Book Chapter10.1017/CBO9780511600821.010
Evaluating evaluation methods
A. Dutt,Hilary Johnson,Peter Johnson +2 more
- 02 Jan 1994
- pp 109-121
31
About: The article was published on 02 Jan 1994.
read more
Chat with Paper
AI Agents for this Paper
Find similar papers on Google Scholar, PubMed and Arxiv
Write a critical review of this paper
Analyze citations of this paper to find unaddressed research gaps
Citations
Criteria For Evaluating Usability Evaluation Methods
TL;DR: This article highlights specific challenges that researchers and practitioners face in comparing UEMs and provides a point of departure for further discussion and refinement of the principles and techniques used to approach UEM evaluation and comparison.
491
Lost in hyperspace: metrics and mental models
Malcolm Otter,Hilary Johnson +1 more
TL;DR: Suggestions are made for the design of more effective hypertext systems that minimise lostness, and a new approach to designing such systems, based on the mental models of users, is put forward.
236
•Journal Article
A Framework for Measuring IT Innovation Benefits
Jan Lambrecht Andresen,Andrew N. Baldwin,Martin Betts,C Carter,Andy Hamilton,Eric Stokes,Tony Thorpe +6 more
TL;DR: A new framework for measuring the benefits of IT in construction is presented based on the principle that benefits realisation must be managed by: planning for strategic alignment and business-driven exploitation, managing the process of predicting benefits, and by measuring resulting benefits after a system or innovation is implemented.
Chapter 30 – Cognitive Walkthroughs
Clayton Lewis
- 01 Jan 1997
TL;DR: This chapter begins by presenting a brief overview of the cognitive walkthrough and locates it in the space of interface evaluation methods, and describes related methods that have been developed from the cognitivewalkthrough idea.
95
Improving evaluation theory through the empirical study of evaluation practice
TL;DR: Articles should deal with topics applicable to the broad field of program evaluation, and implications for practicing evaluators should be clearly identified.
66