Integrating the Usability into the Software Development Process
A Systematic Mapping Study
Williamson Silva, Natasha M. Costa Valentim and Tayana Conte
USES Research Group, Instituto de Computação, Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, Brazil
Keywords: Usability, Human Computer Interaction, Software Engineering, HCI, SE, Systematic Mapping.
Abstract: With the increasing use of interactive applications, there is a need for a development with better quality and
a good interaction that facilitates the use for end users, because such applications are increasingly present in
daily life. Therefore, it is necessary to include usability, which is one of the important quality attributes, in
the development process for obtaining good acceptance rates and, consequently, improving the quality of
these applications. In this paper we present a Systematic Mapping Study (SM) that assists categorizing and
summarizing technologies that have been used in order to improve usability. The results from our SM show
some technologies that can help improving usability in various applications. Also, it identifies gaps that still
need to be researched. We found that most technologies have been proposed for the Testing phase (67.28%)
and that Web applications are the most evaluated type of application (52.65%). We also identified that few
technologies assist designers improving usability in the early stages of the development process (13.50%
Analysis phase and 15.95% Design phase). The results from this SM allow observing the state of the art
regarding technologies that can be integrated into the development process, aimed at improving the usability
of interactive applications.
1 INTRODUCTION
The development of interactive applications has
increased considerably. The success of these
applications is related to the quality they provide to
their end users. Therefore, there is great concern on
the part of software companies to produce high
quality applications and to ensure a good user
experience (Sangiorgi and Barbosa, 2010).
Developing interactive applications meeting
quality criteria as well as the users’ needs is a
complex activity. To minimize this problem, the
areas of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and
Software Engineering (SE) have proposed methods
and techniques that reflect the different perspectives
in the development process (Barbosa and Silva,
2010) and aimed at improving the quality of these
interactive applications.
HCI focuses, generally, on understanding the
characteristics and needs of the system’s users, in
order to design a better user–system interaction
(Preece et al., 1994). On the other hand, SE has
developed systematic approaches to improve quality
during development process of interactive
applications (Nebe and Paelke, 2009). Therefore, in
order to improve the quality of applications, it is
necessary to integrate the approaches proposed by
the HCI and SE areas. With this integration, there
will be a mutual understanding between the two
areas, ensuring that problems encountered in the
development of the application are handled properly
throughout the development process (Juristo et al.,
2007). Several researches have been investigating
how to integrate the areas of HCI and SE. One of the
existing proposals is to incorporate the methods and
techniques proposed in HCI, which focus on
improving the usability of applications, in the
development processes proposed by SE (Fischer,
2012; Nebe and Paelke, 2009; Juristo et al., 2007).
Usability plays a critical role in interactive
applications and, it is a key quality factor that should
be considered during the development process
(Fischer, 2012). According to ISO/IEC 9241-11
(1998) standard usability is defined as “the extent to
which a product can be used by specified users to
achieve specific goals with effectiveness, efficiency
and satisfaction in a specified context of use”.
Integrating usability in the development process has
several benefits such as reduction of documentation
and training costs, as well as improving the
105
Silva W., Costa Valentim N. and Conte T..
Integrating the Usability into the Software Development Process - A Systematic Mapping Study.
DOI: 10.5220/0005377701050113
In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2015), pages 105-113
ISBN: 978-989-758-098-7
Copyright
c
2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
productivity of the practitioners (Carvajal, 2009).
Usability is one of the critical success factors of
applications (Juristo et al., 2007) and an important
criterion for the acceptance of applications by end
users (Conte et al., 2010).
We performed a Systematic Mapping Study
(SM) in order to identify technologies that integrate
usability into the software development process. In
the context of this paper, the term technology is used
as a generalization of methods, techniques, models,
tools, approaches, and other proposals made by the
areas of HCI and SE. This SM provided a body of
knowledge of technologies that assist in improving
usability through various artifacts that are generated
during the development process of the applications.
This SM also aims at assisting practitioners of the
software companies in choosing technologies that
will help them design/evaluate the usability within
the development process, through the classification
carried with each technology.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2
describes the research method used; Section 3 shows
the quantitative results; in Section 4, the qualitative
results are presented; Section 5 shows some
discussions and finally in Section 6 we present our
conclusions.
