Talk:Usability engineering

Merge with User interface engineering?

Editing note: should this article be merged with User interface engineering ? -- MichaelMcGuffin

I don't think the two should be merged. My understanding is that usability engineering is broader in scope than just the design of the user interface; it can encompass other aspects such as the metaphorical paradigm of a piece of software, response times and other behavioral aspects, and even the API of a shared programming library. Though, depending on how broad your definition of "user interface" is, all that could be considered part of it. I would happily entertain any proposals to merge this article with Usability, however. -- Wapcaplet 20:28, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

At this point, is there anything in this article that isn't in both the uie and usability articles? I don't see anything that would be missed. Jakob certainly doesn't need the additional promotion. (Ronz 01:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with Wapcaplet. We have some issues with overlapping terms between several subjects, and there are some direct differences between an area of the topic, and the topic itself. In my opinion, User interface engineering is one several areas in the topic of usability engineering: Information Architecture, Presentation & Design, Visual and Front End Development(User interface is apart of this), Testing & Research, and Technical Content Creation. Merging an area with the topic may cause dilution of topic context(s) and area intent. -- Brc4783 12:08, 27 Oct 2014 (UTC)

Leading proponents

I can't think of any criterion, which makes Nielsen and Norman "the leading proponents", so I think, the last paragraph should be deleted completely (Nahrihra 11:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Can you name anyone else who would? --Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.179.177 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 24 June 2007‎

Recognized by engineering authority?

Hi! Does somebody know if the term "Usability engineering" is recognized by any engineering authority? It doesn't quite fit into the definition of engineering, but yes it is a conex activity. In my opinion this is more into science then engineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hestecsa (talk • contribs) 12:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, UE is not recognized by an engineering authority. However, the "engineer" in the title isn't meant to imply that UEs are engineers of the certified and/or mathematical type; it's just a common job title that refers to people who work to improve usability of human-computer interfaces. I think this is common knowledge as well ... both among true engineers and human-factors professionals .... so i've deleted the "disclaimer" about UEs not being real engineers. wmh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.11.127 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that is mostly common knowledge. However, the disclaimer was not intended to specify that usability engineers are not "real engineers". This is something we should not get into. It was intended to specify the UEs status from a formal point of view, because, unlike US(AFAIK), both Engineer title and this kind of job titles are restricted by law in many countries across Europe, Asia and South America. I think it's usefull to have a disclaimer of this kind in the article. I leave it up to you to decide if it should be rephrased or leave it excluded from the page. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hestecsa (talk • contribs) 12:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realized the title "Engineer" was restricted by law in countries other than the U.S., which is where I live. This raises a few questions: (1) Would an English speaker from a country other than the U.S. be confused by the job title "Usability Engineer?"; 2) Would an English-speaker from a country other than the U.S. be concerned from a word-usage perspective by the term "usability engineer?"; and, related to #1 (3) What do they call Usability Engineers in English-speaking countries outside the U.S.? If the answer to 1 or 2 is "Yes," I propose we add a footnote explaining the restriction in usage of the title "engineer" in certain countries outside the U.S. As for #3, perhaps we might want to add redirects to this page for the other (less common) job titles and include those titles as well in a footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.184.10 (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Comment about clarity and quality. Several lines of the introduction are run-on sentences and have repetitious words. Also, the first paragraph makes mention of metrics and tools, yet there is a subsection for those examples. You should refrain from specifically stating metric examples in the introduction. The issue at hand is that this introduction doesn't sufficiently explain the difference between Usability Engineering and User Interface Engineering. An opening statement that states that they are methodologies that are used in the ability to create user interfaces. The introduction in ONE sentence explains this and provides a reference that supports this claim. -- Brc4783 15:10, 29 Oct 2014 (UTC)

I agree. However, the lede section needs to provide wider context and a non-in-world introduction. See WP:LEDE. --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree as well. Additionally, this introduction could benefit from a clearer and more concise definition of usability engineering at the beginning of the section. It should give a clear description of what usability engineering means in one sentence, to the best of your ability. --Abm5673 00:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

This 2002 article amazingly has existed in non-compliance with MOS:LAYOUT. