Relevance of UCD Education to Software

Development – Recommendation for Curriculum Design

Amir Dirin

and Marko Nieminen

Business Information Technology, Haaga-Helia UAS, Helsinki, Finland

Computer Science Dept., Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

Keywords: Project based Learning, User-Centred Design, Mobile Application Development.

Abstract: This paper describes the implementation and impact of specific focus on user-centred design (UCD)

methods and practices to a mobile application concept development course. The course has been held for

two consecutive years at a University of Applied Sciences. This project-based course educates students in

teamwork, user study techniques, data interpretation, and scenario-based design. Moreover, by applying

usability assessment methods such as heuristic evaluations and usability tests, students learn the basics of

usability engineering methods and principles. In addition to outcomes on students’ learning, the course has

resulted in several innovative mobile application concepts some of which are in the process of being

commercialized. This paper presents student feedback about the applied methods months after the

completion of the course. The questionnaire-originating results indicate that students gain knowledge and

skills that are very valuable for their future careers in software and service development. Knowledge on

UCD is relevant in contemporary mobile application development and an important asset for students to

become competitive in job markets. Almost all students have applied the educated methods in their work,

and they are willing to promote the UCD methods and framework to their professional peers. The results are

further used to discuss and emphasize the importance of UCD education.

1 INTRODUCTION

Users’ role in product concept development has

become increasingly important (Kujala et al. 2005)

(Constantine 2006). User-Centred Design (UCD) in

the development of interactive systems and devices

has an increasing importance in product development

organizations (Nieminen 2004), (Gould and Lewis

1985), and (Gould et al. 1997). Contemporary

software development methodologies and

approaches, such as UCD, lean (Stone 2012), and

agile (Szalvay 2004) promote customers’ and users’

involvement in application development. This trend

and market demand has also had an impact on the

arrangements and approaches in software

development companies (Cusumano 2008) (Bosch

2009). This progress introduces new demands, skill

requirements and mindset changes in teaching and

learning of software development.

The trend on customer and user focus has

changed the demands in software industry in hiring

new employees. This was specially confirmed in

Finland based on the interview study conducted with

IT companies by Haaga-Helia University of Applied

Sciences (Soitinaho and Palviainen 2015). Software

development skills are not anymore limited to

programming knowledge (Ruparelia 2010).

Programmers are expected to have basic user study

and negotiation skills in addition to technological

proficiencies. Software companies are searching for

employees, such as consultants and programmers,

who have competencies in engaging with end users.

The employees must be able to conduct end user

studies, analyze the collected data, and derive

requirements and specifications based on such

findings. As a result of such activities, the resulting

software is more likely to meet users’ needs and

expectations (Kristensson et al. 2002) which is

important for software business.

Contrasting with the past, a software

development company does not anymore receive full

requirements directly from customers. The

traditional role as an implementation partner that

delivered software based on the pre-defined

requirements has changed. Nowadays, software

developers are expected to communicate and interact

closely with customers when creating and

completing the requirements and implementation for

112

Dirin, A. and Nieminen, M.

Relevance of UCD Education to Software Development – Recommendation for Curriculum Design.

In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2016) - Volume 2, pages 112-120

ISBN: 978-989-758-179-3

software and digital services.

Industry and education always impact each other

(Richardson and Hynes 2008) despite occasional

conflicts on the overall values (Tasker and Packham

1993). The demand from industry drives the

educational content and, vice versa, novel

development methods and practices traverse to

companies as students with new skills are hired as

new employees. For a sustainable software

development business, end-users’ involvement in

development gaining increasing importance in

ensuring the acceptance and perceived quality of the

resulting system. In addition to ascertaining that the

resulting software is error-free, developers must

make sure that it is usable and fulfills users’

essential needs. Developer skills, such as user

studies, data analysis, and usability assessment have

become increasingly important.

Undergraduate students gain their basic

technological competence in information technology

(IT) related courses at the University of Applied

Sciences. Traditionally, IT faculties of these

educational institutes have provided various courses

to teach the latest technologies in different

semesters. These courses are both basic and

advanced courses in programming and software

engineering. After the completion of their degree

program, students are hired by software companies

to various positions as programmers, consultants,

and product managers, to mention a few.

