=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3027/paper94
|storemode=property
|title=Evaluating the Ergonomics of Online Store User Interfaces Based on Visual Analytics
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3027/paper94.pdf
|volume=Vol-3027
|authors=Konstantin Dergachev,Elena Dergacheva
}}
==Evaluating the Ergonomics of Online Store User Interfaces Based on Visual Analytics==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3027/paper94.pdf
Evaluating the Ergonomics of Online Store User Interfaces Based
on Visual Analytics
Konstantin Dergachev 1 and Elena Dergacheva 1
1
Bryansk State Technical University, bulv. 50 let Oktyabrya 7, Bryansk, 241035, Russia
Abstract
The volume of the online commerce market is growing steadily; however, the online store
conversion remains at a fairly low level. One of the reasons for the low conversion rate of
online stores is the lack of the ergonomic design. The interface expert assessment and usability
testing allow identifying interface errors of existing sites. The methodology is proposed for
testing the ergonomics of the graphical user web interface of online stores based on choosing
alternatives and visual analytics. The methodology is based on combining expert assessment
of user interfaces with usability testing throughout the design process. Expert assessment is a
quick way to find the main ergonomic problems, which is recommended to be used at the stages
of developing technical specification, prototyping and final testing. The expert assessment
mechanism of ergonomics is improved based on interface checklists and visual analysis of
results. Within each of the ergonomics criteria (speed, errors, subjective satisfaction,
comprehensibility), uniquely defined characteristics are selected to evaluate the ergonomics of
the online store interface. Each ergonomic characteristic is assigned a weighting coefficient
that determines its importance. The degree and quality of implementing the characteristics on
a 0 to 5 scale are taken into account. Acceptable test results are obtained for the peer review
method of the online stores interfaces for comparing the interfaces of Eldorado, M.Video and
DNS sites.
Keywords 1
Graphical user interface, Web interface, ergonomics, online store, interface design,
prototyping, checklist, evaluation methodology, decision making, multi-criteria evaluation,
visual analytics
1. Introduction
The volume of online commerce has significantly grown recently. There are approximately 1.92
billion online shoppers worldwide. In 2021 e-commerce sales amounted for about 15% of all global
retail sales. Analysts predict the upturn of this indicator to 22% in 2023 [1, 2]. The growth trend of the
e-commerce sector is supported by the coronavirus pandemic as people are increasingly beginning to
give preference to electronic shopping [3]. As a result, new online stores appear daily [1].
Despite the growing number of online stores, the world statistics states that only 2.58% of their
visitors make purchases in the end [1]. Work [4] indentifies the Internet commerce concerns associated
with the problems of user interfaces, namely the chaos and information overload of sites and user-
unfriendly navigation. Therefore, the urgent task is to increase the conversion by optimising the site
user interface, increasing its usability.
Leading companies are paying more and more attention to optimising the user interfaces of their
online stores, realising the importance of their usability. The interface affects the product retrieval rate,
its presentation convenience, and, as a result, the decision to buy it, to reuse the service and to form an
opinion about the seller. For instance, simplifying the registration process for adidas.com users led to
GraphiCon 2021: 31st International Conference on Computer Graphics and Vision, September 27-30, 2021, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
EMAIL: kv.dergachev@gmail.com (K. Dergachev); eadergacheva2013@yandex.ru (E. Dergacheva)
ORCID: 0000-0002-2016-8981 (K. Dergachev); 0000-0003-4562-2914 (E. Dergacheva)
©️ 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
increasing the number of accounts by almost 19%, which has ultimately enhanced revenues by more
than $1 million [5].
Interface problems can be divided into design ergonomics concerns and the problems of interface
incompatibility with the user activity structure. In relation to many online store sites, the second problem
is successfully solved, due to the sufficient simplicity and standardising the process of finding and
purchasing goods. If the user non-standard behaviour on the site is planned, related to the specifics of
the online store subject area and the features of the purchase, then the interaction must be carefully
checked on the system potential users.
The problem of improving design ergonomics for many sites comes to the fore and is subject to more
detailed study.
The presence and properties of the Web interface individual components are regulated by the quality
manual for Web interfaces ISO 9241-151: 2008 [7], however, aspects of evaluating the ergonomics of
the online store Web interface are not affected by this and other standards [7, 8]. Therefore, the problem
of creating a methodology for testing online store ergonomics is urgent.
