International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 28 (2001) 143–151

Usability of consumer electronic products

Sung H. Han*, Myung Hwan Yun, Jiyoung Kwahk, Sang W. Hong
Department of Industrial Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology, San 31, Hyoja, Pohang, 790-784, South Korea

Received 23 March 1999; received in revised form 11 October 1999; accepted 18 January 2000

Abstract

The concept of usability has been applied to the design and evaluation of software user interfaces in which user
performance was the major issue for improvement. Recently, it is being applied to consumer electronic products
because companies consider it an important key to their success. However, there is a difference in the concept of
usability between the two applications. Unlike the software user interfaces, the image/impression felt by the users are as
important as the performance for a consumer electronic product to be successful. It is therefore necessary to redefine the
concept. Although a variety of new concepts have been suggested, there is no widely acceptable one. This study provides
a new definition of usability applicable to the consumer electronic products. It defines the usability as the degree to
which the users are satisfied with the product with respect to both the performance and the image/impression. In
addition, it classifies dimensions that can explain various and complex aspects of the usability. The results of this study
are expected to provide a framework for designing and evaluating the user interface of consumer electronic products.
Relevance to industry
This study presents the definition of usability of consumer electronic products and its dimensions. They can be used
in the design and evaluation stages of a product development process. In addition, they would be helpful in
understanding the user requirements systematically. r 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Usability; Consumer electronic products; Performance; Image and impression; Usability dimensions

1. Introduction untouched until the end of the product life. It is

Almost every home has one of the consumer
electronic products such as a videocassette recor-
der (VCR), a compact disk player (CDP), or a
digital videodisk (DVD) player. Although some
people are poor at using them, even a frequent user
is not able to use every function of them without
referring to the manual. Some functions remain
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-54-279-2203; fax: +82-
54-279-2870.
E-mail address: shan@postech.ac.kr (S.H. Han).
partly because there are too many functions. Some
users do not even recognize those functions exist.
In many cases, however, the main reason is that
he/she gives up using them after a few trials
because they are difficult to learn and use.
Usability of a product is now one of the most
important factors that the users consider in
purchasing a product as well as functionality,
price, after sales service quality, and so on (Dumas
and Redish, 1994). Also, there is a legislation that
requires hardware and software to meet certain
standards with respect to systems usability and