2 RESEARCH METHOD
A Systematic Mapping Study (SM) is a method of
categorizing and summarizing the existing
information about a research question in an unbiased
manner (Kitchnham and Chartes, 2007). The
activities concerning the planning and conducting
stages of our SM are described in the next sub-
sections and the results are presented in Section 3
and Section 4.
2.1 Research Question
The goal of our study is to examine technologies that
aim at improving the usability of applications, from
the point of view of the following research question:
“What technologies can improve the usability in the
software development process?”. Since the research
question was fairly wide, we defined Sub-Questions
to answer specific questions about each technology
in Sub-section 2.2.4.
2.2 Search Strategy
Two main digital libraries were used to search for
studies: IEEEXplore and Scopus. These libraries
were chosen because: (1) have a good operation and
scope of the search engines; and (2) Scopus is the
largest database indexing abstracts and citations
(Kitchenham and Chartes, 2007). To improve the
automatic search of the selected digital libraries, we
used the PICOC (Kitchenham and Charters (2007):
(P) Population: Software development process;
(I) Intervention: HCI or SE technologies that
are used in the software development process;
(C) Comparison: Not applicable, since the goal
is not to make a comparison between technologies,
but to characterize them;
(O) Outcome: The improvement of the
application in terms of usability through the
developed artifacts by using the technologies that
design/evaluate usability attributes;
(C) Context: Not applicable, since there is no
comparison, it is not possible to determine a context.
After that, were searched terms that represented
the (P), (I) and (O) and designed a search string.
Table 1 shows the search string in which Boolean
OR has been used to join alternate terms, while the
Boolean AND has been used to join the three parts.
Table 1: Applied search string.
Population (software development OR
software project OR software
engineering OR software process)
AND
Intervention (technique OR method OR
methodology OR tool)
AND
Outcome (usability inspection OR usability
evaluation OR usability design
OR usability testing)
2.3 Selection of Papers
In the first step, called 1st filter, two researchers
evaluated only the title and the abstract of each
paper to according inclusion and exclusion criteria
(see Table 2) and selecting papers that would be
within the scope of the research question.
In the second stage (or 2nd filter), researchers
conducted a thorough reading of the selected papers
from the 1st filter. And the papers were
included/excluded according to the inclusion and
exclusion criteria.
Table 2: Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria.
# Inclusion Criterion
IC1
Papers describing HCI and SE technologies that
are applied to promote the usability in the software
development process can be selected;
IC2
Papers presenting tool support that can be
employed by designers to improve the usability of
the software process can be selected;
ICEIS2015-17thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
106
Table 2: Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria (cont.).
# Inclusion Criterion
IC3
Papers that discuss aspects regarding the inclusion
of usability in the software process can be
selected;
IC4
Papers that have improved usability in one of the
phases of the software process in any organization
can be selected.
# Exclusion Criterion
EC1
Papers in which the language is different from
English and Portuguese cannot be selected;
EC2
Papers that are not available for reading and data
collection (papers that are only accessible through
paying or are not provided by the search engine)
cannot be selected;
EC3
Duplicated papers cannot be selected;
EC4
Publications that do not meet any of the inclusion
criteria cannot be selected.
2.4 Strategy for Data Extraction
We extracted the following information from each of
the selected papers.
Regarding SQ1 (Type of Technology), its goal
was to identify the type of technology described in
the paper, such as method, technique, template, tool
or another procedure adopted in HCI or SE.
Regarding SQ2 (Origin of the Technology), its
goal was to identify if the identified technologies are
new or have been created based on other
technologies proposed in the HCI or SE areas. The
technologies can be rated according to the following
answers:
New: the paper presents a technology, but it is
not based on other technologies;
Existent: the paper presents a technology, but
this proposal was based on other technologies.
Regarding SQ3 (Context of Use), its goal was to
identify where the technologies are being proposed
and currently used. The technologies can be rated
according to the following answers:
Industrial: the papers presents a technology
used or evaluated in an industrial context;
Academic: the papers presents a technology
used or evaluated in an academic context;
Both: the paper presents a technology used or
evaluated in industrial and academic contexts.
