=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Are Software Companies Aware of UX?
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-922/paper3.pdf
|volume=Vol-922
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/iused/ArditoBCL12
}}
==Are Software Companies Aware of UX?==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-922/paper3.pdf
Are software companies aware of UX?
C. Ardito, P. Buono, M. F. Costabile, R. Lanzilotti
IVU Lab, Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Bari Aldo Moro,
Via Orabona 4, 70125 Bari, Italy
{carmelo.ardito, paolo.buono, maria.costabile, rosa.lanzilotti}@uniba.it
ABSTRACT lot in order to make software companies aware of the
The efforts of addressing user experience (UX) in product importance of UX.
development keeps growing, as demonstrated by the
proliferation of workshops and conferences bringing In this paper, we briefly report some findings of recent
together academics and practitioners, who aim at creating studies involving software companies. On the basis of such
interactive software able to satisfy their users. studies, we provide some indications for making UX an
Unfortunately, human-centred design and methods explicit goal of software developers, as well as suggestions
addressing usability and UX are always mentioned in on how to fill the gap between what Human-Computer
research papers but yet very seldom applied in the current Interaction (HCI) researchers propose about design and
practice of software development in industry. In this paper, evaluation of UX and the activities performed by software
some findings of studies we have recently performed with engineers in their daily practices of software development.
software companies are reported. They show that either
ABOUT USABILITY ENGINEERING IN SOFTWARE
companies still neglect usability and UX, or they do not
COMPANIES
properly address them. Thus, in this workshop that seems
Our research group has been working for defining HCD
to consider UX evaluation as a usual practice and aims to
techniques and methodologies that could be pragmatically
optimize the impact of UX evaluation feedback on software
integrated in the work activities of software developers. For
development, our provocative statement is: Are software
example, in [4] it was proposed how to augment the
companies (at least) aware of UX? The studies summarized
standard waterfall life cycle to explicitly address usability
in this paper show that, in many cases, the answer is NO.
issues; the Pattern-Based (PB) inspection reported in [9]
We are working to overcome the current situation and the
has been defined in order to provide a cost-effective
paper concludes by providing some suggestions to fill the
method that could satisfy the companies’ need of effective
gap between research and practice of UX.
and easy to use evaluation methods.
Keywords
Despite the efforts of HCI researchers, HCD approaches
Software life cycle, human-centered design, ethnographic
are applied only to a limited extent by practitioners, as
studies.
shown in [3], [6], [8], [10], [11], [14], [18], [19]. Such
Categories and Subject Descriptors
studies indicate that the main reasons why companies are
H5.m. [Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., reluctant to adopt HCD practices include: 1) time and costs
of the HCD methods; 2) cultural prejudices; 3) lack of
HCI)]: Miscellaneous; D2.10 [Software]: Methodology.
frameworks guiding the software development team in
General Terms
applying HCD methods. Some studies actually involved
Design, Human Factors. designers with a strong HCI background, and even HCD
practitioners (e.g. [11], [18]). Thus, the situation is even
INTRODUCTION worst when software engineers are addressed.
