Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Volume 10, Issue 1 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2022)
Iran J Ergon 2022, 10(1): 46-55 |
Back to browse issues page
Research code: 6676
Ethics code: IR.MAZUMS..REC.1398.6676
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Etemadinezhad S, Amouzadeh E, Yazdani Charati J. Investigating the Usability of the Integrated Research Automation System (SYAT): A Heuristic Evaluation. Iran J Ergon 2022; 10 (1) :46-55
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-889-en.html
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-889-en.html
1- Department of Occupational Health, School of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Mazandaran, Iran
2- Department of Ergonomics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran ,elahe.amouzadeh1991@gmail.com
3- Department of Biostatistics, School of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Mazandaran, Iran
2- Department of Ergonomics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran ,
3- Department of Biostatistics, School of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Mazandaran, Iran
Abstract: (5658 Views)
Objectives: Today, many hardware and software products, including office automation software, and web-based websites are used by employees, including professors and employees of different departments in offices. Websites are considered one of the main competitive advantages in any organization. This study aims to investigate the usability of the Integrated Research Automation System (SYAT): A Heuristic Evaluation.
Methods: The present study was a descriptive- cross- sectional study with a heuristic evaluation performed on the integrated research system software (SYAT) by 3 evaluators. They then evaluated the intensity of each of the ten options and scored from 0 to 4. After each problem was classified as one of the 10 branches of Nielsen's evaluation by the evaluators, similar problems were eliminated and the average scores and the severity of the deterioration of the problems were calculated.
Results: A total of 92 usability problems were identified in evaluating the usability of the web-based software (system) using the components provided by Nielsen. The majority of the issues were related to the detection instead of reminder with 16 problems (17.32%). The lowest number of problems was related to both compatibilities between the system and the real world, and the clarity of the system status with 6 cases (6.52%).
Conclusion: The usability assessment method is inexpensive and simple and the problems caused by websites and applications can be evaluated as feedback to improve them. The more accurate the needs of SYAT system users are, the more effective the system will be and the more satisfied the users will be.
Methods: The present study was a descriptive- cross- sectional study with a heuristic evaluation performed on the integrated research system software (SYAT) by 3 evaluators. They then evaluated the intensity of each of the ten options and scored from 0 to 4. After each problem was classified as one of the 10 branches of Nielsen's evaluation by the evaluators, similar problems were eliminated and the average scores and the severity of the deterioration of the problems were calculated.
Results: A total of 92 usability problems were identified in evaluating the usability of the web-based software (system) using the components provided by Nielsen. The majority of the issues were related to the detection instead of reminder with 16 problems (17.32%). The lowest number of problems was related to both compatibilities between the system and the real world, and the clarity of the system status with 6 cases (6.52%).
Conclusion: The usability assessment method is inexpensive and simple and the problems caused by websites and applications can be evaluated as feedback to improve them. The more accurate the needs of SYAT system users are, the more effective the system will be and the more satisfied the users will be.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Other Cases
Received: 2022/04/28 | Accepted: 2022/07/1 | ePublished: 2022/07/1
Received: 2022/04/28 | Accepted: 2022/07/1 | ePublished: 2022/07/1
References
1. Fink D, Nyaga C. Evaluating web site quality: the value of a multi paradigm approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 2009;16(2):259-73. [DOI]
2. Khajouei R, Azizi AA, Atashi AR. Usability Evaluation of an Emergency Information System: A Heuristic Evaluation [in Persian]. Journal of Health Administration. 2013;16(52):61-72.
3. Azizi AA, Safari S, Mohammadi A, Kheirollahi J, Shojaei Bagheri M. A survey on the satisfaction rate of users about the quality of hospital information system in hospitals associated with Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences [in Persian]. 2011;8(4):566-71.