In order to anticipate the changing demands of

software companies as well as to improve students’

competitiveness at the job market, we have included

a user-centered design course to the course

curriculum of the Business Information Technology

(BIT) faculty. At this course, we have been teaching

human factors in software development processes.

The course is a six credit compulsory course for

second semester students. A typical number of

students who participate in the course varies

between 20-30 students per semester. The course

contains basic team working requirements, methods

and techniques for user studies such as diary,

questionnaire, interview etc. and various qualitative

data analysis methods, such as transcript coding

(Weston et al. 2001), task and environment analysis

(Hackos and Redish 1998a) and affinity

diagramming (Holtzblatt et al. 2005). Additionally,

students learn to do concept design with scenario-

based design (Rosson and Carroll 2002) and low-

fidelity prototyping, as well as various usability

assessments methods. Students are given a project

topic that they have to work on as a team of 4-5

fellow students. The topics are either recommended

by partner companies, given by course instructors, or

they can be selected and defined by the students

themselves. In addition to these, students are given a

presentation topic that they have to present to the

class. The presentation topics, cover the theoretical

parts of the course e.g. user study methods, usability

assessments, benefit of the usability etc. At the end

of their presentation students are asked to raise two

questions from their presentations that the class

should answer with their own words and submit

their result by the due date. After the presentation,

the groups start to work on the project based on

given UCD framework phases. At each phase,

groups share their findings with other classmates.

2 UCD METHODS AND PROCESS

AT THE COURSE

As mentioned in the widely-accepted principles of

user-centered design in ISO 9241-210, we need to

involve users in the software development process.

Based on users’ feedback the design will be modified.

User requirements should have the focus in all stages

of product development cycle (ISO 2010). ISO 9241-

210 defines three different levels for UCD: I.

Cooperative design; designers and the user involved

in all stages; II. Participatory design; users’

occasionally participate in the design process; III.

Contextual design; design based on the actual context.

Based on widely known UCD principles, Preece

et al. (2002) recommends user involvement in various

stages of development. Additionally, Preece provides

appropriate methods at various stages of the artifacts /

product development. These methods are also applied

during project development by students.

2.1 UCD Framework for Student

Projects at the Course

In the fall of 2013, we run the course with a UCD

framework. Students were asked to apply the UCD

framework for m-learning application development

(Dirin and Nieminen 2014a). The applied UCD

framework consisted of three main parts:

identification and definition of the stakeholders/role-

players (Dirin and Nieminen 2014b), exploration

and description of the context-of-use, and processes

(Dirin and Alamäki 2015).

The UCD framework instructs that the

application stakeholders are identified at the

elicitation phase. This ensures users’ involvement in

defining the requirements

and impacting the design of

Relevance of UCD Education to Software Development – Recommendation for Curriculum Design

113

the application concept as early as possible. The

stakeholders of the potential application often directly or

indirectly affect the application development at the various

phases of UCD framework. Figure 1 presents the UCD

framework for m-learning application development.

Figure 1: The applied UCD development framework.

The framework requires users’ involvement in all

stages of the application concept development.

Accordingly, the project group is asked to carry out

the processes to attain the required concept design of

the given project topics. The phases of the

framework are as follows:

User Study – This is done by applying methods

such as questionnaires and semi-structured interviews.

In this phase, the designer aims to learn about the users’

existing means to handle their work related tasks.

Data Analysis – Analysis of the collected data in

user study phase. The analysis consists of transcript

coding of user interviews (Saldana 2009) as well as

the analysis and description of users’ tasks and

environments (Hackos and Redish 1998b). The

overall requirements for the target application are

identified in this phase.

Idea Creation – By using affinity diagrams

(Holtzblatt et al. 2005), actions and requirements

created at the previous phases are categorized. Use

cases and scenarios are applied as design methods to

create a communicable description of the application

concept to the target users.

Product Concept – Scenarios are shared with 3-5

users for their feedback. A scenario reflects the

potential overall concept of the application. After

users’ review of the scenario, the designers conduct

a short, semi-structured interview to learn about

users’ viewpoints about the application concept and

the intended functionalities. User feedback is

analyzed to validate the feasibility of the concept, to

ensure that the users and designers share the same

understanding of the potential application, and that

the functionality of the application fulfils users’

needs. When necessary, designers may return back

to the previous phase to modify the scenarios. After

validating the concept through scenarios, students

are asked to design a low-fidelity or high-fidelity

prototype which is based on the proposed scenarios.