Designing for UX requires understanding user The above results have been confirmed in our recent survey
requirements from both a pragmatic (system functionalities reported in [1]. Specifically, we collaborated with
and interaction) and a hedonic point view [16]. It is colleagues of the Aalborg University to investigate the
necessary to iteratively design and evaluate prototypes, practical impact of usability engineering in software
according to the human-centered design (HCD) process development organizations in two different geographical
[7]. Unfortunately, HCD and methods addressing usability areas in Europe, namely Northern Denmark and Southern
and UX are always mentioned in research papers but yet Italy. The survey was conducted in order to identify
very seldom applied in the current practice of software possible obstacles that prevent organizations to take into
development. Our position is that, in order to successfully account usability issues. It showed that the number of
address interplay between UX evaluation and system organizations conducting some form of usability activities
development in current work practices, we still have to do a is rather low. Even if software developers are becoming
more aware of what usability is and of its importance in developers, BU managers, etc. All BUs adopt a traditional
order to improve their products, one of the main problems waterfall life-cycle model for several reasons, primarily
still remains what we call “Developer mindset”, i.e. many management background and project constraints, which
developers have their minds set more on programming completely neglect usability and UX issues. The study has
aspects, technical challenges and functionality of the been carried out in the Public Administration and Research
product than its usability. Still too many of them do not BUs. Two master students participated in the study, each
know well what usability is. Another main obstacle they one involved in the activities of a BU. Their work was part
report is the lack of suitable methods that could be of their master thesis in HCI. They were in the company for
integrated in their work practices without demanding a lot a total of 120 working days. Specifically, Rossana, the
of resources. Software development companies do not student in the Public Administration BU, was assigned to a
consider involving final users during the requirement project for creating an application for tourists visiting a
analysis and the evaluations activities. This pushes certain town, running on a mobile device; it was committed
usability researchers and practitioners to deeply consider by the town municipality. Diego, the student in the
devoting more attention on how to transfer academic work Research BU, was assigned to a research project on
into practical value for industry. As we said in [1], we “Technologies for Situational Sea Awereness”, whose aim
believe “it is responsibility of academics to translate is to develop hardware and software to provide services to
scientific articles, which formally describe evaluation various people, from oceanography researchers to skippers,
methods, into something that makes sense for companies and others.
and it is ready to be applied”.
The details of the study and the analysis of the collected
data will be described in another paper we are currently
HOW ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDIES MIGHT HELP?
As follow-up of the study in [1], we wanted to know more writing, and can be discussed at the workshop. We
about the advantages and problems of usability engineering summarize here some findings, which were confirmed by
as perceived by individual organizations. We focused on the interviews to the BU managers, performed about a
companies whose software developers appeared to be month after the end of Rossana’s and Diego’s work. As
motivated to improve the usability of the products they most important effect, they were surprised to see how
develop. The key question to be addressed is why such effective and efficient the HCD methods that Rossana and
developers do not push for the adoption of usability Diego used were. Thanks to this experience, they finally
engineering methods in their development processes. We understood that the minimal resources spent in the iterative
also decided to consider ethnographically based research in prototyping were widely fulfilled by the obtained benefits.
order to get an in-depth understanding of the socio- The Research BU manager appreciated a lot the fact that
technological realities surrounding everyday software Diego, in the requirement analysis, insisted a lot for
development practice [5], [15] this should provide other including a detailed specification of user requirements. He
indications on how to overcome obstacles to a wider did it and also performed semi-structured interviews to
account for usability engineering. validate such requirements with other stakeholders. The
In this paper, we briefly report on a study we have manager actually understood how fruitful these activities
performed in order to know more about the software were and how meeting other stakeholders helped resolving
development life cycle of a company of medium-high size. several concerns. Diego insisted for involving more real
The study had two main objectives: 1) to view, capture and users, pointing out that how different final users are from
understand the work practice by employing observational other stakeholders in terms of needs and expectations, but
methods and in-situ interviews; 2) to integrate HCD this was not possible.
activities in key points of the software development life Both Rossana and Diego used paper prototypes a lot,
cycle, such as interviews and usage scenarios during the discussing them in participatory meetings with other
requirement analysis, as well as prototyping and evaluation stakeholders, i.e. the other project partners in the case of
during system design. Diego research project, while Rossana organized short
The study was conducted at a medium software company meetings with all designers. Because she was involved in
located in Southern Italy, which develops products in the design of an application devoted to people visiting a
different domains, primarily public administration and certain town, she was able to involve a few other persons in
bank. The company accounts three different Business Units the company (secretaries and staff members), who acted
(BUs): Public Administration, Finance, and Research. The like tourists interacting with the prototypes. Even if the
latter is mainly involved in research projects. Each BU approach might appear a bit naïf, HCI researchers know
could be considered as a separate small company, with its how useful these “quick and dirty” methods might be. To
own personnel for carrying out all the activities in the test a running prototype with real users, Diego contacted
software life cycle: project leaders, analysts, designers, two friend of him, who are professional skippers, and
performed a thinking aloud test. They pointed out a feature requirements are not considered in public tenders. In most
that was not as useful as designers considered, and of their work, company develop software systems
indicated some other problems. committed by public organizations, which specify the
system requirements in Call for Tenders. It is evident that
After an analysis of various tools for rapid prototyping,
the companies’ interest is to satisfy all and only the
Diego selected Justinmind Prototyper
requirements specified in the Call. Thus, another
(http://www.justinmind.com/) and used it for creating
suggestion for changing the current situation is to convince
several successive prototypes. The BU managers are now
such public organisations of the need of explicitly
enthusiastic of this tool and are getting it to use in the early
mentioning UX requirements in their Calls for Tenders.