Regarding SQ4 (Phase of the Development
Process), its goal was to identify in what stage the
new technologies can be used. The technologies can
be classified in one or more SWEBOK (Software
Engineering Body of Knowledge) high-level process
(SWEBOK, 2004):
Requirements: technologies employed to
design/evaluate the artifacts aimed at
identifying the users’ needs;
Design: technologies that help to
design/evaluate the artifacts that are created
before coding;
Construction: technologies that help
designers as they carry out the coding of
application;
Verification, Validation & Testing (V,
V&T): technologies that help: (a) to verify
that the product meets the user requirements
(Verification), (b) to ensure consistency,
completeness and correctness of the
application (Validation); and (c) to examine
the behavior of the application through its
execution (Testing);
Maintenance: technologies that verify the
usability while maintaining the application.
Regarding SQ5 (Specific life cycle), its goal was
to identify which technologies can be applied (or
not) in specific development processes. We verified
whether the identified technology is applied in a
specific life cycle:
Yes: the technology is used in a specific life
cycle (Spiral, Star, among others);
No: the technology is not employed in a
specific life cycle.
Regarding SQ6 (Designed/Evaluated Object), its
goal was to identify the object in which the
technology was employed. For example, prototypes,
web applications, among others.
Regarding SQ7 (Empirical Evaluation), its goal
was to assist in the identification of which
technologies were empirically evaluated. The
technologies can be classified according to the
following answers:
No: if it does not provide any type of
empirical evaluation of the technology
presented in the paper;
Yes: if the paper presented any kind of
empirical evaluation of the proposed
technology.
Regarding SQ8 (Research Type), its goal was to
identify the type of research that was adopted in the
paper. A paper can be classified according to
classification proposed by Wieringa et al. (2006):
Evaluation Research: the paper shows how
the technologies are implemented in practice
and what are the benefits and drawbacks;
Proposal of Solution: the paper proposes
solution technologies and argues for its
relevance, without a full-blown validation.
The technologies must be novel, or at least a
significant improvement of an existing
technique;
Validation Research: the paper shows
IntegratingtheUsabilityintotheSoftwareDevelopmentProcess-ASystematicMappingStudy
107
technologies that are novel and have not yet
been implemented in practice;
Philosophical Papers: these papers sketch a
new way of looking at existing things by
structuring the field in form of a taxonomy or
conceptual framework;
Opinion Papers: these papers contain the
author’s opinion about what is wrong or good
about something, how we should do
something, etc.;
Personal Experience Papers: these papers
explain on what has been done in practice.
Regarding SQ9 (Tools support), its goal was to
identify which technologies need (or not) tool
support in order to be applied. The technology can
be classified according to the following answers:
Yes: the technology presented in the paper
requires some specific tool support;
No: the technology presented in the paper
does not require specific tool support.
The package containing information about this
SM is available in Silva et al. (2014).
2.5 Selection of Papers
The execution of this SM presented the following
preliminary result. A total of 124 papers (see Table
3) were selected. These papers were selected based
on the inclusion criteria (see Table 2).
Table 3: Results of the conducting stage.
Selected
Libraries
Returned
Papers
Selected Papers
1º Filter 2º Filter
IEEExplore 59 57 36
Scopus 170 135 88
Total of Extracted Papers 124
In the selection process, few papers appeared in
more than one digital library. However, these papers
were counted only once and in the order of the
performed search (IEEExplore and then Scopus).
3 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
3.1 Overview of the Studies
The overall results, which are based on counting the
studies that are classified in each of the answers to
our research sub-questions, are presented in Table 4.
Although 124 papers were selected, in Table 4
we only counted 123. This is because one of the
selected papers from our review is a Systematic
Literature Review. For that type of paper, we have
prepared another type of data extraction strategy.
Note that sub-questions Q4 and Q6 are not
exclusive. Therefore, a paper can be classified in one
or more of the possible answers. The summation of
the percentages is therefore over 100%. For
example, regarding Q4, some technologies may be
used in more than one stage of the development
process. Similarly, in sub-question Q6, a technology
can be applied to design / evaluate more than one
artifact.