Comparative expert analysis of the speed of similar site users can be carried out using the GOMS
method [9]. However, this method has significant limitations, does not allow identifying problems and
ways for their solution, and is not intended for a comprehensive assessment of the interface ergonomics.
In work [10], a method is proposed for formalizing the interface quality assessment relative to similar
programme interfaces. However, the analogs under consideration may not be ideal, which may lead to
decreasing the quality level and complicating the expert assessment procedure.
Ergonomics testing is based on selecting and using many criteria and characteristics, the set of which
can vary for each site. The general set of requirements for the website interfaces is determined by the
standard [7]. When designing and evaluating each website, the standard requirements are to be
transformed into a set of easily verifiable and understandable ergonomic criteria and characteristics.
This set is developed by expert designers, domain specialists, constructors, customers, and other
decision makers. Differences in viewpoints, as a rule, are observed both among the groups of decision-
makers and within each group, which can lead to emerging redundant criteria, differences in evaluating
the interface quality.
The subjectivity of the criteria for evaluating the interface and interpreting the results of testing
interfaces introduced by decision-takers makes the task of multi-criteria evaluation and choice of the
alternatives urgent. The use of visual analytics methods allows reducing the number of alternatives and
criteria, can increase the objectivity of the proposed assessment methods, as well as the objectivity of
interpreting the study results of the interface ergonomics [11].
Applying specialized methods of data visualization can also improve the analysis efficiency of large
amounts of data [12-15]. Using visual analytics is especially important for the comparative analysis of
a few analog interfaces for several dozen characteristics at the stage of developing a technical task, as
well as at the stage of evaluating several options for interface prototypes of the designed application.
Thus, the task arises of creating a methodology for evaluating the interface ergonomics, which will
allow determining a set of adequate assessment criteria, objectively evaluate by criteria, clearly present
the study results and draw a conclusion about the advantages, disadvantages and directions of improving
the interface.
2. Relationship between the interface design and ergonomics evaluation
A generalized scheme for designing a user interface, on the basis of which a methodology for
evaluating ergonomics has been developed, is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Generalized BPMN-scheme for designing an ergonomic interface
The developed methodology is based on the following formulated principles:
1. The expert assessment and usability testing of the interface should be applied in the design,
starting from developing technical specifications, and then when checking the correctness of the first
and subsequent versions of the prototype, since with each new iteration, fixes in the interface are
more expensive than at the previous one.
2. The biggest problems of analog interfaces or the system being developed can be discovered by
experts involved in the design process. The expert conducts a preliminary check of the interface
compliance with the technical specification requirements and ergonomics criteria. Therefore,
starting from the early design stages, it is advisable to involve experts to evaluate the decisions made
within the developed prototypes. Expert assessment usually precedes usability testing.
3. The procedure for evaluating the interface quality by an expert is heuristic and subjective;
therefore it is necessary to formalize this process in order to ensure the objectivity and evidence of
the expert conclusions with a minimum loss in the examination speed. To ensure the reliability and
consistency of the research findings, it is necessary to provide for a multi-criteria evaluation of the
expert judgment conformity and, if necessary, take measures aimed at increasing the conformity
[16]. In addition, it is advisable for an expert to have visual analytics tools at his disposal.
4. Interface design is an iterative process focused on improving different versions of the interface
prototype by periodic peer review and user testing [17, 18].
5. The effectiveness of the interface solutions of each prototype is checked by means of the interface
expert assessment and / or usability testing [9]. If testing shows acceptable results of compliance
with the technical task requirements or with its abbreviated version that is the checklist, then one
proceeds to developing a better version of the prototype, otherwise (if ergonomic problems are
found), the current version is corrected or developed anew [17].
6. Usability testing of the interface is carried out by potential users of the online store who are
familiar with the subject area. It is recommended to involve test groups of 4-5 participants. This
study is advisable to carry out after eliminating expert comments. A promising area of interface
testing is biometric assessment and tracking the user view direction. These techniques make it
possible to reveal the user hidden subconscious motives [19].
