Enhancing Scientiﬁc Communication: Prioritizing User Experience in

Audiovisual Interfaces

Cintia Braz Mesquita

, Adriana Barbosa Santos

and Rog

eria Cristiane Grat

ao de Souza

Department of Computer Sciences and Statistics, UNESP – S

ao Paulo State University,

ao Jos

e do Rio Preto, S

ao Paulo, Brazil

Keywords:

Usability, Human-Computer Interaction, Scientiﬁc Communication, Audiovisual.

Abstract:

Audiovisual content has emerged as a powerful tool for scientiﬁc communication, enabling a broader reach,

clearer explanations of complex topics, and greater recognition for researchers. To maximize its impact and

fully unleash its potential, accessible and user-friendly interfaces are needed on platforms and mobile apps.

This work prioritizes the identiﬁcation of essential usability requirements for interfaces featuring scientiﬁc

audiovisual content, aiming to streamline development efforts. Drawing from established literature and an

analysis of existing web platforms and mobile apps, we have identiﬁed 25 key usability metrics to guide

the creation of interfaces that prioritize user experience. Empirical evaluations of these platforms and apps

have revealed signiﬁcant deﬁciencies in meeting usability criteria such as effectiveness, efﬁciency, and user

satisfaction.

1 INTRODUCTION

Science communication is the diffusion of scientiﬁc

research and knowledge in a simple and understand-

able approach to the general public. This not only

allows for the democratization of scientiﬁc knowl-

edge, enhancing education, but also promotes debates

on topics that directly impact people’s lives (Lord

elo

and de Magalh

aes Porto, 2012). However, the tradi-

tional methods of sharing scientiﬁc discoveries, pri-

marily through written publications, can be costly for

both authors and readers. Additionally, these methods

predominantly reach individuals within the academic

sphere, thereby limiting the diversity and size of the

audience.

During the last years, there has been signiﬁcant

growth in the consumption of videos and podcasts.

This trend is so pronounced that newer generations

exhibit different views and behaviors regarding the

consumption of content in these formats (Lagger

et al., 2017). With its continuous rise, the audiovi-

sual format presents a new channel for scientiﬁc com-

munication (Santos, 2022). This format enables the

reach to diverse audiences, facilitating the dissemina-

tion of complex concepts and fostering new types of

https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1822-6018

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4076-2475

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7449-9022

interaction.

Despite numerous initiatives aiming to dissemi-

nate scientiﬁc knowledge, the study of applications

with audiovisual content is limited primarily to the

realm of online learning (Kim and Kim, 2021).

Therefore, dedicated platforms featuring video arti-

cles, research results, and application offer valuable

opportunities for learning and for stimulating new

publications focused on the audiovisual format.

Recognizing the transformative potential of such

applications for democratizing scientiﬁc knowledge,

this study delves into the development of user-

friendly and accessible solutions for disseminating

scientiﬁc videos. As the quality of an interface largely

depends on the product’s usability, there is consider-

able interest in studying the interface of these plat-

forms and applications. This is particularly true for

the factors that inﬂuence user experience and the

unique conditions for audiovisual media, thought for

simplifying and enhancing its development (ISO/IEC

25010, 2011).

This work prioritizes the identiﬁcation of essen-

tial usability requirements for interfaces that handle

scientiﬁc audiovisual content. Our aim is to guide

development efforts and enhance the effectiveness of

this format as an alternative for scientiﬁc communi-

cation. As a signiﬁcant contribution to usability stud-

ies for audiovisual interfaces, we introduce 25 usabil-

ity metrics. These are suggested speciﬁcally for web

Mesquita, C., Santos, A. and Gratão de Souza, R.

Enhancing Scientiﬁc Communication: Prioritizing User Experience in Audiovisual Interfaces.

DOI: 10.5220/0012616700003690

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2024) - Volume 2, pages 369-377

ISBN: 978-989-758-692-7; ISSN: 2184-4992

369

platforms and applications that deal with audiovisual

scientiﬁc content. The metrics are organized based on

three key usability criteria: effectiveness, efﬁciency,

and user satisfaction. Additionally, we propose a pri-

ority scale to assist in evaluation and to inform the

development process of these interfaces, keeping in

mind the goal to effectively communicate science and

reach a wider audience.

