Development of a Multiple Heuristics Evaluation Table (MHET) to Support Software Development and Usability Analysis

Among the variety of heuristics evaluation methods available, four paramount approaches have emerged: Nielsen's ten usability heuristics (1994), Shneiderman's Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design (1998), Tognazzini's First Principles of Interaction Design (2003), and a set of principles based on Edward Tufte's visual display work (UW Computing & Communications, 1999). To simplify access to a comprehensive set of heuristics, this paper describes an approach to integrate existing approaches (i.e., identify overlap, combine conceptually related heuristics) in a single table hereafter referred to as the Multiple Heuristics Evaluation Table (MHET). This approach also seeks to update these approaches by addressing existing gaps and providing concrete examples that illustrate the application of concepts. Furthermore, the authors identify three decision factors that support meaningful communication among stakeholders (e.g., product managers, engineers) and apply them to the MHET heuristics. Finally, this paper discusses the practical implications and limitations of the MHET. Heuristic Evaluations Of the many usability methods available, a low-cost, flexible approach is the heuristic evaluation, which involves comparing an interface to a given set of design rules or principles (Nielson, 1993). Unlike evaluation methods based on usability guidelines that can contain hundreds or thousands of items, heuristic evaluations use a limited set of design rules or principles (Nielson, 1993). As heuristic-based evaluations have gained popularity among practitioners, the number of available heuristics tables has increased accordingly. Among them, four paramount approaches have emerged: Nielsen’s ten usability heuristics (1994), Shneiderman’s Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design (1998, p. 74-75), Tognazzini’s First Principles of Interaction Design (2003), and a set of principles based on Edward Tufte’s visual display work (UW Computing & Communications, 1999). Each of these approaches address unique aspects that others may overlook or discuss in 2 Beth F. Wheeler Atkinson, Troy O. Bennett, G. Susanne Bahr, & Melissa M. Walwanis