Resilience in Usability Consultancy Practice

Dominic Furniss

Ann Blandford

Paul Curzon
Queen Mary, University of London, Dept. of Computer Science, UK

Ladda ner artikelhttp://www.ep.liu.se/ecp_article/index.en.aspx?issue=023;article=005

Ingår i: Proceedings of the Resilience Engineering Workshop; 25-27 June; 2007; Vadstena; Sweden

Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 23:5, s. 31-35

Visa mer +

Publicerad: 2007-07-28


ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)


Usability evaluation methods (UEMs) play a central role in usability consultancy practice. Their adoption and adaptation plays an important part in making systems more re-silient. There is a knowledge gap in how practitioners adopt and adapt UEMs. Wixon (2003) goes as far as to say that the current literature fails the practitioner. Work reported here builds on qualitative research on usability practice. The conceptual framework of re-silience engineering can help bridge this gap. However; resilience engineering is typically focused on avoiding accidents at the lower end of performance: e.g. when system resources are too stretched or when system variability leads to failure. We argue that a better way of conceptualizing UEM use is for the maximization of impact on design at the high end of performance. Here practitioners adopt and adapt methods to resonate with the project; peo-ple and practices of the host company under constrained resources. This reasoning leads us to introduce and apply a positive resonance model to capture this perspective.


Inga nyckelord är tillgängliga


Bellotti; V. (1988). Implications of Current Design Practice for the Use of HCI Tech-niques. In Proc. BCS IV (pp. 13-34).

Dekker; S. (2005). Ten questions about human error: A new view of human factors and system safety. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Furniss; D.; Blandford; A. & Curzon; P. (in press). Usability work in professional web-site design: Insights from practitioners’ perspectives. In Law; E.; Hvannberg; E.; and Cockton; G. (Eds.). Maturing usability: Quality in software; interaction and value. Springer.

Grote; G. (2006). Rules management as source for loose coupling in high-risk systems. In Proc. of the Second Resilience Engineering Symposium (pp. 116-124).

Hollnagel; E. (2004). Barriers and accident prevention. Ashgate Publishing Company.

Nielsen; J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In Nielsen; J.; and Mack; R.L. (Eds.); Usability inspection methods. John Wiley & Sons; New York; NY.

O’Neill; E. (1998). User-developer cooperation in software development: building common ground and usable systems. PhD Thesis. QMWC; University of London.

Strauss; A. & Corbin; J. (1998) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and proce-dures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Sundström; G. & Hollnagel; E. (2006). Learning how to create resilience in business systems. In E. Hollnagel; D. Woods & N. Leveson (Eds.) Resilience engineering. Con-cepts and precepts. Cited in Sundström; G. & Hollnagel; E. (2006). On the art of creat-ing and managing policies: Facilitating the emergence of resilience. In Proc. of the Sec-ond Resilience Engineering Symposium (pp. 304-312).

Wixon; D. (2003). Evaluating usability methods: Why the current literature fails the practitioner. Interactions; 10 (4); 28-34.

Citeringar i Crossref