2 BACKGROUND

The diversity of web platform users, each with spe-

ciﬁc skills and restrictions, must be considered during

its development to guarantee broad and unrestricted

access to the resources and information made avail-

able. Therefore, usability represents an essential qual-

ity characteristic to facilitate access and keep users

engaged on a speciﬁc platform. In a complementary

way, the format of the content available on a platform

must also be properly designed, considering an alter-

native capable of disseminating knowledge in an agile

and efﬁcient way, such as videos.

In this context, section 2.1 highlights the impor-

tance of usability, focusing on audiovisual content.

Section 2.2 highlights the shortcomings involving

the interface of current platforms that publish videos

about scientiﬁc research.

2.1 Usability

The user interface contributes signiﬁcantly to the suc-

cess of software; therefore, for software to be widely

used and accepted, it is necessary to ensure that the

interaction between the user and the software is sat-

isfactory. In this sense, usability serves as an indica-

tion for assessing how well a user interface meets the

user’s needs.

Usability is one of the eight product quality at-

tributes according to ISO/IEC 25010:2011, a refer-

ence model for assessing software quality (ISO/IEC

25010, 2011). It is deﬁned as the extent to which

a system can be used by speciﬁc users in a given

environment effectively, efﬁciently, and satisfactorily

(ISO 9241-11, 2018).

Effectiveness is the user’s capacity to achieve its

objectives when carrying out the interaction and the

level of quality attained. Efﬁciency is the effort

needed to accomplish a task, including any devia-

tions or mistakes committed. Satisfaction refers to the

user’s acceptance and comfort during the interaction

(ISO 9241-11, 2018). Therefore, effectiveness, efﬁ-

ciency, and user satisfaction represent criteria used to

assess usability.

While usability focuses on the quality of the user

experience, accessibility aims to eliminate barriers so

everyone can enjoy the digital world, regardless of

their individual needs (Consortium et al., 2018).

The usability of a software system is inﬂuenced

by several factors, such as functionality, aesthetics,

and reliability. Therefore, given the subjective and

qualitative nature of this metric, ensuring a good ex-

perience with the product requires testing and user re-

search to evaluate the ease of use and acceptability of

a system to guarantee a positive user experience. The

most used practices are questionnaires, usability tests,

and heuristic evaluation (Nugroho et al., 2022).

Heuristic evaluation is one of the most popular

techniques for assessing usability, consisting of a

small team of examiners who will thoroughly inves-

tigate the interface and determine whether the system

complies with usability heuristics, which are simple

strategies that guide the design of interfaces (Nielsen,

1995).

A popular and well-known set of heuristics for

user interface design, called Nielsen’s Heuristics, pro-

vided the foundation for other specialized heuristics

(Nielsen, 1994b). For instance, Eliseo et al. (2017)

uses Nielsen’s ten heuristics to evaluate the usability

of interfaces of ﬁve well-known websites with audio-

visual content.

Regarding usability for video content, Shade

(2014) presents usability principles for videos based

on Nielsen heuristics. However, these principles are

very simpliﬁed and subjective. Therefore, there’s a

need for more speciﬁc guidelines to guide the devel-

opment of audiovisual interfaces.

2.2 Audiovisual Scientiﬁc Interfaces

Videos have become one of the most popular formats

for sharing information. Audiovisual scientiﬁc in-

terfaces, a type of human-computer interaction, use

sound and vision to represent and interact with scien-

tiﬁc data, communicate scientiﬁc results, and educate

the public about science. In recent years, scientiﬁc

videos have become more accessible to people, with

production and sharing becoming more widespread

(Rosenthal, 2020). These videos can be found on gen-

eral video websites, such as YouTube, or speciﬁc plat-

forms for scientiﬁc videos with an important impact

on knowledge transfer and particularly for improve-

ment of science communication and research activi-

ties focusing on content, authorship, epistemic qual-

ity and impacts on science communication(Boy et al.,

2020).

We searched related works of audiovisual scien-

tiﬁc interfaces to ﬁnd, understand, and analyze scien-

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

370

tiﬁc audiovisual interfaces. As a result, we selected a

group of ﬁve web platforms and ﬁve mobile applica-

tions. The selection considered aspects of the service

provided, such as the type of scientiﬁc videos, open

access, popularity, cost for publication, and science

areas accepted. As YouTube is not a speciﬁc platform

for scientiﬁc videos it was not considered in the fol-

lowing analysis.

2.2.1 Web Platforms

The ScienceTalks platform (available at

https://www.sciencetalks-journal.com/) is a sci-

entiﬁc journal in which publications are in video

format. It is open source, and all videos are available

for free viewing, but the publication has a fee.

The scientiﬁc video journal JoVE (available at

https://www.jove.com/) publishes scientiﬁc research

in audiovisual format. The platform is paid, with dif-

ferent plans for researchers and educational institu-

tions, while some videos are open access. Addition-

ally, for publishing a video, there is a publication fee.

Scivpro (available at https://scivpro.com/) is a sci-

entiﬁc audiovisual content platform launched in 2018

to present high-quality, professionally edited videos

for free. The publishing service is paid for and in-

cludes ﬁlming and editing of videos.

Latest Thinking (available at https://lt.org) is a

platform for scientiﬁc communication that seeks out

high-quality, publicly accessible videos. The con-

tent is open access; however, the videos are not peer-

reviewed. The publishing process is paid for by the

author or funding institution.

Finally, STEMcognito (available at

https://stemcognito.org/), founded in 2021, fo-

cuses on sharing scientiﬁc videos in the areas of

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

- STEM. The videos are checked by experts in the

ﬁeld but do not go through a peer review process, and

access to the videos is free. Video publishing is free

for authors in the education and nonproﬁt sectors.

2.2.2 Mobile Applications

The app Wonder Science (available on Apple Store

and Play Store) is a streaming service that shares sci-

ence videos of high artistic quality. The service is

paid, with a few free videos.

TED (available on Apple Store and Play Store) is

an application that shares videos of TED events and

conferences. All content is free and from a diverse set

of topics.

The app Scishow (available only on Play Store)

came from a YouTube channel, and all videos are free

with support for more than 15 languages.

NewScientist (available on Apple Store and Play

Store) is a scientiﬁc journal application for sharing

news in written and video formats. Part of the content

is free, but there is selected news for subscribers.

The NASA app (available on Apple Store and Play

Store) shares news and information about the organi-

zation with images, articles, and videos, all with free

access.

3 USABILITY METRICS FOR

INTERFACES WITH

SCIENTIFIC AUDIOVISUAL

CONTENT

This section presents the 25 usability metrics struc-

tured to develop and evaluate interfaces with scientiﬁc

audiovisual content. Furthermore, we adapted three

of these metrics, highlighting the necessary modiﬁ-

cations according to the speciﬁcities of web applica-

tions. The usability metrics represent the result of

an extensive literature review on usability practices.

So, it represents a select and relevant set of metrics to

guide the creation of interfaces that prioritize user ex-

perience. We structured such metrics based on criteria

used to assess usability: effectiveness, efﬁciency, and

user satisfaction.

System Status - M01: The users should know

the current interaction status, which page or tab is

accessed, and how to exit from an action. Also, it

should warn the users of loading pages and if interac-

tions are working (Nielsen, 1994a; Consortium et al.,

2018).

Familiar Language - M02: Use familiar language

for text, icons, graphs, and other elements. The

user should be able to understand the words and

text easily, and technical terms and slang should be

avoided (Lakoff and Johnson, 2008).

Information Is Logically Presented - M03: Infor-

mation should be presented logically and naturally;

therefore, the users can intuitively navigate the

interface (Lakoff and Johnson, 2008).

Compatibility with Devices - M04: The interface

should be responsive since users access web content

from different devices; the interaction should happen

without problems and frustrations (Eliseo et al.,

2017).

Support for “undo” and Show How to Leave an

Interaction - M05: Users make mistakes, and offer-

Enhancing Scientiﬁc Communication: Prioritizing User Experience in Audiovisual Interfaces

371

ing the ”undo” option increases the user’s freedom

and control. Additionally, users should be able to exit

an interaction easily and without previous knowledge

(Nielsen, 1994a)

Links with a Purpose - M06: Links should be rec-

ognizable, with clear text and purpose understandable

by text or context (Consortium et al., 2018; Nielsen,

1995).

Consistency in Icons and Buttons - M07: Icons and

buttons should be consistent throughout the system

for easy recognition (Nielsen, 1994a).

Consistency Between Pages - M08: Pages should

have a consistent design following the system

patterns; this allows intuitive and straightforward

navigation (Nielsen, 1994a).

Warning Messages - M09: The system should

present visual warning messages in critical interac-

tions, especially when it’s impossible to undo the

action (Nielsen, 1995).

Help in Context - M10: Systems should offer help

and support according to the functionalities, pages,

or content accessed instead of long tutorials. For

Frequent Asked Questions (FAQ), there should be

divisions by context (Nielsen, 1995).

Search - M11: Search mechanisms should be

present, especially for systems with videos. Search

options facilitate navigation and save time and effort

(Eliseo et al., 2017).

Content and Interface Focus on the Essential -

M12: Avoid unnecessary information. The non-

essential content can pollute the interface’s design

and create a bad user experience (Nielsen, 1994b).

White Space - M13: The interface should be

designed with white space in mind; these spaces

allow a clear and better visual experience and fa-

cilitate ﬁnding the necessary content (Norman, 2007).

Use of Design Principles - M14: Design principles

such as scale, hierarchy, balance, and contrast can

guide the user’s attention more intentionally, along

with providing a pleasant visual experience (Poulin,

2018).

Errors Are Presented in Natural Language and

Following Standards - M15: Error messages should

be simple and direct, explaining the problem and

how to solve or avoid it. Standard error message

symbols, such as red text and attention signs, should

be followed (Nielsen, 1994b).

Subtitle and/or Transcription - M16: Offering

subtitles and transcriptions for videos allows users

with different needs and situations to access the

content (Eliseo et al., 2017; Consortium et al., 2018).

Response Time - M17: The response time of content

should not be prolonged, which might lead users to

get disinterested (Eliseo et al., 2017).

Information About the Videos - M18: Users should

get access to information about the videos, such as

summary, author, keywords, among others. Offering

this information helps the users decide whether to

engage with videos (Eliseo et al., 2017).

Video Control - M19: The user should have control

over the video, when it starts, stops, adjusts volume,

among others (Eliseo et al., 2017).

What and When to Watch - M20: The user should

be able to choose what, when, and how to watch the

videos (Eliseo et al., 2017).

Standard Video Control Icons - M21: Use standard

icons for video control so the users will be already

familiar with the interaction (Eliseo et al., 2017).

Appropriate Post-Video Action - M22: After

watching a video, the post-video action should be

adequate; avoid automatically starting new videos

or recommending nonrelated videos (Eliseo et al.,

2017).

Text Alternative - M23: Nontextual content, such

as images, videos, graphics, and icons, should have

an alternative text for screen readers and problems

fully loading content (Eliseo et al., 2017; Consortium

et al., 2018; Chiuchi et al., 2011).

Appropriate Color Usage - M24: Consider the

accessibility of the content, especially with the use of

colors, which should not be the only form to show an

element (Consortium et al., 2018).

Ability to Resize - M25: Content should be resized

up to 200% without loss of functionality (Consortium

et al., 2018).

Additionally, three metrics were adapted for mo-

bile applications promoting an appropriate approach

to the speciﬁc characteristics of these devices. These

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

372

metrics are numbered with a double ”M” to differen-

tiate them from the corresponding metrics.

Video Transmission Performance - MM04: For

mobile applications, there is a higher concern

over transmission performance since the internet

connection is not stable. If the transmission is not

satisfactory, the video will demand time to begin and

load repeatedly, which affects the user experience

(Hussain et al., 2016).

Proper Sizes - MM06: Mobile devices have smaller

screens, and usually, the interaction is touch-based,

which needs adaptation for the size of buttons, text,

and images (Budiu, 2015).

Adjust Video Quality - MM25: Since mobile de-

vices have a limitation regarding connectivity, it is

necessary to allow users to adapt the video quality

according to their preferences and capacity (Hussain

et al., 2016).

In addition to structuring the metrics, the three us-

ability criteria (effectiveness, efﬁciency, and user sat-

isfaction) also supported the deﬁnition of a priority

system. Each metric was classiﬁed regarding usabil-

ity criteria affected by not attending to it. We establish

three priority levels: high, medium, and low. Tables 1

to 3 show the metrics grouped by priorities according

to criteria. This priority system allows the use of these

metrics as requirements for software development ac-

cordingly.