Finally, students are requested to perform usability

evaluation with heuristic evaluation guidelines

(Nielsen 1995) on the prototype.

Most project topics that are given to students are

real projects originating from industrial companies.

As a result, students are advised to conduct the user

study with actual stakeholders and potential

application users.

Finally, the project teams have to share the final

concept of their application with their classmates

and submit the final report for their course

assessment. In addition to being just an assignment

for studies, those groups of students who come up

with a novel mobile application prototype are

advised to contact startup school for possible

commercializing support.

3 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

COURSE

Students are requested to conduct the user study after

they have studied and learned the phases and methods

of the framework. Students develop competence on

user study techniques and research ethics.

After students have successfully conducted the

user study, they have to provide the interview

transcript and prepare a presentation about the

interview experiences. This is shared with other

classmates. This helps the other groups to learn about

their fellow students’ achievements and help them to

identify what was done properly in their project.

For the next step, the teacher describes the data

analysis methods in face-to-face sessions through

examples and class based activities. These include

transcript coding, task and environment analysis,

and the creation of affinity diagrams. Students are

given time for two weeks to create the needs and

requirements list based on the data analysis sessions.

Similarly, as in the previous phases, the project

groups have to report their findings and present their

findings to other classmates in a face-to-face

session. This phase improves students’ skills in

teamwork as they have to work as a team to come up

with a list of requirements.

Similarly, students are requested to report, and

categorize the requirements list by applying affinity

diagrams and finally share the requirements list and

categorized list of requirements with fellow

classmates in a face-to-face session. Following that,

students must write a scenario or scenarios which

contain all the categorized requirements that represent

the potential application functionalities. The scenario

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

114

method makes students learn that they can present an

application concept even through a simple story.

As this course is taught in the second semester of

the Business Information Technology (BIT) degree

program, students learn the importance of the user

study and concept development through scenario.

This is another mind-set change that the initial

software application concept is not necessarily

presented only by graphical presentations or coding.

However, they eventually have to proceed and

present the concept graphically as a low-fidelity

prototype. The scenario then is shared and reviewed

with potential users. Often, 3 to 5 users are needed

to review, 3 of whom are new users and the rest are

users who have participated in the requirements

elicitation phase. Those in the groups who already

have experience in coding have the option to design

a non-functional prototype through coding or using

the commercial prototype design applications such

as Marvel (Marvel 2014). The low-fidelity prototype

will then be evaluated in a usability lab study with

potential users. This is typically the first usability lab

experience for the students. For this part, they need

to prepare a set of tasks that users must carry out

during the test sessions. In a normal way, the test

sessions are recorded to enable further analysis.

Table 1: Summary of prototypes and designs from the

course.

Application

Prototype Design

Context Users

M-learning app

(Java)

Higher education

Students and

Teachers

Driving Licenses

Private driving

school

Driving licenses’

candidate

Instructors

Business Game Higher education

Students and

Teachers

new visitors

mHealth

Hospitals

Nurses

Doctors

Administrator

Tourism

Guidelines

Small business

Marketing

Sales and

Managers

4 OUTCOMES: CONCEPTS AND

APPLICATIONS FROM THE

COURSE

What kind of innovative concepts have resulted from

the course, then? The course has been organized

consecutively every semester (spring, autumn) since

fall 2013. Some of the students at the course have

successfully completed the course with innovative

mobile application concepts including proof-of-

concept prototypes. Based on the resulting

application concepts, the overall innovativeness and

outcome of the student projects has been promising.

Some groups (5-10%) fail to reach a proper

application concept for the given project in each

implementation. The dropout rate is relatively low in

this course despite it being very time consuming,

especially for second semester students. In the fall

2014 semester, the dropout rate was 7% (Dirin and

Alamäki 2015).

The outcomes from the project have been

intriguing for the students to such extent that there

has been at least one start-up company from each

course implementation by students (project team

members).

Many innovative application concepts that have

been dropped off from further development were

mainly due to the lack of motivation or support;

these include financial resources. Table 1 and

following list briefly describe the most recent

concepts developed at the course.