0169-8141/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 8 1 4 1 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 2 5 - 7
144 S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 28 (2001) 143–151
usefulness (Stewart, 1991). To cope with these user
and legal requirements, industries and companies
are struggling for usability. Now usability is called
a business phenomenon (Rubin, 1994).
Usability is a well-known and well-defined
concept in the human-computer interaction
(HCI) research. The concept has been applied to
improve the usability of software user interfaces
(Gould and Lewis, 1985; Mantei and Teorey, 1988;
Nielsen, 1993; Shneiderman, 1992; Mayhew,
1992). Borrowing the concept from the HCI area,
many companies attempt to apply it to improve
the usability of their consumer electronic products
(Caplan, 1994; Logan, 1994; Jordan, 1997).
Usability was originally defined as the degree of
efficiency and effectiveness of use within a specified
range of users, tasks, tools, and environment
(Bennet, 1984; Shackel, 1984). This abstract
definition was decomposed into several dimensions
to measure the degree of usability quantitatively
during the engineering development process
(Gould, 1988; Booth, 1989; Dumas, 1989; Shackel,
1991, 1986; Chapanis, 1991). A good example was
provided by Shackel (1986) who suggested four
dimensions of usability: effectiveness, learnability,
flexibility, and attitude. Sometimes usefulness was
added to the dimensions (Booth, 1989), although it
was often argued that it should be assessed
independently (Lindgaard, 1994; Nielsen, 1993).
Recently, the concept of usability is undergoing
a major change. The subjective aspect of usability
is relatively more emphasized than it used to be.
This is because products without emphasizing it
are not accepted by the users. Research studies
have been conducted to reflect it in terms of
behavioral and emotional factors in the design of
consumer products (Nagamachi, 1995; Logan,
1994; Hofmeester et al., 1996; Jordan, 1997).
Although these studies have attempted to extend
the usability concept, there is no widely acceptable
one.
This study attempts to define a new concept of
usability applicable to the consumer electronic
products. The new definition of usability suggested
in this study is different from the traditional one in
the HCI area. That is, the subjective aspect, named
image and impression, is emphasized as much as
the objective one. In addition, it classifies dimen-
sions to explain various and complex aspects of the
new usability concept.
2. Usability of consumer electronic products
As stated above, the concept of usability was
originally used to measure how easy and efficient it
was for a user to perform tasks by using a product
in the HCI area (Bennet, 1984; Shackel, 1984).
Lindgaard (1994) reported that typical usability
problems of software identified seemed to be the
performance problems such as the poor task
performance resulting from poor navigation de-
sign, bad screen design and layout, unsuitable
feedback, lack of consistency, etc. That is, the
traditional definition of usability emphasized the
performance aspect. Recently, as the consumer
electronic products get intelligent, their usability is
arousing more interests. A natural question then
arises. Should we use the same usability concept
used in the HCI area for designing and evaluating
the consumer electronic products?
One of the important reasons we cannot apply
the traditional concept of usability to the con-
sumer electronic products is that they are quite
different from a software product. The consumer
electronic product is a hybrid system that is made
up of many different components. Some of them
are hardware (i.e. physical) components and
others are software (i.e. logical) components. For
example, a typical VCR has a small built-in
display, a videocassette tape loader, several
buttons, and indicators, which are hardware
components. On the other hand, some functions
are organized as a menu, and icons are often used
to represent the functions. Thus, the concept of
usability applicable to the consumer electronic
products should be flexible so that various types of
interface components could be evaluated.
The second reason is that user performance has
long been the main concern of the usability
engineers in HCI research, while it has scarcely
been in the design of electronic products. Thus,
most users of a consumer electronic product are
exposed to its difficult-looking interface composed
of many small and undifferentiated buttons. Such
a black box design has now become accepted as
 S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 28 (2001) 143–151
the way a consumer electronic product is supposed
to look (Kagan, 1997). This results partly from the
fact that the design of electronic products has been
the job of the design artists who usually emphasize
aesthetic integrity of the design. Thus, the con-
trols, especially the buttons, are relatively similar
in shape, size, and color, and lack hierarchical
positioning. However, the users are becoming
more and more intolerant of a difficult-to-use
product. Since user interaction with the controls is
of primary importance from a user performance
viewpoint, efforts should be taken to make
products easy to use and easy to learn, not to
mention aesthetically satisfactory. That is, it is
very important not to be biased in designing a
consumer electronic product.
The third reason is that using a consumer
electronic product does not mean the same as
using software. Using software implies completing
an intended task with it. Thus, it has been agreed
that usability is concerned mainly with how the
user achieves results by using it (Bennet, 1984). A
consumer electronic product is, however, not only
a tool with which the user performs a task but also
a decoration in the living room or a means to
express one’s personality and lifestyle. So it should
be very efficient and easy to use, and at the same
time good-looking and fascinating.
Actually, user requirements for usability of
consumer electronic products are not always
concerned with the user performance. Some of
them are nothing to do with the efficiency of use
and ease of learning. For example, consumers
would prefer a deluxe and graceful product to a
cheap-looking and inelegant one no matter how
efficient it is to use. It is noteworthy that knockoffs
(i. e., cheap copies) of extremely expensive high-
end products are showing up in the consumer