User interface ergonomics depends on the quality of carrying out individual work within the
interface design framework. At the first design stage, the features of the subject area and analog
interfaces are studied. Analysing the interfaces of analogous systems involves the expert selection of
the evaluation criteria. Given the subjectivity and differences in the expert opinions, this task of multi-
criteria evaluation will require involving the resources of the software analytical system to select
objective criteria and the degree of their importance (the process of “Analysis of opinions”). Then
ranking the evaluation criteria is performed and the interface is directly analyzed. The interface analysis
can be performed both by an expert and by an analytical system that carries out the analysis on the rule
base and the estimation model. Further, according to the analysis results, one obtains numerical and
visualized data that reveal the advantages and disadvantages of the interface under consideration. The
data received are used to develop the technical specification and interface checklist. After the expert
assessment, usability testing of similar interfaces can be used, which helps to identify their objective
additional flaws and to confirm the problems found by the experts.
The analysis of user requirements, as a rule, is based on observing user activities according to pre-
developed scenarios and questionnaires, allowing identifying goals, objectives, and typical examples of
applying the interface.
At the high-level design, the designer arranges navigation links between the interface blocks. Testing
users by the classification method of card sorting helps one to determine the navigation links by the
user view, to group functions in menus and on separate pages, to determine the product catalogue
structure. In this situation, the “Analysis of opinions” block performs the processing and interpreting of
statistical information obtained as a result of card sorting.
Low-level design is the stage at which expert assessment involves estimating the quality and
identifying shortcomings of the paper, presentation, pseudo-real and real versions of the prototype. The
peer review scenario at this stage is similar to studying the analogs, with the exception of its iteration.
Evaluating the prototype version interface is carried out within the framework of the previously
developed technical task. Visualizing the level of the criteria fulfilment allows one to understand the
degree of the project readiness and to determine the places where the interface needs improving.
Usability testing allows one to determine the prototype compliance with the technical task requirements
and is the main way to determine the ergonomics of the developed interface.
3. Methodology for evaluating ergonomics
In checking the interface ergonomics, expert assessment takes a dominant position, especially at the
initial design stages when developing technical specifications. The mechanism of checklists [20],
supplemented by a visual evaluation model, allows having a quick and accurate assessment of the
interface ergonomics or its prototype ergonomics. A checklist is a list of requirements for individual
properties and interface elements that have their own weighting coefficients. If the requirement is met,
its weight is added to the total amount; if it is not met, the weight is not added. The requirements are
not always met unambiguously and at a high level, therefore it is proposed to take into account the
degree of the requirement fulfilment on a six-point scale (0 – the requirement is not met, 5 – the
requirement is met in full). An interface checklist is developed for each project, but a universal basic
checklist grounded on the basic ergonomic requirements for such sites can be proposed for designing
an online store site.
To evaluate the ergonomics of the graphical user interface of online store sites, it is proposed:
1. To select uniquely defined characteristics (criteria) for evaluating the interface ergonomics.
2. To assign to the ergonomics characteristics j quantitative values of the weighting
coefficients 𝑘𝑗 determining the importance of the characteristics. The sum of the weighting factors
must be equal to 1.
3. To choose a scale for evaluating the ergonomics characteristics (for example, a six-point scale
from pj=0 which means that the characteristic is not implemented until pj=5 which means that the
characteristic is implemented at the highest level).
4. To calculate the integral estimation of ergonomics using the formula for determining the
ergonomics level of the V interface:
𝑛
𝑉 = ∑ 𝑝𝑗 𝑘𝑗 (1)
𝑗=1
Formula (1) is only one of the possible options for obtaining an aggregate estimation; it is possible
to use other types of decision rules, as well as their combinations.
5. To conduct ranking and clustering of ergonomic characteristics according to the main criteria
of ergonomics (user speed, reduction in the number of errors, subjective satisfaction, clarity of the
interface).
6. To build a visual evaluation model that allows one to objectively and visually present the results
of the ergonomics test.
7. To draw conclusions about the shortcomings of the analyzed sites.
Thus, the maximum possible value of user interface ergonomics level is Vmax=5.
The ergonomics of any online store interface is based on the following criteria:
1. User speed
2. Reduction of user errors
3. User subjective satisfaction
4. Interface comprehensibility
Each of the ergonomics criteria is implemented through various characteristics of a variety of
interface elements and interface solutions determined by the user mental model, subject area and
standard [7].