• A Context-Aware Nurse Assistance at Elderly

Houses (Dirin et al. 2015): A context-aware

mobile web services that provide the basic

location based service to assist nurses in their

work related activities.

• Adaptive m-learning application for driving

license candidates: An adaptive mobile learning

application that helps driving license candidates

to record and pass the independent driving part

with their smartphones. The application delivers

the reports to the instructors in driving schools

about the route that users drive as well as

possible failures etc. during driving.

• Customer Guidance Game (Dirin and Vainio

2015): A mobile game application that helps new

visitors to learn the location and offices in the

target office premises.

• A Value-Added Mobile Guide Service for Small

Tourism Companies (Alamäki and Dirin 2014):

A cloud-based mobile service that help kayakers

and bikers to navigate.

5 RESULTS: IMPACT OF THE

COURSE

In order to evaluate the impact and importance of the

content and the course to the students, we conducted

an online questionnaire with the class in December

Relevance of UCD Education to Software Development – Recommendation for Curriculum Design

115

2014, two months after the completion of the course.

In addition to this, the online questionnaires were

also delivered to the participants of an earlier course

implementation that had been implemented in 2013.

Data. Altogether 19 students that had taken the

course provided their answers. For the courses

completed in 2014, the majority of the students (18

from total of 22 participants) answered the

questionnaire and provided their feedback. One

student had taken the course already in spring 2013.

Method. The results were gathered using a

Google Forms online questionnaire consisting of 19

questions. A link to the questionnaire was sent to

students’ email. The questions addressed the various

phases of the applied UCD framework, methods

applied, and overall satisfaction with the framework.

There were two sections in the questionnaire. In

the first part we asked students to describe in a

qualitative way some the overall feedback about the

methodology, what they remember from the

methodology, what they considered the drawback of

the methodology, and what they would like to

improve. The second part of the questionnaire

focused on quantitative questions. The low number

of responses, however, constrains the analysis of

thorough statistical testing. Therefore, the emphasis

in this paper is in the qualitative results that are

supported with answers to the quantitative part.

Results. Altogether 17 respondents provided

their answer to question “What do you remember

from the UCD framework methods”. Most answers

were rather brief, just listing/mentioning the

methods by name. Two respondents elaborated the

theme slightly more aligning the UCD methods with

the stages of the UCD process (requirements

gathering with user studies, ideation of features /

specification of functionality, prototyping and

concept/technical development, testing) including

the iterative nature of user-centred development

work.

In the free-form answers, most respondents

mentioned interviews (N=8/17), prototyping (7),

questionnaires (6), scenarios (6), and testing (6) in

various ways (as a process stage as well as prototype

testing). An educationally much-presented method

heuristic evaluation was mentioned a few times (3)

as well as transcript coding (3).

However, when asked directly (in the

“quantitative questions part”, N=19) “Which method

you have applied in user study phase”, and presented

with choices interview, questionnaire, diary, and

shadowing, almost all students (N=18/19) pointed

out interviews and questionnaires as the way to get

basic information about their users (see fig. 2).

Moreover, slightly over half (N=10/19) of the

respondents had additionally used observations to

get further knowledge about users. Shadowing was

not that commonly applied among respondents (1).

Figure 2: The applied methods by students.

In the free form answers about the methods,

transcript coding (i.e. transcribing interviews into

text and analysing/coding that data) was mentioned

by 3 of 17 respondents. Students in the classroom

often present objections for writing the interview

transcript as a laborious and time consuming

activity. This objection has been heard many times

during the course. Therefore, it is interesting to find

out the utility and practical applicability of transcript

coding in real-life development settings.

Based on respondents’ experience in industry,

the attitude toward the transcript coding appears to

have changed (fig. 3). The majority of the students

(N=15/19) find transcript coding as a very useful or

useful method for interview data analysis. None of

the participants considered transcript coding as “not

at all useful” method for their work.

Figure 3: Answers on the usefulness of transcript coding.

Scenarios were the method which students

learned to present their mobile application concept

to the potential users. Scenarios were among the

most mentioned methods in the qualitative answers

(6/17) indicating its importance and good

applicability in industrial/commercial application

and service development. In the quantitative part,

majority of the students (11/19) considered scenarios

as an excellent design approach (fig. 4).

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

116

Figure 4: Usefulness of scenarios in design.