Table 1 includes high-priority metrics whose fail-

ure to meet compromises effectiveness and efﬁciency

or both effectiveness and user satisfaction. Table 2 in-

cludes medium-priority metrics whose failure to meet

compromises effectiveness or both efﬁciency and user

satisfaction. Finally, Table 3 includes low-priority

metrics whose failure to meet only compromises ef-

ﬁciency or user satisfaction.

4 EVALUATION AND RESULTS

In this study, the ﬁve web platforms (ScienceTalks,

JoVE, Scivpro, Latest Thinking e STEMcognito)

and ﬁve mobile applications (WonderScience, TED,

SciShow, NewScientist, NASA) were evaluated ac-

cording to the 25 metrics presented previously. The

degree of adequacy of each interface was assessed

through the proposed prioritization of metrics to help

obtain a more structured view of the contribution of

platforms and applications to scientiﬁc communica-

tion through video articles.

Similar to Eliseo at al. (2017), the evaluation pro-

cedure was based on a heuristic evaluation, using the

metrics deﬁned as a guide. A pre-deﬁned list of tasks

was followed in each interface evaluation while ob-

serving the overall experience with the interaction to

determine whether the metrics had been completely

(green), partially (yellow), or not achieved (red), as

shown in Table 4. Note that when is not possible

to analyze a metric, it is indicated with ”NA”, what

means ”Not Applicable”.

4.1 Web Platforms

Table 4 shows for the high-priority metrics, despite

the signiﬁcance of search engines in systems with

video libraries, that the Scivpro and STEMcognito

platforms performed poorly in M11 (Search). M16

(Subtitle and/or transcription) and M23 (Text alter-

native), two medium-priority metrics, are particu-

larly noteworthy as they encountered issues on four

out of ﬁve platforms. Concerning the low-priority

metrics, metric M10 (Help in Context) stands out

because none of the platforms completely cover it.

While Scivpro and STEMcognito did not fully meet

M14 (Use of design principles), the ScienceTalks and

STEMcognito platforms did not fully meet metric

M08 (Consistency between pages). It suggests that

the design of these interfaces needs attention.

Regardless of the priority category, all platforms

fully satisﬁed the metrics directly related to the videos

(M17, M18, M19, M20, M21, M22), according to the

analysis done using the platforms, which illustrates

the signiﬁcance of guaranteeing high-quality interac-

tion with the video content offered by these platforms.

After the empirical evaluation, we analyzed the

resulting data, considering the priorities assigned to

each metric. Thus, for each priority, weights were de-

ﬁned on a scale of 1 to 6, as follows: low priority

– weight 1 if the metric was partially achieved (yel-

low) and weight 2 if it was not (red); medium priority

– weight 3 if the metric was partially achieved (yel-

low) and weight 4 if it was not (red); high priority –

weight 5 if the metric was partially achieved (yellow)

and weight 6 if it was not (red). to

Table 5 shows the number of metrics for each web

platform evaluated that received each of the estab-

lished weights. Furthermore, it shows the total score,

which is calculated by multiplying the number of met-

rics inside the cell by the weight associated with pri-

ority. The lower the total score obtained, the more ap-

propriate the interface is for usability issues. There-

fore, the positive highlight is for the JoVE platform

with the most appropriate interface, and the negative

highlight is for the Scivpro platform, which presented

the most usability problems in the evaluation carried

out. Although Latest Thinking and STEMcognito

Enhancing Scientiﬁc Communication: Prioritizing User Experience in Audiovisual Interfaces

373

Table 1: High priority metrics.

Criteria Metrics

Effectiveness and System status - M01

Efﬁciency Support for “undo” and show how to leave an interaction

- M05

Warning messages - M09

Search - M11

Effectiveness and Information is logically presented - M03

User Satisfaction

Table 2: Medium priority metrics.

Criteria Metrics

Effectiveness Compatibility with devices - M04

Efﬁciency and Video transmission performance - MM04

User Satisfaction Errors are presented in natural language and following

standards - M15

Subtitle and/or transcription - M16

Response time - M17

Video control - M19

What and when to watch - M20

Text alternative - M23

Table 3: Low priority metrics.