electronic product market places (Kagan, 1997).
Consumers who cannot afford such expensive
products may be satisfied with them. Although
these requirements are far from serious or critical
under the traditional definition of usability, they
are influential enough to make consumers hesitate
to spend money on a product.
For these reasons, it was not successful to apply
the traditional concept of usability, which placed
greater importance on the performance side, to the
145
consumer electronic products. At first, the re-
searchers tried to explain usability of consumer
electronic products with the intuition concept
(Frand, 1989). In later studies, they agreed that
subjective aspects should be considered more
important than they used to be to define the
usability of consumer electronic products. For
example, attractiveness was considered as one of
the most important criteria for the design of
consumer products together with safety, operabil-
ity, and maintainability (Woodson et al., 1992).
Other specific examples include the image technol-
ogy approach (Nagamachi, 1995), customer ac-
ceptance (Caplan, 1994), the behavioral and
emotional usability concept (Logan, 1994), sen-
suality in user interface design (Hofmeester et al.,
1996; Nielsen, 1996), and the pleasure of use
concept (Jordan, 1997). Common to all these
examples is the idea that a product should be
designed so that it appeals to the feeling of the user
toward a product.
In this study, the concept of usability was
defined to include the two aspects: the perfor-
mance and the image and impression aspects as
shown in Fig. 1.
The performance aspect of usability means how
efficient and effective it is for a user to perform a
task to achieve some intended goals by using a
product. The performance has usually been
measured objectively and quantitatively by means
of the speed or accuracy of performing tasks.
On the other hand, the image and impression
aspect is concerned with the sense or feelings about
a product, the impression felt from it, or the
evaluative feelings about the product. Although
some subjective terms such as satisfaction or
Fig. 1. Usability of consumer electronic products consists of
two aspects: performance and image/impression.
146 S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 28 (2001) 143–151
preference have been considered as subjective
aspects of usability in the traditional definition,
they account for only a small part of it. The image
and impression is a more extensive concept that
includes not only satisfaction or preference about
a product but also the sensuous impression or
image felt from a product.
All the early experiences about consumer
electronic products showed that the definition of
usability should be compatible with the users’
understanding of a necessary condition (a sine qua
non) of a usable product. That is, the subjective
aspect should be emphasized more in defining the
usability of electronic products than it used to be.
Thus, the image and impression concept was
introduced to modify the performance-oriented
usability concept in this study. The new definition
of usability of a consumer electronic product is
‘satisfying the users in terms of both the perfor-
mance and the image and impression felt by them.’
However, this might be somewhat misleading. Still
the performance of the user while he/she is
performing an intended task should be very
efficient and easy. That is, the two aspects of
usability should be in balance with each other.
3. Dimensions of usability
Usability has often been defined as ease of
learning, efficiency of use, memorability, few
errors, and preference in the HCI area (Nielsen,
1993; Shneiderman, 1992; Hix and Hartson, 1993).
All of them, except for preference, are objective
criteria of usability concerned with the user’s
performance. Under the traditional definition of
usability, it is natural that the objective perfor-
mance has been intensively studied, while the
subjective aspects of usability have been less
frequently examined (Nielsen and Lavy, 1994).
However, the new definition of usability places as
much importance on the subjective aspects (i.e. the
image and impression aspect) as on performance.
Thus the traditional dimensions of usability were
found to be inadequate to evaluate the new
usability concept.
Worse yet, usability is neither a plain concept
nor a measurable one in a simple manner. It is
impossible to explain the complex and polyhedral
meaning with only a few dimensions. In addition,
different dimensions of usability should be high-
lighted in designing and evaluating a product
depending on, for example, target users, product
properties, user activities, and environmental
conditions. Will it be appropriate to apply the
same dimensions of usability to low-end and high-
end products? What if the target users are audio
maniacs instead of ordinary users? These highlight
the necessity of identifying the dimensions of
usability.
As a result, a total of 48 dimensions of usability
were identified. Based on the new definition of
usability, they were classified into two groups. The
first group includes performance dimensions that
could be used to explain the performance side of
the usability concept. The second one consists of
image/impression dimensions that are related to
the image and impression of the product perceived
by the users.
3.1. Performance dimensions
The performance dimensions stand for the
specific criteria that should be used to evaluate
the user performance. Many studies have been
conducted to identify them since the concept of
usability was first defined by Bennet (1984) and
Shackel (1984). Approximately 60 concepts con-
cerned with the user performance were found in
the literature, which were reduced to 23 through
integration and screening process. Then the
performance dimensions were classified into three
categories: perception/cognition, learning/memor-
ization, and control/action. The classification was
based on a typical human information processing
and response production model as shown in Fig. 2
(Wikens, 1984). Table 1 presents 23 performance
dimensions with their definitions.
3.1.1. Perception/cognition
The perception/cognition category consists of
the usability dimensions applicable to examine
how well users perceive and interpret the interface
of a product. Some representatives are directness,
explicitness, responsiveness, and simplicity (See
Table 1 for the definitions). This category is
 S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 28 (2001) 143–151 147