Table 4: Results from the SM for each of the Sub-
Questions.
Research sub-
question
Possible
answers
Results
Number
Percentage
(%)
Q1. Type of
technology
Methods 50 40.65
Tools 25 20.33
Frameworks /
Approach
23 18.70
Techniques 16 13.01
Models 6 4.88
Methodology 3 2.44
Q2. Origin of
the technology
New 12 9.76
Existing 111 90.24
Q3. Context of
use
Industrial 27 21.95
Academic 87 70.73
Both 9 7.32
Q4. Phase of
the
development
process
Requirements 22 13.58
Design 27 16.67
Construction 4 2.47
V, V & T 109 67.28
Maintenance 0 0.0
Q5. Specific
life cycle
Yes 17 13.82
No 106 86.18
Q6. Designed /
Evaluated
Object
Applications 76 50.67
Models 24 16.00
Interfaces,
Mockups or
Prototype
43 28.67
Others objects 7 4.66
Q7. Empirical
Evaluation
Yes 90 73.17
No 33 26.83
Q8. Research
Type
Evaluation
Research
5 4.07
Proposal of
Solution
37 30.08
Validation
Research
77 62.60
Philosophical
Papers
0 0.00
Opinion Papers 1 0.81
Personal
Experience
Papers
3 2.44
Q9. Tools
support
Yes 28 22.76
No 95 77.24
3.2 Publication Year
The reviewed papers were published between 1988
ICEIS2015-17thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
108
and 2013. From a temporal point of view (Figure 1),
there was an increasing number of publications
between the years 2005 and 2007. One can also see,
according to the papers collected from this SM, that
in the years 2008 and 2011 there was a decrease in
the number of published papers. The year of 2012 is
the year with most published papers (15.32%),
followed by 2010 (11.29%), 2009 (10.48%) and
2007 (10.48%). As this SM was conducted in
January 2014, not all conferences held in 2013 had
its publications in indexed searchable digital
libraries. This may be the reason for the low number
of papers in that year.
Figure 1: Temporal view of papers.
4 QUALITATIVE RESULTS
4.1 Type of Technology (SQ1)
The results for this sub-question showed that about
40.65% of the papers presented methods. For
example, Fernandez et al. (2012a) proposed a
usability inspection method called WUEP (Web
Usability Evaluation Process). Around 20.33% of
the papers present a tool. For instance, Vaz et al.
(2012) presented WDT Tool that assists the
identification of usability problems in web
applications. Around 18.70% of the papers presented
some approach/framework. For example, Liang and
Deng (2009) presented a framework that describes
the Computer-Supported Cooperative Work from the
perspective of the Cognitive Walkthrough technique.
Around 13.01% of the papers presented a technique.
For example, Bonifácio et al. (2012) proposed a
usability inspection technique for web mobile
applications. Around 4.88% of the papers showed
models. Ibrahim et al. (2007) presented a model that
helps to assess usability in sonification applications.
Furthermore, 2.44% of the papers presented
methodologies, as presented in Sivaji et al. (2013).
4.2 Origin of the Technology (SQ2)
The results for this sub-question showed that around
90.24% of the technologies found in the papers were
based on other existing technologies in the literature.
For instance, Conte et al. (2007) proposed a
technique that combines perspectives of Web design
with the heuristics proposed by Nielsen (1994).
Around 9.76% of the papers describe a technology
that is not based in other technologies. For example,
Pankratius (2011) presents a tool that aiming to
collect subjective information from the programmer
while it performs the coding of the application.
The results of this sub-question (SQ2) and the
previous sub-question (SQ1) indicate that several
technologies are being proposed in the literature.
These technologies aim at assisting primarily both
the designers of IHC as well as software engineers,
improving usability in the development process of
applications by designing or evaluating usability.
4.3 Context of Use (SQ3)
The results for this sub-question showed that about
70.73% of the technologies presented were used in
an academic context. For example, Fernandes et al.
(2012) conducted two empirical studies in an
academic context with undergraduate students.