4. Ebnehoseini Z, Tara M, Meraji M, Deldar K, Khoshronezhad F, Khoshronezhad S. Usability evaluation of an admission, discharge, and transfer information system: a heuristic evaluation. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018;6(11):1941-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
5. Paz F, Paz FA, Arenas JJ, Rosas C, editors. A perception study of a new set of usability heuristics for transactional web sites. International Conference on Intelligent Human Systems Integration [31 December 2017]; 2018. pp.620-625. [DOI]
6. Choi J, Bakken S. Web-based education for low-literate parents in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Development of a website and heuristic evaluation and usability testing. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79(8):565-75. [DOI] [PubMed]
7. Khajouei R, Gohari SH, Mirzaee M. Comparison of two heuristic evaluation methods for evaluating the usability of health information systems. J Biomed Inform. 2018;80:37-42. [DOI] [PubMed]
8. Gonzalez-Holland E, Whitmer D, Moralez L, Mouloua M, editors. Examination of the Use of Nielsen’s 10 Usability Heuristics & Outlooks for the Future. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 2017;61(1):1472-5. [DOI]
9. Atashi A, Khajouei R, Azizi A, Dadashi A. User Interface problems of a nationwide inpatient information system: a heuristic evaluation. Appl Clin Inform. 2016;7(01):89-100. [DOI] [PubMed]
10. Dillon A. The evaluation of software usability. London, UK: Taylor and Francis; 2001.
11. Ahmadian L, Salehi F, Abedinzadeh A, Khatibi F. Usability evaluation of a radiology information system [in Persian]. J Health Admin.2017;20(69):67-78.
12. Chao H. Assessing the quality of academic libraries on the Web: The development and testing of criteria. Libr Inf Sci Res. 2002;24(2):169-94. [DOI]
13. Chan AJ, Islam MK, Rosewall T, Jaffray DA, Easty AC, Cafazzo JA. Applying usability heuristics to radiotherapy systems. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2012;102(1):142-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
14. Narmenji SM. User Interface capabilities of Saman Library Sistem of Iran Public Libraries Foundation based on Nilsson’s principles [in Persian]. Research on Information Science & Public Libraries. 2017;23(2):199-217. [DOR: 20.1001.1.26455730.1396.23.2.8.8]
15. Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Rafferty LA, Walker GH, Baber C, Jenkins DP. Human factors methods: a practical guide for engineering and design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2017.
16. Doroudi f. Evaluation of user website interface of National Library of Iran [in Persian]. Journal of Studies in Library and Information Science. 2019;11(2):179-96. [DOI]
17. Jiang M, Liu S, Gao J, Feng Q, Zhang Q. A usability study of 3 radiotherapy systems: a comparative evaluation based on expert evaluation and user experience. Med Sci Monit. 2019;25:578-89. [DOI]
18. Segaran K, MohamadAli AZ, Hoe TW. Usability and user satisfaction of 3D talking-head mobile assisted language learning (MALL) app for non-native speakers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014;131:4-10. [DOI]
19. Upitis R, Abrami P, Brook J, Pickup D, Johnson L. Usability Testing for DREAM. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015;171:543-52. [DOI]
20. Sandars J, Lafferty N. Twelve Tips on usability testing to develop effective e-learning in medical education. Med Teach. 2010;32(12):956-60. [DOI] [PubMed]
21. Mayer RE, Moreno R. Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ Psychol. 2003;38(1):43-52. [DOI]
22. Squires D, Preece J. Predicting quality in educational software: Evaluating for learning, usability and the synergy between them. Interacting with Computers. 1999;11(5):467-83. [DOI]
23. Vijavan R. CS6751: Topic report, heuristic evaluation; 1997.
24. Kantner L, Rosenbaum S. Usability studies of WWW sites: Heuristic evaluation vs. laboratory testing. Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation; January 1997. [DOI]
25. Nielsen J. Technology transfer of heuristic evaluation and usability inspection. Nielsen Norman Group: UX Training, Consulting, & Research; 1995.
26. Nielsen J, Mack RL, Shirk HN. Usability inspection methods;1994 [November 1, 1994]. CHI 95 Conference Companion. Available from: URL: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/summary-of-usability-inspection-methods/ [Article]
27. Moshtaghi S, Zakerian SA, Osqueizadeh R, Rezasoltani P, Amouzadeh E, Shahedi Aliabadi S, et al. Psychometric Evaluation of the Persian Version of Measuring the Usability of Multi-Media Software Questionnaire. J Ergonomics. 2018;8(3):1-4. [DOI]
28. Lacerda TC, von Wangenheim CG, von Wangenheim A, Giuliano I. Does the use of structured reporting improve usability? A comparative evaluation of the usability of two approaches for findings reporting in a large-scale telecardiology context. J Biomed Inform 2014;52:222-30. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