Fig. 2. A human information processing and response production model, which is the basis of the classification of performance
dimensions (modified from Wickens (1984)).

Table 1
Performance dimensions

Group Dimension Definition

Perception/cognition Directness Degree of user’s perception of directly controlling the objects represented by the
product
Explicitness User’s perception that the way the product looks and works is clear and accurate
Modelessness Capability that allows people to do whatever they want when necessary
Observability Ability to evaluate the internal state of the product based upon displayed
information
Responsiveness Degree of presenting feedback information for a user input in terms of speed
Simplicity The way the product looks and works is simple, plain, and uncomplicated

Learning/memorization Consistency Similarity in the way the product looks and works and the input/output behavior
arising from similar situations or similar task objectives
Familiarity Extent to which the user’s knowledge and experience in other domains or real
world can be applied interacting with a new product
Informativeness Degree to which the product is informational and giving all the necessary
information to the user in a proper manner
Learnability Time and effort required for the user to learn how to use a product
Memorability Degree to which the product is easy to remember
Predictability Ability for the user to determine the effect of future action based on past interaction
experience

Control/action Accessibility Degree to which a product is easy to approach, enter, or operate

Adaptability Degree to which a product is changed easily to fit different users and/or conditions
Controllability Ability for the user to regulate, control, and operate the product
Effectiveness Accuracy and completeness with which specified users achieved specified goals in
particular environment
Efficiency Degree to which the product is enabling the tasks to be performed in a quick,
effective and economical manner or is hindering performance
Error prevention Ability to prevent the user from making mistakes and errors
Flexibility Extent to which the product can accommodate changes to the tasks and
environments beyond those first specified
Helpfulness User’s perception that the product communicates in a helpful way and assists in the
resolution of operational problems
Multithreading Ability of the product to support user interaction pertaining to more than one task
at a time
Recoverability Ability for the user to take corrective actions once an error has been recognized
Task conformance Degree to which the product supports all of the tasks the user wishes to perform in
such a way that the user easily understands them
148 S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 28 (2001) 143–151
Fig. 3. Transition of image/impression of a product. Dimensions in basic sense are initially developed and transferred to a higher level
(description of image). Finally, the integrated and complex dimensions are developed for the image/impression of a product.
important in designing and evaluating the way in
which the system status information is delivered to
the user through the interface (e.g. display panel,
label, icon, status indicator, etc.).
3.1.2. Learning/memorization
The learning/memorization dimension explains
how fast the users get used to the product and how
well they remember it. Learnability and memor-
ability are typical dimensions of usability in this
category as well as others such as consistency,
familiarity, informativeness, and predictability.
They are used in examining the terminology used,
labels of controls and displays, and their interac-
tion behavior.
3.1.3. Control/action
The control/action category represents the
dimensions that explain the users’ control activity
and its results. Accessibility, flexibility, efficiency,
and controllability are some representatives of this
category.
3.2. Image/impression dimensions
As stated above, the subjective aspect of
usability has been treated as less important
than the performance aspect. This has led to
a lack of previous studies applicable in identifying
the dimensions of image and impression (i.e.
the subjective aspect of usability). Instead, an
extensive literature survey was conducted to find
out the similes or metaphoric expressions to
describe the image of the consumer electronic
products and various expressions about subjective
feelings toward them. Also the principal concepts
used in the product design department were
studied. Thus about 350 relevant expressions
were extracted which were then analyzed and
synthesized to obtain 25 image/impression
dimensions.
In order to develop the hierarchy of image/
impression dimensions, study results from related
areas (e.g., linguistics, brain science, consumer
behavior, cognitive psychology, or linguistic psy-
chology) were examined. As a result, it was
assumed that the users’ image or impression of
an object was formed in a hierarchical manner as
shown in Fig. 3. Accordingly, the image/impres-
sion dimensions were classified into three cate-
gories: basic sense, description of image, and
evaluative feeling. Given in Table 2 are the list of
25 image/impression dimensions and their defini-
tions.
3.2.1. Basic sense
Among the image/impression dimensions, sense
of color, brightness, shape, texture, etc., were
classified as basic sense category (See Table 2 for
the complete list). Although they seem to be close
to the five senses, they are not the exact
representatives of the five senses. Rather, they
explain the primitive and direct image/impression
stemming from the design characteristics of a
product. They are important in expressing the
appearance of a product as it is.
 S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 28 (2001) 143–151 149