The problem of identifying the interface individual characteristics and especially determining their
weighting coefficients is associated with the mutual influence of various ergonomic characteristics on
different criteria of ergonomics. For example, fewer data entry errors tend to result in increasing the
speed and user higher subjective satisfaction. Due to their versatility, such characteristics can have
higher weighting coefficients characterising their importance to ensure the ergonomics of the site user
interface.
To test the methodology, the site interfaces of Eldorado [21], M.Video [22] and DNS [23] online
stores are analysed. The comparison results are presented in Table 1-4.
Table 1
Evaluating the quality of the online store interfaces by user speed
№ Ergonomic features / interface solutions kj pj
Eldorado M.Video DNS
1. Interface quietness 0,04 2 4 4
2. Restricting on decision making (shopping cart) 0,03 3 5 5
3. Minimizing data entry 0,03 2 4 4
4. Navigating 0,03 4 4 4
5. Sorting and filtering search results 0,03 5 4 4
6. Combining typical actions (purchase) 0,02 5 2 4
7. Grouping related items 0,02 4 4 4
8. Simplicity (number of elements) 0,02 3 3 4
9. System memory (information storage) 0,02 4 5 4
10. Searching hints 0,02 5 4 4
11. Size of interface elements 0,015 3 4 5
12. Searching by part of a word 0,015 5 4 5
13. Searching history 0,015 4 3 5
14. Arranging items in order of importance 0,015 4 3 4
15. Need for vertical scrolling 0,01 4 3 4
16. Product browsing history 0,01 5 1 5
Table 2
Evaluating the quality of the online store interfaces by user error reduction
Ergonomic features / interface solutions kj pj
Eldorado M.Video DNS
1. Resistance to typos when searching 0,03 4 3 4
2. Using specialized elements for the data entry 0,03 4 4 3
3. Blocking erroneous actions 0,025 4 4 4
4. Indicating errors 0,015 4 4 4
5. Searching with the wrong keyboard layout 0,01 5 5 5
Table 3
Evaluating the quality of the online store interfaces by user subjective satisfaction
№ Ergonomic features / interface solutions kj pj
Eldorado M.Video DNS
1. Integrity of style 0,05 1 5 4
2. Modular grid and visual constants 0,035 3 4 4
3. Rounded corners 0,03 2 5 4
4. Colour scheme 0,03 3 4 4
5. Fonts 0,025 2 5 4
6. “Airiness” of the interface (distance between the
0,02 3 4 4
elements)
7. Ease of user authentication 0,02 4 3 4
8. Content 0,02 4 4 4
9. Adaptability 0,02 4 4 4
10. Designing navigation links 0,02 4 3 4
11. Feedback (sending comments, questions, ratings) 0,015 5 5 5
12. Loading speed and indication 0,015 3 3 4
13. Using the golden ratio 0,01 2 5 5
14. Absence of “broken links” 0,01 5 5 5
15. Location information 0,01 5 3 5
Table 4
Evaluating the quality of the online store interfaces by the interface comprehensibility
№ Ergonomic features / interface solutions kj pj
Eldorado M.Video DNS
1. Pictogram comprehensibility 0,035 5 3 4
2. Standard nature of elements 0,035 4 4 4
3. Changing properties of elements during the
0,03 4 3 4
interaction
4. Compliance with the industry standards 0,03 3 4 5
5. Displaying the access path 0,025 4 4 4
6. Visible ownership of controls to an object 0,02 4 4 4
7. Reference for typical actions 0,015 4 4 4
8. Tooltips 0,015 4 3 4
9. Subject area reference 0,015 5 3 3
As a result of the calculations according to formula 1, we will determine the level of the interface
quality of the compared sites. Eldorado website has its interface ergonomics score of VE=3,575.
M.Video website shows the second result, that is VM=3,88. DNS site has the best level of the interface
ergonomics, that is VD =4,155 among those considered websites.
The integral value of the interface quality level gives us insights into the necessity to improve the
site. Making a decision about the characteristics that need to be improved requires clustering, ranking
and comparing individual ergonomic characteristics.
It is proposed to evaluate ergonomics within the four identified clusters that meet the main
ergonomics criteria. A radar chart is chosen as a visual benchmark for comparing multiple interfaces.
The choice of radar diagram is due to the fact that the evaluated characteristics are not related to each
other, as well as the fact that the area bounded by the diagram line is proportional to the quality level
of the interface.