Criteria Metrics

Efﬁciency Links with a purpose - M06

Help in Context - M10

Adjust video quality - MM25

User Satisfaction Familiar language

Consistency in icons and buttons

Consistency between pages - M08

Content and interface focus on the essential - M12

White space - M13

Use of design principles - M14

Information about the videos - M18

Standard video control icons - M21

Appropriate post video action - M22

Appropriate color usage - M24

Ability to resize - M25

Proper sizes - MM06

have obtained the same total score, the last one has

a small advantage. This is because a higher frequency

(6) was registered for low priority metrics. Note that

a metric is disregarded when indicated NA (Not Ap-

plicable).

4.2 Mobile Applications

In contrast to web platforms, mobile applications dis-

played a higher quantity of metrics unfulﬁlled. Table

6 shows, once more, the metrics less fulﬁlled were

M10 (Text alternative), M16 (Subtitle and/or tran-

scription), and MM25 (Adjust video quality), with

at least three applications having usability problems

with this metrics.

Despite the importance of video searching, the

SciShow and NewScientist applications did not meet

the M11 (Search) metric. Moreover, the SciShow ap-

plication is notable for achieving completely only one

of the ﬁve high-priority metrics, impacting the inter-

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

374

Table 4: Priority and metrics evaluation for each web platforms.

Priority Metric ScienceTalks JoVE Scivpro Latest Thinking STEMcognito

High M01

M03

M05 NA

M09 NA

M11

Medium M04

M15

M16

M17

M19

M20

M23

Low M02

M06

M07

M08

M10

M12

M13

M14

M18

M21

M22

M24

M25

Table 5: Results of total score for web platforms.

Priority (Weight) ScienceTalks JoVE Scivpro Latest Thinking STEMcognito

High Unfulﬁlled (6) 0 0 1 0 0

Partially (5) 0 0 0 1 1

Medium Unfulﬁlled (4) 1 1 1 1 0

Partially (3) 1 1 1 1 1

Low Unfulﬁlled (2) 0 0 1 1 0

Partially (1) 2 1 1 0 6

Total score 9 7 16 14 14

face’s usability.

MM25 (Adjust video quality) is not completely

achieved by the TED, SciShow, and NASA applica-

tions, and M10 (Help in Context) is not completely

achieved by any application. On the other hand, met-

rics M17 (Response time), M21 (Standard video con-

trol icons), and M24 (Appropriate color usage) stand

out for achieving complete compliance across all ap-

plications.

Finally, Table 7 shows the total score accumulated

for each mobile application. Thus, SciShow obtained

the worst result among the mobile applications eval-

uated. In contrast, TED provides an interface well-

suited for the user experience.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The increasing adoption of audiovisual formats for

science communication has been a notable trend in

recent years, opening new avenues for sharing sci-

entiﬁc knowledge. The development of user-friendly

web platforms and mobile applications has become

crucial in disseminating this content, with a strong

emphasis on prioritizing usability, which signiﬁcantly

inﬂuences the quality and success of these interfaces.

Aligned with the transformative potential of the

applications for democratizing scientiﬁc knowledge,

our study ﬁlls a substantial research gap related to us-

ability assessments for interfaces featuring audiovi-

Enhancing Scientiﬁc Communication: Prioritizing User Experience in Audiovisual Interfaces

375

Table 6: Priority and metrics evaluation for each mobile applications.

Priority Metric Wonder Science TED SciShow NewScientist NASA

High M01

M03

M05

M09 NA NA

M11

Medium MM04

M15 NA

M16

M17

M19

M20

M23

Low M02

MM06

M07

M08

M10

M12

M13

M14

M18

M21

M22

M24

MM25

Table 7: Result score for each mobile applications.

Priority (Weight) Wonder Science TED SciShow NewScientist NASA

High Unfulﬁlled (6) 0 0 2 1 0

Partially (5) 0 0 2 0 0

Medium Unfulﬁlled (4) 1 0 2 0 1

Partially (3) 1 0 1 1 4

Low Unfulﬁlled (2) 1 2 4 0 2

Partially (1) 0 1 5 1 2

Total score 9 5 46 10 22

sual content, particularly regarding metrics, criteria,

and a priority scale within the domain of informa-

tive videos. Thus, our effort to identify and establish

usability metrics tailored for web platforms and mo-

bile applications hosting scientiﬁc audiovisual con-

tent represents a signiﬁcant contribution to this ﬁeld.