Around 21.95% of the technologies were applied in
an industrial context. Sivaji et al. (2013), for
example, conducted two case studies in two industry
software projects with experts in usability.
Furthermore, 7.32% of the technologies presented
were applied in both Academic and Industrial
context, as presented in Vaz et al. (2012).
The results of this sub-question show that most
of the technologies found in this SM are being
proposed and/or evaluated in the academic context.
This because is more costly for the industry to
provide part of the time of the practitioners to
perform evaluations. One of the solutions found by
the researchers is to conduct these evaluations in the
academic context, with undergraduate or graduated
students. Some of these students working in the
industry and already have the professional profile
expected to participate of the evaluations.
4.4 Phase of the Development Process
(SQ4)
The results for this sub-question revealed that
67.28% of the technologies are used during the V,
V&T phase. In this phase, we have divided the
selected technologies in two categories as suggest by
IntegratingtheUsabilityintotheSoftwareDevelopmentProcess-ASystematicMappingStudy
109
Fernandez et al. (2011): (1) Usability Inspection and
(2) Usability Testing. Of the total number of
technologies applied during the V, V&T, 44.95% are
technologies for Usability Inspection. For example,
Fernandes et al. (2012) present an usability usability
inspection technique, called WE-QT (Web-Question
Evaluation Technique) which helps novice
inspectors to identify usability problems for Web
applications. And, of all the technologies used in V,
V&T phase, 55.05% are technologies are for
Usability Testing. One example is the proposed tool
by Fabo et al. (2012) that identifies usability
problems through automatic data capture. Around
16.67% of the technologies can be used in the
Design phase, as technique proposed by Rivero and
Conte (2012). Around 13.58% of the technologies
can be used in the Requirements stage. For example,
Ormeño et al. (2013) presented a new method to
capture usability requirements. Around 2.47% of the
technologies can be used while developers perform
the coding of application, as the tool proposed by
Pankratius (2011). We did not find any a technology
that is used in the maintenance phase.
The results of this sub-question indicate that
there is a need for technologies that can be used in
the initial stages of development (Requirements and
Design). However, the found usability problems in
the final stages are corrected with the higher the
cost, also increasing the time for professional
development and maintenance of the application.
4.5 Specific Life Cycle (SQ5)
The results for this sub-question revealed that
86.18% of the technologies are not used in a specific
life cycle. Thus, such technologies may be suitable
for the development life cycles adopted in industry.
Moreover, 13.82% of the technologies are used in a
specific life cycle. For example, Sivaji et al. (2013)
presented a hybrid approach that integrates the
Heuristic Evaluation and Usability Testing in a life
cycle of specific development. The results for this
sub-question indicate that 86.18% of technologies
are used regardless of the life cycle adopted by the
development team. However, 13.82% of the selected
technologies are using a specific life cycle (e.g. the
Model Driven Development - MDD, the
Architecture Driven Development - ADD).
4.6 Designed / Evaluated Object (SQ6)
The results for this sub-question revealed that
50.67% of the technologies presented already
developed applications as an object being designed
or evaluated. From the total technologies that
design/evaluate applications, 52.65% of these
technologies have been used in Web applications,
26.30% in Desktop applications, 3.94% in Mobile
applications and 17.12% did not specify which
application the technology was evaluating.
Approximately 28.67% of the technologies
employed interfaces, mockups or prototypes as
objects. An example is the method proposed by
Ormeño et al. (2013). Around 16% of the
technologies employed models as objects, as the
method proposed by Rivero and Conte (2012). And
4.66% of the technologies employed other objects,
such as the lines of code (2%), log files (2%) and
user tasks (0.66%).
The results for this sub-question indicate that
many technologies are being developed to improve
the usability in applications, especially focused on
the Web. However, a point to be considered is the
low number of technologies that help to improve the
usability in Mobile applications. With the growth in
use of mobile devices, mobile applications are
becoming increasingly present among users.
4.7 Empirical Evaluation (SQ7)
The results for this sub-question revealed that in
26.83% of the selected technologies didn’t any type
of empirical evaluation. For instance, Díscola and
Silva (2003) describe an approach, but the authors
did not perform an empirical study. Around 73.17%
of the technologies were evaluated empirically. For
instance, Santos et al. (2011) describes the evolution
of an assistant through empirical studies.