Let's construct separate diagrams for the characteristics of each of the four ergonomics criteria. The
quality level of each feature is determined by multiplying the rating of each site by the feature weighting
coefficient. As a result, based on the data in tables 1-4, we will obtain the corresponding diagrams for
evaluating the ergonomic characteristics of online stores (Figure 2).
1 1
a) 16 0,2 2 b) 0,15
15 0,15 3
0,1
0,1
14 4
0,05 5 0,05 2
13 0 5
0
12 6
11 7
10 8 4 3
9
1 1
c) 15 0,25 2 d) 0,2
0,2 9 2
14 3 0,15
0,15
0,1
0,1
13 4
0,05
0,05 8 3
0 0
12 5
11 6 7 4
10 7
6 5
9 8
Eldorado M.Video
DNS MAX
Figure 2: Diagram of the ergonomics level of characteristics that affect: a) user speed; b) number of
user errors; c) user subjective satisfaction; d) interface comprehensibility
Analyzing the deviation of the line corresponding to a specific interface from the line of the
maximum quality level (MAX), as well as the area formed by this line, it is possible to draw a conclusion
about the level of the interface quality. The closer the points of the broken curve to the centre of the
diagram, the lower the overall level of quality of this criterion implementation in the interface of the
site in question.
Using such diagrams, one can solve two types of problems:
1. Improving the interface of one of the analyzed sites (determining the ergonomic characteristics
by which the site lags behind the maximum indicator and the competitors).
2. Designing the interface of a new site (determining the best ergonomic solutions or improving
those available in analogs).
Let's show by example approaches to solving the problem of improving the site of Eldorado online
store. Figure 2a shows that M.Video and DNS sites are leading in terms of user speed. It is advisable to
take ergonomic characteristics № 2, 11, 12, 13 of DNS site and № 9 of M.Video site as standards of
implementation.
It is necessary to pay attention to the characteristics of the leading interfaces; the points of their
diagrams are as distant as possible from the maximum values. They are the best of the considered
analogs, but their improvement will provide the most significant gain in ergonomics. Thus, we can
recommend to improve and use ergonomic characteristics № 1, 3, 8 of DNS leader site.
The characteristics of Eldorado site № 4, 7, 14 are rated on par with those of the competitors, but
they need improving. The characteristics of Eldorado site № 5, 6 10, 12, 16 are maximum and do not
need any improvement.
The task of designing a new site interface requires knowledge of the main disadvantages and
advantages of the similar sites. From the diagram in Figure 2, we can see that it is advisable to take
characteristics № 2, 11, 12, 13, 16 of DNS site, characteristics № 5, 6, 10, 12 of Eldorado site and
characteristics № 9 of M.Video site as standards of implementation. Then we consider the
characteristics of the leading interfaces, as the points of their diagrams are distant from the maximum
values. Thus, we can recommend to improve and use ergonomic characteristics № 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 14 of
DNS leader site.
4. Conclusion
Thus, the proposed methodology makes it possible to determine the absolute value of the user
interface ergonomics level for the online store website, as well as the relative level of interface quality
in the case of comparing several sites. Presenting visual analysis tools obtained in the process of
evaluating the ergonomics of the alternative site allows one to involve expert cognitive capabilities in
the analysis process and to perceive the solution fully, entirely using all the evaluation criteria proposed
in the work. The described technique can be applied at the initial design stages as an express analysis
for setting development goals, as well as at the stage of designing and testing interface prototypes to
evaluate the decisions made as an addition to usability testing methods and independently of them. With
the help of expert assessment according to the methodology proposed in this work, it is possible to
quickly determine the strengths and weaknesses of user interfaces, which are advisable to take into
account when creating new sites for online stores or improving existing sites.
5. References
[1] I. Stevanovic, eCommerce Statistics & the Industry’s Vibrant Future, 2019. URL:
https://kommandotech.com/statistics/ecommerce-statistics/.
[2] E. Dergacheva, Visualizing Socio-techno-natural Processes: Issues and Challenges, in: CEUR
Workshop Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computer Graphics and Vision
(2019), Vol. 2485, pp. 168-172. URL: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2485/paper38.pdf.
[3] E.A. Dergacheva, E.S. Demidenko, Visualizing Global Socio-Technogenic Human
Transformation: Digital Challenges of Living Earth, in: CEUR Workshop Proceedings of the 30th
International Conference on Computer Graphics and Vision (2020). Proceedings of the 30th
International Conference on Computer Graphics and Machine Vision, Vol. 2744, pp.44-1 – 44-14.
