is some evidence that design review methods carried out by non-Human Factors engineers do successfully find defects (Nielsen – Molich, 1990, Lewis et al., 1990, Jeffries et al., 1991). Bailey (1992) raised the question as to whether heuristic evaluations may be counterproductive in that they actually may create work rather than save it. To date, the research has largely focussed on the contribution a method may provide to a specific product or interface. This paper argues the case for a wider definition and understanding of potential utility or contribution from a Human Factors method and further claims that usability inspections not only provide a sufficient payback to warrant their inclusion in a product development lifecycle but also provide the seeds of organization change that are needed to make usability engineering a reality.