design phase. Rossana and Diego also performed several
According to this, we are already in touch with people
heuristic evaluations of the prototypes. Thus, they used
working at the office of the Apulia region (the region
methods that are very cost effective in order to demonstrate
where our University is located), which is publishing in the
that methods that require limited resources and little
last years several Call for Tenders about ICT systems, and
training of company employees, who could perform them,
we are discussing such issues. In trying to convince them to
actually exist.
address UX, we are actually facing the lack of usability and
What performed in the above study is in line with other UX requirements that are objectively verifiable;
works. For example, Jim Hudson states that a variety of consequently, it is not easy to specify them in the Calls.
methods have to be used at all phases of the product life HCI researchers are urged to find proper solutions to this
cycle [5]. For example, in order to understand customer problem.
needs, the design team can choose from casual
Our last suggestion is that, once we succeed in getting
conversations to more formal focus groups. He also found
companies aware of usability and UX, we try to satisfy
very important discussing with small groups of customers
their request of suitable methods requiring limited
on the paper prototypes once or twice each week. During
resources and help integrating them in their work practices.
these meetings, customers have to be observed during the
Current situation shows that this is still very challenging.
interaction with a product prototype.
Only a few scattered experiences of designing and
evaluating UX in practice are reported in literature. For
SUGGESTIONS
example, at Nokia, which has a long history in designing
The ethnographic study confirmed how it is important to
for experience, the product development process includes
develop paper prototypes and to discuss them with other
continuous evaluation of usability and UX in different
stakeholders, including end users. This is a first important
phases of the life cycle. After the release on the market of
suggestion for companies. It might appear that it is not a
the product, feedback is gathered from the field through
novel finding, but it is worth emphasizing that it is obvious
controlled and uncontrolled studies in order to collect
within the research community, whereas the actual problem
information for improving successive products [13].
is to transfer the use of iterative prototyping in the practice
of companies. With our ethnographic study, we provided Despite the effort spent by Nokia and some other
evidence for the company of the advantages of informal companies in designing for and evaluating UX, there is yet
meetings in which several stakeholders, including end no consensus on approaches and methods to be widely
users, analyse prototypes, starting from those on papers. adopted in order to develop software systems able to
This study and other previous experiences of ours on HCD provide users with pleasurable and satisfying experiences
in practice (e.g., see [2]), as well as other relevant work in [12], [17]. We look forward to the discussions at the
literature [20], provide another important suggestion: workshop, hoping that they might provide more insights.
running prototypes have to be evaluated with samples of
their end users in a real context of use, since “end users can ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
raise significant issues about system usability only when The research reported in this paper has been partially
they get down to using the system, or even a running supported by: 1) EU COST Action IC 0904 TWINTIDE
prototype, in their real activity settings”. Only then, they (Towards the Integration of Transectorial IT Design and
are able to provide the right indications about what is Evaluation); 2) DIPIS (DIstributed Production as
working well and what is not. If this is true for usability, it Innovative System) Project, sponsored by Apulia Region.
is further true for UX, both because usability is part of UX We are particular grateful to the companies which were
and because the subjective aspects that UX impacts can be involved in our studies, and to Rossana Pennetta and Diego
really assessed only by end users in real contexts of use. Paladini who participated in the ethnographic study.
In several interviews conducted with company managers as
follow up of the study in [1], it emerged that another reason
why companies neglect usability and UX is that such
REFERENCES [14] Seffah, A., Donyaee, M., Kline, R. B., and Padda, H.