Table 2
Image/impression dimensions

Group Dimension Definition

Basic sense Shape Feeling about the shape of a product developed by integrated characteristics
(ratio, length, area, etc.) of its components such as line and curvature
Color The conceptual image of a product developed by its color (e.g. warm, cool, etc.)
Brightness The image of a product developed by its brightness (e.g. dark, bright, etc.)
Texture The image of a product developed by its texture or touch (e.g. soft, coarse, etc.)
Translucency The image of a product developed by its translucency (e.g. opaque, translucent,
transparent, etc.)
Balance Feeling that a product looks properly balanced or unbalanced
Heaviness Feeling that a product looks light or heavy
Volume Feeling that a product looks voluminous or slim

Description of image Metaphoric design image Image of a product expressed by the user using a simile or metaphor
Elegance Degree to which a product is elegant or graceful
Granularity Degree to which a product is worked out with great care and in fine detail
Harmoniousness Feeling that the components of a product is well-matched or in harmony
Luxuriousness Feeling that a product looks flashy, splendid, or extravagant
Magnificence Feeling that a product looks grand and spectacular
Neatness Feeling that a product looks clean, tidy, simple, and well-arranged
Rigidity Feeling that a product looks stout, stable, and secure
Salience Degree to which a product is outstanding, prominent, and catching one’s eyes
Dynamicity Feeling that a product looks dynamic or steady

Evaluative feeling Acceptability Degree to which the user feels a product agreeable or acceptable
Comfort Degree to which the user feels easy and comfortable with a product
Convenience Feeling that a product is handy and suitable
Reliability Feeling that a product is dependable, fit to be trusted, or confident
Attractiveness Degree to which a product is pleasing, charming, and arousing interest
Preference Degree to which the user like or dislike a product over another
Satisfaction Degree to which a product is giving contentment or making the user satisfied