After preparing the scenarios, students have been

requested to assess their proposed scenario with the

potential users. According to the answers, most

respondents (15/19, fig. 5) experience that scenario

reviews provide much valuable feedback from users.

Additionally, course participants have considered

that scenario reviews are a good approach to receive

most of the users’ feedback on the initial application

concept.

Figure 5: Respondents’ answers on user feedback from

scenario reviews.

As a final question summarising the industrial

and commercial experience that the graduated

students had about the UCD framework, a question

about the efficiency of the method was presented

(fig. 6).

Figure 6: Answers on UCD framework efficiency.

Slightly less than half of the respondents

(N=8/19) considered the UCD framework as very

efficient (5). A similar amount found the UCD

framework as an efficient methodology for

designing applications and services. One respondent

considered the framework as an inefficient way for

doing development work.

Would these students act as advocates of the

UCD framework? The Net Promoter Score (NPS)

(Kristensen and Eskildsen 2011) can be used to

assess how the students value the UCD methods and

process after completing the course. The questions

in our survey addressing this were “On a scale from

1 to 10 would you apply the same method in other

projects” (fig. 7) and “On a scale from 1 to 10 would

you recommend the method to other developers”

(fig. 9).

Figure 7: Applying the UCD framework in other projects.

Most students (N=14/19) are expected to apply

the UCD methods in their forthcoming projects.

The last numeric question was focused on NPS

to confirm whether the students would like to

recommend the methodology to others. Majority of

students would recommend the method to their

colleagues and other developers (fig. 8).

Figure 8: Recommending the UCD framework

to other developers.

Students’ qualitative feedback on the contents

and utility of the framework and the course was

mainly positive. The course was considered as “A

great course” and “interesting topic”. The open-

ended question “What were the most interesting

things in the UCD framework” prompted for

answers such as: “Engage users at all UCD phases”,

“Scenario creation and prototype design”, “Great to

conduct a user study, this was my first experience”,

and “The coding of transcripts into quantitative data

was surprisingly robust”.

Relevance of UCD Education to Software Development – Recommendation for Curriculum Design

117

Following issues were raised as challenges,

though: “not very easy to make prototype”,

“choosing the topic and brainstorming”, “to get

clear meaning from interviewee”, and “time”. One

respondent pointed out that “I would like to come to

watch this course once again after I take

requirements analysis course”. Additionally, the

contents of the course were considered to require

more practical acquaintance: “UCD Framework was

pretty hard to follow as first timer and all the

principles and methodologies require practising.”

6 DISCUSSION

The collected data through our questionnaire study

indicates that students are in general satisfied with

the outcomes and the competence that they have

developed during the User-Centered Design (UCD)

course - despite the fact that they considered the

development phases as a time consuming efforts.

The contents of the course did not receive much

comments on question “What was missing in the

methodology” (“I don't know”, “nothing comes to

mind”) even though answers included “more

interviewees” and “user experience guidelines”.

Out of the UCD methods, interviews,

questionnaires, scenarios, prototyping, and testing

were considered of great importance for real-life

development activities. These methods do constitute

a solid body in the user-centred development process

making the contents of the course/framework nicely

aligned with the working-life demands. An

interesting finding in the results was the changed

appreciation of transcript coding, which appears as

an “inconvenient” method during the course – but

somewhat more appreciated in real-life settings.

The overall positive experience towards the

course is well-reflected in both qualitative answers

as in numeric responses. Most students appear to act

as advocates of the methodology even in their

professional surroundings. They consider the

framework efficient and worth recommending to

their professional peers indicating that there appears

a good fit between the contents of the course and the

contemporary software and service development.

The experience that we have gained with the

implementation of this course is valuable. We expect

that if the project topic appeals to students, it

motivates them more towards deep learning and

appropriate results. Since the results in this paper do

not directly enable us to conclude that, we propose

this as a future research topic. Possibilities for

outreach and spin-offs may provide increased

motivation for at least some of the students. We

suggest that the influence of motivating

characteristics of the final innovative concepts and

applications should be taken more carefully into

account when evaluating the learning experience.

Despite our attempts toward quantitative results,

the number of respondents limits our analysis and

conclusions to be based on qualitative results that

are supported with the “numerical answers”.