[1] Ardito, C., Buono, P., Caivano, D., Costabile, M. F. K. 2006. Usability measurement and metrics: A
Lanzilotti, R., Bruun, A., Stage, J. 2011. Usability consolidated model. Software Quality Journal, 14, 2,
evaluation: a survey of software development 159-178.
organizations. In Proc. of SEKE 2011. Knowledge [15] Sharp, H., deSouza C., and Y. Dittrich, 2010. Using
Systems Institute, Skokie, Illinois, USA, 282-287. ethnographic methods in software engineering
[2] Ardito, C., Buono, P., Costabile, M.F., Lanzilotti, R., research. In Proc. of ICSE 2010. ACM, New York,
Piccinno, A., and Simeone, A.L. 2010. Analysis of the NY, USA, 491-492.
UCD process of a web-based system. In Proc. of DMS [16] Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Roto, V. and
2010. Knowledge Systems Institute, Skokie, Illinois, Hassenzahl, M. 2008. Now let's do it in practice: user
USA, 180-185. experience evaluation methods in product
[3] Bias, R.G., and Mayhew, D.J. 2005. Cost-Justifying development. In Proc. of CHI '08. ACM, New York,
Usability, 2nd Edition, Academic Press. NY, USA, 3961-3964.
[4] Costabile M. 2001. Usability in the Software Life [17] Vermeeren, A. P.O.S. Law, E. L-C., Roto, V., Obrist,
Cycle. In S.K. Chang. In Handbook of Software M., Hoonhout, J., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. 2010.
Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 1, 179-192. User experience evaluation methods: current state and
[5] Dittrich, Y., John, M., Singer, J. and Tessem, B. 2007. development needs. In Proc. of NordiCHI 2010.
Editorial: For the Special issue on Qualitative ACM, New York, NY, USA, 521-530.
Software Engineering Research. Information and [18] Venturi, G., and Troost. J. 2004. Survey on the UCD
Software Technology, 49, 6 (2007), 531-539. integration in the industry. In Proc. of NordiCHI '04.
[6] Hudson, J. 2008. Beyond Usability to User ACM, New York, NY, USA, 449-452.
Experience. Workshop UXEM at CHI 2008, [19] Vredenburg, K., Mao, J.Y., Smith, P.W., and Carey,
Available at: http://www.cs.tut.fi/ihte/ T. 2002. A survey of user-centered design practice. In
CHI08_workshop/papers.shtml. Last access on Proc. of CHI '02. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 471-
August 3rd, 2012. 478.
[7] ISO/IEC 2010. 9241-210 Ergonomics of human- [20] Wagner, E.L., and Piccoli, G. 2007. Moving beyond
system interaction -- Part 210: Human-centred design user participation to achieve successful IS design.
for interactive systems. Communication of ACM, 50, 12, 51-55.
[8] Lallemand, C. 2011. Toward a closer integration of
usability in software development: a study of usability
inputs in a model-driven engineering process. In Proc.
of EICS '11. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 299-302.
[9] Lanzilotti, R., Ardito, C., Costabile, M. F., De Angeli,
A. 2011. Do patterns help novice evaluators? A
comparative study. International Journal of Human
Computer Studies, 69, 1-2, 52-69.
[10] Nielsen, J. 1993. Usability Engineering. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
[11] Rosenbaum, S., Rohn, J.A., and Humburg, J. 2000. A
toolkit for strategic usability: Results from
workshops, panels, and surveys. In Proc. of
CHI’2000. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 337-344.
[12] Roto, V., Law, E. L-C., Vermeeren, A., and Hoonh-
out, J. User Experience White Paper. Available at:
http://www.allaboutux.org/. Last access on August
3rd, 2012.
[13] Roto, V., Ketola, P., and Huotari, S. 2008. User
Experience Evaluation in Nokia. Workshop UXEM at
CHI 2008. Available at: http://www.cs.tut.fi/ihte/
CHI08_workshop/papers.shtml. Last access at on
August 3rd, 2012.