Methodology
The methodology was based on a master’s dissertation about developing heuristics in the context of education (Silva, 2017) and divided into four stages: exploration, analysis, synthesis and verification.
The first stage of the work, called exploratory, consisted of acquiring additional knowledge about the subject in order to underpin the set of recommendations proposed in this study. The initial results of the exploration are presented below.
Exploratory literature review
The exploratory literature review, in the first stage of the methodology, was carried out by identifying and grounding the subjects related to the work, such as: people with visual impairments, accessibility in higher education, accessibility in educational materials, heuristics in ergonomics and design, Inclusive Design and Human-Centred Design. At this stage, the review identified the need to include the student with a visual impairment in mainstream classes, which requires the collaboration of professionals and the development of recommendations for creating and using educational materials suited to the specific needs of the individuals served.
As a subject related to the work, the authors carried out a chronological bibliographic survey of the pre-existing heuristics available across a wide range of sources, including scientific articles and posts found through search engines such as Google Scholar, as well as books and the websites of specialist institutions on record to date. The product of this stage is a systematic table, available below, detailing the authors, the year of publication and a full description of the heuristics.
| Authors | Year | Heuristics in detail |
|---|---|---|
| Sidney Smith and Jane Mosier | 1986 | Compatibility between data entry and displayed content; Flexibility of access to and use of information; Consistency of the data being displayed; Ease of assimilation of information by the user; Minimisation of the user’s memory load. |
| Ben Shneiderman | 1986 | Error prevention and handling; Reversal of actions; Control; Low memory load; Know the user; Consistency; Shortcuts for frequent users; Informative feedback; Dialogues that signal the end of an action. |
| Donald Norman | 1988 | Constraints (cultural, logical, physical); Consistency; Affordance; Visibility; Feedback (auditory; combined; visual; tactile; verbal); Mapping. |
| Soren Lauessen and Houman Younessi | 1988 | Ease of recall; Understanding; Subjective satisfaction; Ease of learning; Task efficiency. |
| Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich | 1990 | Minimise the user’s memory load; Shortcuts; Simple and natural dialogue; Good error messages; Help and documentation; Visibility of system status; Speak the user’s language; User control; Consistency and standards; Error prevention. |
| Jan Dul and Bernard Weerdmeester | 1991 | The dialogue should be error-tolerant; The dialogue should be adaptable to individuals; The dialogue should be adaptable to learning; The dialogue should be suited to the task; Make the dialogue self-descriptive; Make the dialogue controllable; The dialogue should meet the user’s expectations. |
| Alan Dix | 1993 | Robustness of interaction (response time, task conformance, recognition, error recovery); Learnability (generality, consistency, predictability, visibility, familiarity); Flexibility of interaction (task migration, substitutivity, customisation, dialogue initiative, multi-tasking). |
| Christien Bastien and Dominique Scapin | 1993 | Guidance (immediate feedback, prompting, grouping, legibility); Workload (brevity, information density); Homogeneity / coherence; Significance of codes and names; Error management (quality of messages, error correction criteria); Explicit control (user control); Adaptability (allowance for experience); Compatibility. |
| Preece et al. | 1994 | Allow flexibility of input; Design for user growth; Provide shortcuts; Adapt to different levels of user and different styles; Engineer for errors; Provide a "reset" command; Ensure ease of understanding; Use appropriate metaphors; Give an adequate amount of response; Reduce cognitive load; Maintain consistency and clarity. |
| Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak | 1994 | Design evaluation and refinement; User involvement across the life cycle; Facilitate team learning in design; Facilitate design modification; Integrated design of the human infrastructure; Simultaneous design of the human infrastructure and the technical system; Fit with involvement; Specificity; Generation of multiple scenarios. |
| Apple Computer, Inc. | 1995 / 2014 | Feedback; Metaphors; User control; Aesthetic integrity; Consistency; Direct manipulation. |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | 1997 | Tolerance for error; Equitability; Low physical effort; Flexibility in use; Simple and intuitive use; Size and space for use and interaction; Perceptibility of information. |
| Theo Mandel | 1997 | Educational (relationship between theory and practice, suitability of content, learning, clarity of content); Playful (attractiveness, interactivity, presence of graphic elements); Generic (ease of use, reliability, documentation, chaining of ideas, usability). |
| Patrick Jordan | 1998 | User control; Explicitness; Prioritisation of functionality and information; Visual clarity; Appropriate transfer of technology; Coherence; Compatibility; Consideration of users’ abilities; Feedback on actions; error prevention and recovery. |
| ISO 9241:10 | 1998 | Suitability for individualisation; Suitability for learning; Conformity with user expectations; Suitability for the task; Self-descriptiveness (feedback); User control; Error tolerance. |