Statistically significant results are not possible to

achieve based on these results. Nevertheless, the

qualitative analysis paves the way forward, and as

we continue getting complementing answers to our

survey, also such analyses are enabled. However, in

addition to just getting survey data, interviews

would provide even deeper insights about the uses

and utility of the user-centred methods and processes

for industrial application.

This course had originally been offered to those

students in their sixth semester. By sixth semester,

students have already developed competence on

software engineering related courses such as

programming, project management, etc. However,

the changes in course curriculum at the Business

Information Technology department, resulted that

this course is offered to second semester students.

Offering the course already at the second semester

has introduced some unavoidable challenges

including students’ lack of knowledge on software

development process, software engineering, etc. At

this stage of their studies, students often require

more explanations as to why this type of course

needed in their curriculum. At the same time,

commitment to the deadlines to return the

assignments, reporting, and the presentation itself

has become more challenging to some students.

However, when offered at this “early stage” of their

studies, the course con be considered as a mindset

changer for freshmen.

7 CONCLUSIONS

The main goal of the User Centered Design course is

to develop and increase students’ capabilities on

consulting and user study research. Moreover, the

course aims to teach students the development of

new application concept. Additionally, the course

highlights the importance of users’ involvement in

software development process at beginning of their

studies.

Nowadays, the software development companies

involve more often potential users in their

requirement elicitation and design phases.

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

118

Therefore, the user-centred design course is

considered as an appropriate way to educate and

prepare students for these demands at the job

markets. With the current contents of the course, this

goal is well reached. Additionally, the course

enables students to select different carrier paths as

usability expert or a user study expert. Those

students who have had job interviews for developer

positions appreciate their competence on usability

and user study techniques. Therefore, as the

collected data in the questionnaire indicates, students

are willing to promote the UCD principles to their

friends and colleagues. As an additional motivating

factor, the course helps some teams to pursuit

commercializing their concepts through a start-up

school. So far, the course has been implemented by

only one instructor. The instructor is mainly

responsible for group coordination and lecturing.

The number of students who are currently enrolled

are more than 50 students in each semester. For

future development and implementation the aim is to

recruit previous students’ of the course as tutors.

Tutors are then responsible to help their dedicated

group to achieve better results.

This paper demonstrates that students who

successfully pass the course do acknowledge the

importance of UCD and user experience related

courses. Therefore, the Business Information

Technology (BIT) department at the target

University of Applied Sciences aims at extending

their course curriculum with user-centred design and

user experience related topics. These offerings are

the response to the software companies’ demands on

students’ increased competence requirements.

Education on UCD increases students’

competitiveness in the current and future job

markets.

Finally, to conclude, our experience in educating

students to use user-centred methods in software and

service development is perhaps best illustrated with

the following quotation from the responses:

“It’s real and very important for future career.”

REFERENCES

Alamäki, A. & Dirin, A., 2014. A. Alamäki and A. Dirin,

“Designing Mobile Guide Service for Small Tourism

Companies Using User Centered Design Principle,.”

In International Conference on Computer Science,

Computer Engineering, and Social Media,

Thessaloniki, Greece. pp. 47–58. Available at:

http://sdiwc.net/conferences/cscesm2014/.

Bosch, J., 2009. From software product lines to software

ecosystems. Proceedings of the 13th International

Software Product Line Conference, pp.111–119.

Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=175323

5.1753251.

Constantine, L., 2006. Users, Roles, and Personas. In The

Persona Lifecycle. pp. 498–519.

Cusumano, M.A., 2008. The changing software business:

Moving from products to services. Computer, 41,

pp.20–27.

Dirin, A. & Alamäki, A., 2015. ANALYSING THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TWO DISTINCT

PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES IN HIGHER

EDUCATION INSTITUTION. , (inted2015, Madrid,

Spain).

Dirin, A. & Nieminen, M., 2014a. Framework for

addressing usability and user experience in m-

learning. Journal of Computers, in press.

Dirin, A. & Nieminen, M., 2014b. Managing m-learning

application development : Roles and Responsibilities.

In A. Dirin & M. Nieminen, eds. International

Conference on Advanced ICT (ICAICTE-2014).

Dirin, A. & Vainio, V., 2015. Case Study : Adapting UCD

Framework for Mobile Learning in Customer Guided

Game . In 2nd International Conference on

Communication and Technology ICCT 2015, 17-18

Jan. DUBAI, UAE. Available at: http://isro.eu.com/du

bai_comp2014/Default.aspx#.