URL: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2744/paper44.pdf. doi: https://doi.org/10.51130/graphicon-2020-2-
3-44.
[4] E.V. Matuzenko, O.A. Glazunova, A.A. Izvarin, Trends, Problems and Prospects for the
Development of Electronic Commerce in the Sphere of Internet Trade, in: Bulletin of the Belgorod
University of Cooperation, Economics and Law, Vol. 1 (86), 2021, pp. 197-206. doi:
10.21295/2223-5639-2021-1-197-206.
[5] V.V. Evenko, A.A. Puzacheva, D.D. Belikova, Ergonomic Adjustments of a Website Due to
Changes in Preferences and Mechanisms of Information Perception by People, in: CEUR
Workshop Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computer Graphics and Vision
Vol. 2485, 2019, pp. 211-214. doi: 10.30987/graphicon-2019-2-211-214.
[6] www.accenture.com, Data-driven decision making delivers results, 2020. URL:
https://www.accenture.com/ru-ru/case-studies/digital/success-adidas-data-driven-experience-
design.
[7] ISO 9241-151:2008 Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 151: Guidance on World
Wide Web user interfaces.
[8] ISO 9241-210:2010 Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design
for interactive systems.
[9] V.A. Zeng, Evaluating the Design Quality of New Generation User Interfaces, in: Bulletin of Tula
State University. Technical sciences, Vol. 12, 2019, pp. 404-410.
[10] I.A. Ponomarev, Developing Models and Algorithms for Multi-criteria Evaluation of the Graphical
User Interface Quality, Moscow, IPK MIET, 2006.
[11] A.A. Zakharova, D.A. Korostelyov, Application of Visual Analytics Methods to Reduce the
Dimensionality of Decision-making Problems, Scientific Visualization. Vol. 12, 2020, Vol. 4. pp.
23-32. doi: 10.26583/sv.12.4.03.
[12] T.Runkler, Data Visualization. In: Data Analytics. Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden
(2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-14075-5_4.
[13] A.G.Podvesovskii, R.A. Isaev, Visualization Metaphors for Fuzzy Cognitive Maps. Scientific
Visualization 10(4), (2018), 13-29. doi: 10.26583/sv.10.4.02.
[14] A.A.Zakharova, A.V. Shklyar, Informative features of data visualization tasks. Scientific
Visualization, 7 (2), (2015), 73-80.
[15] A.A. Zakharova, A.V. Shklyar, Y.S. Rizen, Measurable features of visualization task Scientific
Visualization, 8 (1), (2016), 95-107.
[16] A. Podvesovskii, O. Mikhaleva, et. al., Model of Control of Expert Estimates Consistency in
Distributed Group Expertise. in: A. Kravets et. al. (eds) Creativity in Intelligent Technologies and
Data Science. CIT&DS 2017. Communications in Computer and Information Science; 754. Cham:
Springer, 2017, pp. 361-374. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-65551-2_26.
[17] O.V. Sayapin, O.V. Tikhanychev, S.V. Chiskidov, I.A. Bystrakova, Development of Applied
Programme Interfaces: Modelling or Prototyping, in: Applied Informatics, Vol. 15, No. 1 (85),
2020, pp. 47-56. doi: 10.24411/1993-8314-2020-10004.
[18] O.V. Tikhanychev, User Interfaces in Automated Systems: Development Problems, in: Software
systems and computational methods, Vol. 2, 2019, pp. 11-22. doi: 10.7256/2454-
0714.2019.2.28443.
[19] D.A. Kostyuk, O.O. Latiy, A.A. Markina, Approach to Biometric Evaluation of the Graphical User
Interface Ergonomics, in: Bulletin of Brest State Technical University. Physics, mathematics,
computer science, Vol. 5 (101), 2016, pp. 46-49.
[20] D.P. Soroka, Evaluating Method Analysis of the User Interface Ergonomic Indicators In the world
of scientific discoveries, No. 10-2 (70), 2015, pp. 894-906.
[21] Eldorado.ru, 2021. URL: https://www.eldorado.ru
[22] M.Video, 2021. URL: https://www.mvideo.ru
[23] DNS, 2021. URL: https://www.dns-shop.ru