The results for this sub-question show that
almost 74% of the papers carried out an empirical
evaluation in the technologies they are proposing.
Conducting empirical studies is a common practice
in the areas of Human Computer Interaction and
Software Engineering. These two areas are
interested in evaluating and improving the proposed
technologies so that they can assist practitioners
during the usability design/evaluation.
4.8 Research Type (SQ8)
The results for this sub-question revealed that
62.60% of the papers presented a Research
Validation. Conte et al. (2009) presented a Research
Validation. Approximately 30.08% of the papers
presented a Proposed Solution. Ormeno et al. (2013)
presented a proposed solution, but did not present
how this proposal would be used in practice. Around
4.07% of the papers presented a Evaluation
ICEIS2015-17thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
110
Research. For example, Winter et al. (2011)
presented a technology and also commented on the
advantages and disadvantages of using the proposed
technology for the industry. Approximately 2.44%
of the papers present Papers of Professional
Experience. For example, Nayebi et al. (2012)
reported how three usability evaluation methods can
be used in mobile applications. And 0.81% of the
papers presented a Opinion Papers. Mueller et al.
(2009) present several important points of how to
conduct usability testing. We did not find any
Philosophy Paper in this SM.
The results for this sub-question indicate that
many papers are presented to validate the
technologies that are being proposed. This may be
an indication that researchers are trying to improve
the proposed technologies for them to be used in the
academic or industrial context. Moreover, another
important result is the number of papers that present
new Proposed Solutions (30.08%), describing
technologies that aim to solve usability problems
during the development process.
4.9 Tools Support (SQ9)
The results for this sub-question indicated that
22.76% of the technologies require a tool or
framework to assist practitioners. As mentioned
earlier, there are the tools proposed by Vaz et al.
(2012) and Santos et al. (2011). However, about
77.24% of the technologies do not require tool
support. As mentioned earlier, we have the research
by Ormeno et al. (2013) and others. The tools found
in the majority (22.76%) are available under a (paid)
license or are unavailable for use by practitioners
(academic tools). Such features translate into a
higher employment of technologies that do not
require tool support. Tools can increase performance
by reducing overhead and facilitating the work of
practitioners in the development process. Therefore,
tool support technologies that are available for use
can reduce the effort of practitioners during the
development of interactive applications and,
consequently, provide many benefits to the industry.
5 DISCUSSION
As mentioned before, in this SM we found a
secondary study, a systematic review proposed by
Fernandez et al. (2012). This systematic review
cannot be classified according to our research sub-
questions because the data collected in our sub-
questions is specific to technologies rather than
systematic mappings or systematic reviews. We
related the technologies found in our systematic
mapping with the technologies found in the
systematic review by Fernandez et al. (2012).
Through this relationship, one can see that the
technologies found by Fernandez et al. (2012) are
more specific (in context) than the technologies
found in this SM. This happened because Fernandez
et al. (2012) searched for technologies that evaluate
usability in the context of Web applications. Our
SM, on the other hand, aimed at identifying
technologies in a broader context, that is,
technologies that assist in the design and/or
evaluation of usability in the development process.
Our SM takes into account any type of application,
not just Web applications. Therefore, our mapping is
broader. It identified technologies evaluating the
usability of web applications, mobile applications,
and desktop applications, among others.
Additionally, our SM not only identified
technologies that assess usability, but also
technologies that assist in the design process, aiming
at improving usability.
6 CONCLUSIONS
This paper presented a Systematic Mapping (SM)
that discussed the existing evidence on the
technologies proposed for the areas of HCI and SE
that can be used within the software development
process. From an initial set of 229 papers, a total of
124 research papers were selected for this SM.