By centering our approach on three pivotal usability

criteria—effectiveness, efﬁciency, and user satisfac-

tion—this paper offers a comprehensive framework

for evaluating usability.

Finally, the empirical evaluation performed with

ﬁve web platforms and ﬁve mobile applications an-

alyzing the 25 identiﬁed usability metrics provided

valuable insights. This analysis not only deepened

our understanding of these metrics but also embraced

concepts to ensure that the dissemination of scientiﬁc

knowledge through audiovisual media become effec-

tive, efﬁcient, and user-satisfactory, fostering a more

inclusive, engaging, and accessible environment for

all knowledge users.

REFERENCES

Boy, B., Bucher, H. J., and Christ, K. (2020). Audiovisual

science communication on tv and youtube. how recip-

ients understand and evaluate science videos. Fron-

tiers in Communication, 5:608620.

Budiu, R. (2015). Mobile user experience: limitations and

strengths. Nielsen Norman Group, 19:5.

Chiuchi, C., Souza, R., Santos, A., and Val

encio, C. (2011).

ICEIS 2024 - 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

376

Efﬁciency and portability: Guidelines to develop web-

sites. pages 37–41.

Consortium, W. W. W. et al. (2018). Web content accessi-

bility guidelines (wcag) 2.1.

Eliseo, M. A., Casac, B. S., and Gentil, G. R. (2017).

A comparative study of video content user interfaces

based on heuristic evaluation. In 2017 12th Iberian

Conference on Information Systems and Technologies

(CISTI), pages 1–6. IEEE.

Hussain, A., Mkpojiogu, E. O., and Mohmad Kamal, F.

(2016). Mobile video streaming applications: A sys-

tematic review of test metrics in usability evaluation.

Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Com-

puter Engineering, 8(10):35–39.

ISO 9241-11 (2018). ISO 9241-11: 2018, ergonomics of

human-system interaction — part 11: Usability: Def-

initions and concepts.

ISO/IEC 25010 (2011). ISO/IEC 25010:2011, systems and

software engineering — systems and software quality

requirements and evaluation (square) — system and

software quality models.

Kim, J. and Kim, J. (2021). Guideline-based evaluation and

design opportunities for mobile video-based learning.

In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on

Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–6.

Lagger, C., Lux, M., and Marques, O. (2017). What makes

people watch online videos: An exploratory study.

Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 15(2):1–31.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by.

University of Chicago press.

Lord

elo, F. S. and de Magalh

aes Porto, C. (2012).

Divulgac¸

ao cient

ıﬁca e cultura cient

ıﬁca: conceito e

aplicabilidade. Revista Ci

encia em Extens

ao, 8(1):18–

34.

Nielsen, J. (1994a). Enhancing the explanatory power of

usability heuristics. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI

conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,

pages 152–158.

Nielsen, J. (1994b). Usability inspection methods. In Con-

ference companion on Human factors in computing

systems, pages 413–414.

Nielsen, J. (1995). How to conduct a heuristic evaluation.

Nielsen Norman Group, 1(1):8.

Norman, D. (2007). Emotional design: Why we love (or

hate) everyday things. Basic books.

Nugroho, A., Santosa, P. I., and Hartanto, R. (2022). Usabil-

ity evaluation methods of mobile applications: A sys-

tematic literature review. In 2022 International Sym-

posium on Information Technology and Digital Inno-

vation (ISITDI), pages 92–95. IEEE.

Poulin, R. (2018). The language of graphic design revised

and updated: An illustrated handbook for understand-

ing fundamental design principles. Rockport Publish-

ers.

Rosenthal, S. (2020). Media literacy, scientiﬁc literacy, and

science videos on the internet. Frontiers in Communi-

cation, 5:581585.

Santos, A. B. (2022). Publicac¸

ao de videoartigos como

estrat

egia para impulsionar o consumo de ci

encia.

Transinformac¸

ao, 34:e220011.

Enhancing Scientiﬁc Communication: Prioritizing User Experience in Audiovisual Interfaces

377