THE USABILITY METRICS FOR USER EXPERIENCE


EOI: 10.11242/viva-tech.01.04.195

Download Full Text here



Citation

Prachi Desul ,Prof.Chandani Patel, "THE USABILITY METRICS FOR USER EXPERIENCE ", VIVA-IJRI Volume 1, Issue 4, Article 195, pp. 1-6, 2021. Published by Computer Engineering Department, VIVA Institute of Technology, Virar, India.

Abstract

THE USABILITY METRICS FOR USER EXPERIENCE was innovatively created by Google engineers and it is ready for production in record time. The success of Google is to attributed the efficient search algorithm, and also to the underlying commodity hardware. As Google run number of application then Google’s goal became to build a vast storage network out of inexpensive commodity hardware. So Google create its own file system, named as THE USABILITY METRICS FOR USER EXPERIENCE that is GFS. THE USABILITY METRICS FOR USER EXPERIENCE is one of the largest file system in operation. Generally THE USABILITY METRICS FOR USER EXPERIENCE is a scalable distributed file system of large distributed data intensive apps. In the design phase of THE USABILITY METRICS FOR USER EXPERIENCE, in which the given stress includes component failures , files are huge and files are mutated by appending data. The entire file system is organized hierarchically in directories and identified by pathnames. The architecture comprises of multiple chunk servers, multiple clients and a single master. Files are divided into chunks, and that is the key design parameter. THE USABILITY METRICS FOR USER EXPERIENCE also uses leases and mutation order in their design to achieve atomicity and consistency. As of there fault tolerance, THE USABILITY METRICS FOR USER EXPERIENCE is highly available, replicas of chunk servers and master exists.

Keywords

metric,system usability scale,usability,user experience.

References

  1. Bevan, N. and Macleod, M. 1994. Usability measurement in context, Behavior and Information Technology 13: 132–145.
  2. Ivory, M.Y. and Hearst, M.A. 2001. The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces, ACM Computing Surveys 33: 470–516.
  3. Kirakowski, J. and Corbett, M., 1993. SUMI: The Software Usability Measurement Inventory, British Journal of Educational Technology 24: 210–212
  4. Lin, H. X., Choong, Y.-Y., and Salvendy, G., 1997. A proposed index of usability: A method for comparing the relative usability of different software systems, Behaviour and Information Technology, 16: 267-277.
  5. Macleod, M., 1994. Usability: Practical Methods for testing and Improvement, Proceedings of the Norwegian Computer Society Software Conference, Sandvika, Norway. Retrieved July 3, 2005 from http://www.usability.serco.com/papers/mm-us94.pdf.
  6. Macleod, M., and Rengger, R., 1993. The development of DRUM: A software tool for video-assisted usability evaluation. Retrieved July 3, 2005 from http://www.usability.serco.com/papers/drum93.pdf
  7. Nielsen, J., 1993. Usability Engineering, London, UK: Academic Press
  8. Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, New York: ACM Press, pp. 101–110. Shackel, B., 1991. Usability—Context, framework, definition, design and evaluation, in B. Shackel and S. Richardson (Eds.), Human Factors for Informatics Usability, Cambridge, MA: University Press, pp. 21–38.
  9. Landuaer, T.K. The Trouble with Computers: Usefulness, Usability and Productivity, MIT Press, 1995. Mayhew, D.J. (1999). The Usability Engineering Lifecycle: A Practitioner’s Handbook for User Interface design, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco.
  10. Holzinger, A.: Usability Engineering for Software Developers. Communications of the ACM 48(1), 71–74 (2005)
  11. Seffah, A., Metzker, E.: The obstacles and myths of usability and software engineering. Communications of the ACM 47(12), 71–76 (2004)
  12. Nielsen, Jakob (4 January 2012). "Usability 101: Introduction to Usability". Nielsen Norman Group. Archived from the original on 1 September 2016. Retrieved 7 August 2016.