| Neto et al. | 2000 | Multimodal interfaces should adapt to the user’s environment; Wide range of users and contexts of use; Design of multimodal input and output; Consistency in interaction; Feedback; Error handling and prevention; The multiple modalities need to be synchronised; Transition between dialogues in a multimodal interaction; The multiple modalities should share the interaction state; Multimodal interfaces should be predictable. |
| Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa | 2002 | Representation of the interaction; Support for reuse; Traceability; Focus on the user; Representation of the task structure. |
| Lari Karkkainen and Jari Laarni | 2002 | Reassess navigation aids; Indicate links clearly; Optimise the reading process; Use markers while scrolling or paging through text; Use photographs with caution; Determine the purpose of the site or service; Reassess interface metaphors; Present the most important information first, at the top of the hierarchy. |
| Preece et al. | 2002 | Utility; Learnability; Memorability; Effectiveness; Efficiency; Safety. |
| Kent Norman | 2003 | Functionality (clear objectives, effective reinforcement, straight to the point, information about the students, support tools, appropriate complexity, editing functions, undo and backup tools, multimedia, maintenance and upgrade); Interface design (feedback, clear navigation, direct manipulation, effective use of graphics, colour and audio, screen layout). |
| Bruce Tognazzini | 2003 | Readability; User efficiency; Human interface objects; Explorable interfaces; Fitts’s law; Learnability; Reduction of latency; Anticipation; Autonomy; Colour blindness; Protect the user’s work; Track state; Visible navigation; Consistency; Metaphors of use; Defaults. |
| Brigitte Borja de Mozota | 2003 | Definition of a new model of thinking; Functionality (efficiency); Aesthetics (attractiveness); Ease of use (user-friendliness). |
| Elisabeth Fátima Torres and Alberto Angel Mazzoni | 2004 | Self-explanation; Transfer of technology; Prioritisation of functionality and information; Clarity of the information presented; User control; Consistency; Compatibility; Consideration of users’ resources; Feedback; Error prevention and recovery. |
| Jeniffer Ferreira | 2005 | Adhere to conventions, where they exist; Adhere to reality, where it exists; The most direct access possible to information; Different objects, different representations; A safe distance between representations of different objects; Visibility of the representations; Freedom for the user’s attention. |
| Tuncer Oren and Levent Yilmaz | 2005 | Reliability (related to information — prevention of input and output errors, built-in quality assurance —, related to users — access re-enabling —, related to use — predictability, consistency, security); Principles of evolution (related to the user — adaptability, customisation and learnability —, related to the software product — maintainability and portability); Communicativeness (related to users — restrained relationships with users —, related to display — expressiveness, aesthetics / cultural acceptance —, related to formulating and solving problems — informativeness, perception and explanatory capability); Usability (related to problems — functionality and separation of concerns —, related to users — minimal load, simplicity and familiarity). |
| Chorianopoulos | 2008 | Multiple levels of attention; Television grammar and aesthetics; Content with user contribution; Communication with enriched content; Opportunistic interaction; Relaxed browsing and content selection; Scheduling and flexibility of content programming; Encouragement of group viewing. |
| Pinelle et al. | 2008 | Provide intuitive and customisable input mappings; Provide controls that are easy to manage and that have an appropriate level of sensitivity and responsiveness; Provide users with information on game status; Provide instructions, training and help; Provide visual representations that are easy to interpret and that minimise the need for micromanagement; Provide consistent responses to the user’s actions; Allow users to customise video and audio settings, difficulty and game speed; Provide predictable and reasonable behaviour for computer-controlled units; Provide overhead views that are appropriate to the user’s current actions; Allow users to skip non-playable and frequently repeated content. |
| Walter Cybis | 2010 | Sharpness of presentations; Legibility; Limited workload; Compatibility with user expectations; Simplicity and guidance; Consistency. |
| Neema Moraveji and Charlton Soesanto | 2012 | Encourage social interaction; Ease time pressure on the user; Use naturally calming elements; Clarify actions for the user; Demystify; Ability to control interruptions; Do not overload the user; Take account of human perception of time; Use appropriate intonation; Provide positive feedback. |
| Frederick van Amstel and Paulo Jorge Sousa | 2012 | Consistency of navigation across organisational divisions; Searching for specific information; Help the prospective student choose their programme; Explain clearly how to enter the university; Access to scientific output and technological innovation; Reduce bureaucracy; Services to the community; Serve the public’s interests; New business, projects and partnerships; Online community; Reinforce the university’s values; Find information without knowing the organisational structure; Relevance of information; Accountability for information. |
Table description
Table 8, "Exploratory literature review", details thirty sets of heuristics surveyed in the research, listing the Authors, the Year and the Heuristics in detail for each. The table covers guidelines proposed by various scholars between 1986 and 2012, providing the theoretical basis in usability and ergonomics that fed into the analysis stage of the research.