The results obtained in this SM identified several
technologies that focus on supporting HCI designers
and software engineers in improving the usability of
interactive applications. The results also show that
there is a need for the creation of new technologies
to support the usability of the applications from the
early stages of the development process. This is
because correcting usability problems in the early
stages is less expensive and avoids rework effort
from practitioners. This SM found evidence of
several research gaps for researchers from both
areas, such as: the creation of new technologies for
the early stages, reducing costs and the amount of
usability problems found in the assessments of
usability in the final stages of the development
process; to assist practitioners in designing
applications aiming at usability. And, to help the
integration of technologies, with a focus on
improving the usability within the development
process of mobile applications. From the results of
this SM it is possible for both software engineers
IntegratingtheUsabilityintotheSoftwareDevelopmentProcess-ASystematicMappingStudy
111
and HCI designers to identify technologies that can
be applied in the industrial context. As future work,
we intend to expand and update this SM in order to
increase the body of knowledge with new
technologies and studies that can help identify new
research topics.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the financial support
granted by CAPES through process AEX 10932/14-
3 and FAPEAM through processes numbers:
062.00600/2014; 062.00578 /2014; and 01135/2011.
REFERENCES
Barbosa, S. D. J., Silva, B. S., 2010. Human Computer
Interaction. Elsevier, Rio de Janeiro (in portuguese).
Bonifácio, B., Fernandes, P., Santos, F., Oliveira, H. A. B.
F., Conte, T., 2012. Usabilidade de Aplicações Web
Móvel: Avaliando uma Nova Abordagem de Inspeção
através de Estudos Experimentais. In Conference
Ibero-American on Software Engineering, pp. 236-249
(in portuguese).
Carvajal, L., 2009. Usability-enabling guidelines: a design
pattern and software plug-in solution. In Doctoral
symposium for ESEC/FSE, pp. 09-12.
Conte, T., Massollar, J., Mendes, E., Travassos, G.H.
2007. Usability Evaluation Based on Web Design
Perspectives. In Symposium on Empirical Software
Engineering and Measurement (ESEM’07), pp. 146-
155.
Conte, T., Vaz, V., Zanetti, D., Santos, G., Rocha, A. R., e
Travassos, G. H. 2010. Aplicação do Modelo de
Aceitação de Tecnologia para uma Técnica de
Inspeção de Usabilidade. In Simpósio Brasileiro de
Qualidade de Software (SBQS 2010), pp. 367-374. (in
portuguese).
Díscola Junior, S. L., Silva, J. C., 2003. Processes of
software reengineering planning supported by
usability principles. In Latin American Conference on
Human-Computer interaction (CLIHC'03), pp. 223-
226.
Fabo, P.; Dŭrikovič, R., 2012. Automated Usability
Measurement of Arbitrary Desktop Application with
Eyetracking. In 16th International Conference on
Information Visualisation (IV), pp. 625 – 629.
Fernandes, P., Conte, T., Bonifácio, B., 2012. WE-QT: A
Web Usability Inspection Technique to Support
Novice Inspectors. In XXVI Brazilian Symposium on
Software Engineering (SBES), pp. 11-20.
Fernandez, A., Abrahão, S., Insfran, E., Matera, M.,
2012a. Further Analysis on the Validation of a
Usability Inspection Method for Model-Driven Web
Development. In 6th Symposium on Empirical
Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM
2012), pp. 153–156.
Fernandez, A., Abrahão, S., Insfran, E., 2012b. A
Systematic Review on the Effectiveness of Web
Usability Evaluation Methods. In 16th International
Conference on Evaluation & Assessment in Software
Engineering, pp.108-122.
Fernandez, A., Insfran, E., Abrahão, S., 2011. Usability
evaluation methods for the web: A systematic
mapping study". In: Journal of Information and
Software Technology, v. 53, issue 8, pp. 789 - 817.
Fischer, H., 2012. Integrating usability engineering in the
software development lifecycle based on international
standards. In 4th Symposium on Engineering
Interactive Computing Systems, pp. 321-324.
Ibrahim, A. A. A., Hunt, A., 2007. An HCI Model for
Usability of Sonification Applications. In Task models
and diagrams for users interface design (TAMODIA
2006), v. 4385, pp. 245-258.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2004.
Guide to the Software Engineering Body of
Knowledge (SWEBOK). 2004 Version.