3.2.2. Description of image
This category includes the image/impression of
a product that the users would describe based on
their experience. It includes the dimensions such as
elegance, magnificence, neatness, etc. However, it
does not include the dimensions based on the
users’ judgment of ‘‘like’’ or ‘‘dislike’’. That is, the
users would describe a product by using these
dimensions whether they like it or not.
3.2.3. Evaluative feeling
The evaluative feeling is the third category of the
image/impression dimensions. The dimensions in
this category are supposed to explain the attitude
or judgmental feeling about a product (i.e. whether
they like it or not). Included in this category are
acceptability, comfort, preference, satisfaction, etc.
4. Conclusion
This study provided a new definition of usability
applicable to the consumer electronic products. It
was defined as ‘satisfying the users in terms of both
the performance and the image and impression felt
by them’. This definition is characterized by the
fact that both aspects are treated equally impor-
tant in understanding the usability of consumer
electronic products. In addition, a total of 48
dimensions (i.e., 23 performance and 25 image/
150 S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 28 (2001) 143–151
impression dimensions) was identified to explain
various and complex aspects of the usability.
The results of this study are expected to help
designers and developers understand the nature of
usability and as a result make a product that
satisfies the users by redefining the abstract
concept of usability in operational terms (i.e.,
usability dimensions). Also, the specific dimen-
sions of usability can be used to evaluate the
usability of a product in a systematic manner. For
example, a systematic checklist or a questionnaire
can be developed based on the usability dimen-
sions as a means to assess the usability of a
product. Furthermore, they can be used in
developing the usability evaluation models as the
dependent variables (Han et al., 1999). The
usability evaluation models are empirical models
aimed to predict, diagnose, and explain the
functional relationships between the interface
features of a product and its usability (see Han
et al. (1999) for the method and results).
This study is one of the first attempts to
understand the true meaning of the usability that
is composed of the task-oriented aspect (e.g., user
performance) and the human emotional aspect
(e.g., image and impression).
References
Bennet, J., 1984. Managing to meet usability requirements:
establishing and meeting software development goals. In:
Bennet, J., Case, D., Sandelin, J., Smith, M. (Eds.), Visual
Display Terminals. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp.
161–184.
Booth, P., 1989. An Introduction to Human-Computer
Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Caplan, S.H., 1994. Making usability a Kodak product
differentiator. In: Wiklund, M.E. (Ed.), Usability in
Practice. AP Professional, New York, pp. 21–58.
Chapanis, A., 1991. Evaluating usability. In: Shackel, B.,
Richardson, S. (Eds.), Human Factors for Informatics
Usability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kagan, J., 1997. Consumer Reports. Consumers Union of
United States, Yonkers, NY.
Dumas, J.S., 1989. Stimulating change through usability
testing. SIGCHI Bulletin 21 (1), 37–44.
Dumas, J.S., Redish, J.C., 1994. A Practical Guide to Usability
Testing. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
Frand, E.A., 1989. Intuition: usability of electronic products.
Research & Development 31 (4), 97–98.
Gould, J.D., 1988. How to design usable systems. In: Helander,
M. (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction.
Elsevier, North Holland.
Gould, J.D., Lewis, C., 1985. Designing for usability: key
principles and what designers think. Communications of the
ACM 28 (3), 360–411.
Han, S.H., Kim, K.-J., Yun, M.H., Kwahk, J., Hong, S.W.,
Han, S.-M., 1999. Usability prediction models based on
human-product interface elements. In: Lee, G.C.H. (Ed.),
Advances in Occupational Ergonomics and Safety. IOS
Press, p. 225–230.
Hix, D., Hartson, H.R., 1993. Developing User Interfaces:
Ensuring Usability through Product and Process. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Hofmeester, K., Kemp, J.A.M., Blankendaal, A.C.M., 1996.
Sensuality in product design: a structured approach.
Proceedings of the ACM CHI ’96 Conference. ACM, NY,
pp. 428–435.
Jordan, P.W., 1997. The four pleasures: Taking human factors
beyond usability, Proceedings of the 13th Triennial Con-
gress of the International Ergonomics Association, Vol. 2.
Tampere, Finland, pp. 364–366.
Lindgaard, G., 1994. Usability Testing and System Evaluation:
A Guide for Designing Useful Computer Systems. Chap-
man & Hall, London.
Logan, R.J., 1994. Behavioral and emotional usability:
Thomson consumer electronics. In: Wiklund, M.E. (Ed.),
Usability in Practice. AP Professional, New York, pp. 59–
82.
Mantei, M.M., Teorey, T.T.J., 1988. Cost/benefit for incorpor-
ating human factors in the software lifecycle. Communica-
tions of the ACM 31 (4), 428–439.
Mayhew, D., 1992. Principles and Guidelines in Software User
Interface Design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Nagamachi, M., 1995. Kansei engineering: a new ergonomic
consumer-oriented technology for product development.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
15, 3–11.
Nielsen, J., 1993. Usability Engineering. AP Professional, NY.
Nielsen, J., 1996. Designing to seduce the user. IEEE Software
13 (5), 18–20.
Nielsen, J., Lavy, J., 1994. Measuring usability: preference vs.
performance. Communications of the ACM 37, 4.
Rubin, J., 1994. Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan,
Design, and Conduct Effective Tests. Wiley, New York.
Shackel, B., 1984. The concept of usability. In: Bennet, J., Case,
D., Sandelin, J., Smith, M. (Eds.), Visual Display Term-
inals. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 45–87.
Shackel, B., 1986. Ergonomics in design for usability. In:
Harrison, M.D., Monk, A.F. (Eds.), People and Computers:
Designing for Usability, Proceedings of the 2nd Conference
of Human-Computer Interaction Specialist Group British
Computer Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Shackel, B., 1991. Usability: context, framework, definition,
design, and evaluation. In: Shackel, B., Richardson, S.
(Eds.), Human Factors for Informatics Usability. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge.
 S.H. Han et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 28 (2001) 143–151 151

Shneiderman, B., 1992. Designing the User Interface: Strategies
for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Addison-Wes-
ley, Reading, MA.
Stewart, T., 1991. Usability and Europe: Standards and
regulations, People before Technology, Proceedings of
the Third Annual CHISIG Conference, OZCHI 91,
pp. 1–8.
Wickens, C.D., 1984. Engineering Psychology and Human
Performance. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company,
Columbus, Ohio.
Woodson, B.T., Tillman, B., Tillman, P., 1992. Human Factors
Design Handbook: Information and Guidelines for the
Design of Systems, Facilities, Equipment, and Products for
Human Use. McGraw-Hill, New York.