Dirin, M., Dirin, A. & Laine, T.H., 2015. User-Centered

Design of a Context-Aware Nurse Assistant ( CANA )

at Finnish Elderly Houses. In The 9th International

Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management

and Communication. The Mulia, Bali, Indonesia.

Gould, J.D., Boies, S.J. & Ukelson, J., 1997. How to

Design Usable Systems. In M. G. Helander, T. K.

Landauer, & P. V. Prabhu, eds. Handbook of Human

Computer Interaction. Elsevier Science, pp. 231–254.

Gould, J.D. & Lewis, C., 1985. Designing for usability:

key principles and what designers think.

Communications of the ACM, 28(3), pp.300–311.

Hackos, J.T. & Redish, J.C., 1998a. User and Task

Analysis for Interface Design, Available at:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?

arnumber=784573.

Hackos, J.T. & Redish, J.C., 1998b. User and Task

Analysis for Interface Design, John Wiley & Sons.

Holtzblatt, K., Wendell, J.B. & Wood, S., 2005. Chapter 8

- Building an Affinity Diagram. In Interactive

Technologies. pp. 159–179. Available at: http://www.s

ciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123540515

500094.

ISO, 2010. Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part

210: Human-centred design for interactive systems

(ISO 9241-210:2010(E)). ISO, pp.1–32.

Kristensen, K. & Eskildsen, J., 2011. Is the Net Promoter

Score a reliable performance measure? In 2011 IEEE

International Conference on Quality and Reliability,

ICQR 2011. pp. 249–253.

Kristensson, P., Magnusson, P.R. & Matthing, J., 2002.

Users as a Hidden Resource for Creativity: Findings

from an Experimental Study on User Involvement.

Creativity and Innovation Management, 11, pp.55–61.

Relevance of UCD Education to Software Development – Recommendation for Curriculum Design

119

Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1467-8691.

00236.

Kujala, S. et al., 2005. The role of user involvement in

requirements quality and project success. 13th IEEE

International Conference on Requirements

Engineering (RE’05).

Marvel, 2014. Free mobile & web prototyping for

everyone. No coding required. , p.https://marvelapp.co

m/features/. Available at: https://marvelapp.com/featur

es/.

Nielson, J., 1995. Heuristic Evaluation: How-To: Article

by Jakob Nielsen. Nielson Norman GroupNorman.

Available at: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-

to-conduct-a-heuristic-evaluation/.

Nieminen, M., 2004. Information Support for User-

Oriented Development Organisation. Considerations

based on the Construction and Evaluation of

Knowledge Storage. Tesis Doctoral, p.228.

Preece, J., Rogers, Y. & Sharp, H., 2002. Interaction

Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction,

Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pi

i/S0010448586800215.

Richardson, I. & Hynes, B., 2008. Entrepreneurship

education: towards an industry sector approach.

Education + Training, 50, pp.188–198.

Rosson, M.B. & Carroll, J.M., 2002. Scenario-Based

Design. In The human-computer interaction

handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and

emerging applications. pp. 1032–1050.

Ruparelia, N.B., 2010. Software Development Lifecycle

Models. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 35, pp.8–13.

Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1764810.176

4814.

Saldana, J., 2009. An Introduction to Codes and Coding.

In The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los

Angeles: Sage Publications, pp. 1–31.

Soitinaho, J. & Palviainen, H., 2015. THE IMPACT OF

DIGITAL REVOLUTION ON THE

COMPETENCES OF BUSINESS INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS IN. In 9th International

Technology, Education and Development Conference.

Madird, 2015, pp. 1–10.

Stone, K.B., 2012. Four decades of lean: a systematic

literature review. International Journal of Lean Six

Sigma, 3, pp.112–132.

Szalvay, V., 2004. An introduction to agile software

development. Danube Technologies. Available at:

http://www.danube.com/docs/Intro_to_Agile.pdf.

Tasker, M. & Packham, D., 1993. Industry and higher

education: A question of values. Studies in Higher

Education, 18, pp.127–136.

Weston, C. et al., 2001. Analyzing Interview Data : The

Development and Evolution of a Coding System.

Qualitative Sociology, 24, pp.381–400.

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

120