International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC
9241-11: Ergonomic Requirements for Office work
with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs) – Part 11:
Guidance on Usability, 1998.
Juristo, N., Moreno, A., Sánchez, M., Baranauskas, M. C.
C., 2007. A Glass Box Design: Making the Impact of
Usability on Software Development Visible. In
Internacional Conference on Human-Computer
Interaction (INTERACT 2007), pp. 541 – 554.
Kitchenham, B.; Chartes, S., 2007. Guidelines for
performing systematic literature reviews in software
engineering. In EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-
01, Software Engineering Group Department of
Computer Science Keele University.
Liang, L., Deng, X., 2009. A Collaborative Task Modeling
Approach Based on Extended GOMS. In Conference
on Electronic Computer Technology, pp. 375-378.
Mueller, C., Tamir, D., Komogortsev, O., Feldman, L.,
2009. An Economical Approach to Usability Testing.
In 33th Annual IEE International Computer Software
and Applications Conference, pp. 124–129.
Nayebi, F., Desharnais J.-M., Abran A., 2012. The State of
the Art of Mobile Application Usability Evaluation. In
25th IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical &
Computer Engineering (CCECE), pp. 1-4.
Nebe, K., Paelke, V., 2009. Usability-Engineering-
Requirements as a Basis for the Integration with
Software Engineering. In 13th Int. Conf. Human-
Computer Interaction, Part I: New Trends, pp. 652-
659.
Nielsen, J., 1994. Heuristic evaluation. In: Jakob Nielsen,
Mack, R. L. (eds), Usability inspection methods,
Heurisitic Evaluation, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ormeno, Y.I.; Panach, J.I.; Condori-Fernandez, N.; Pastor,
O. 2013. Towards a proposal to capture usability
requirements through guidelines. In 7th International
Conference on Research Challenges in Information
Science (RCIS), pp. 1–12.
ICEIS2015-17thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
112
Pankratius, V., 2011. Automated usability evaluation of
parallel programming constructs. In 33th International
Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 936–939.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, E., Benyon, D., Holland, S.,
Carey, T., 1994. Human-Computer Interaction.
Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Rivero, L., Conte, T., 2012. Using an Empirical Study to
Evaluate the Feasibility of a New Usability Inspection
Technique for Paper Based Prototypes of Web
Applications. In XXVI Brazilian Symposium on
Software Engineering (SBES), pp. 81-90.
Sangiorgi, U. B.. Barbosa, S. D. J., 2010. Estendendo a
linguagem MoLIC para o projeto conjunto de
interação e interface (in portuguese). In IX
Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
pp. 61-70.
Santos, F.; Conte, T. U., 2011. Evoluindo um Assistente
de Apoio à Inspeção de Usabilidade através de
Estudos Experimentais (in portuguese). In: XIV Ibero-
American Conference on Software Engineering
(CIbSE 2011), v. 1. p. 197-210. Rio de Janeiro.
Silva, W., Valentim, N. M. C., Conte, T. 2014. Systematic
mapping to integrate technologies of the SE and HCI
areas through of the usability (in portuguese). In USES
Technical Report USES TR-USES-2014-0001.
Available at:
http://uses.icomp.ufam.edu.br/attachments/article/42
/RT-USES-2014-0001.pdf.
Sivaji, A., Abdullah, M.R., Downe, A.G., Ahmad, W.,
2013. Hybrid Usability Methodology: Integrating
Heuristic Evaluation with Laboratory Testing across
the Software Development Lifecycle. In 10th
International Conference on Information Technology:
New Generations (ITNG 2013), pp. 375–383.
Vaz, V. T., Travassos, G. H., Conte, T., 2012. Empirical
assessment of WDP tool: A tool to support web
usability inspections. In Conferencia Latinoamericana
en Informática (CLEI 2012), pp. 1-9.
Wieringa, R., Maiden, N. A. M., Mead, N. R., Rolland, C.,
2006. Requirements engineering paper classification
and evaluation criteria: a proposal and a discussion. In:
Requirements. Engineering. 11 (1), pp. 102–107.
IntegratingtheUsabilityintotheSoftwareDevelopmentProcess-ASystematicMappingStudy
113
