Hardware Reference
In-Depth Information
good. However, it was outside the scope of this study to examine the usability of the
products developed by the case study companies. For this reason, it was not possible
to verify the claims made by the interviewees about the usability of their products. All
five companies claimed that the usability of their product was better than the competi-
tion, another claim which could not be verified without assessing the usability of their
products and their competitor's products.
This study found no evidence on the level of usability being delivered in web ap-
plications today. This has been justified by the fact that companies would naturally be
reluctant to reveal negative feedback about their web applications. Accordingly, it
was not possible to compare the opinions about the usability other companies prod-
ucts with those of the case study companies. As previously stated, this study also did
not review the usability of the products developed by the case study companies as it
was considered outside its scope. For this reason, it was not possible to compare the
usability of the case studies products against those of other companies.
5 Discussion
The cross-case analysis has revealed differences between current practices among
SMEs and industry standards for software development processes and usability prac-
tices. The key gaps between these standards and current practices are outlined below:
SMEs are not using a development process designed to meet the specific needs of
web application development.
There is little use of UCD techniques in the development process: Usability re-
quirements are not gathered independently; No formal usability testing; No in-
volvement of end user in design process; and little practice of usability evaluations.
The SMEs definition of usability is limited and inconsistent.
There is a need for a definition of usability specifically for web applications.
Uptake of, and interest in, best practice frameworks is poor.
There is a need for open discussion with clients and end users on usability re-
quirements.
There is little awareness of usability standards and they are considered too vague to
implement in real projects.
Few staff members with UCD experience.
Other findings of less critical importance were:
The definitions of usability made no provision for 'quality in use', such as satisfac-
tion or efficiency.
No usability representation during high level design of products.
Descriptions of usability contradicted their awareness of the end user's usability
needs.
Regardless of the process model, interviewees demonstrated a good understanding
of their process and acknowledged deviations.
SMEs were positive in the direction they were taking through recent efforts to
improve their process.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search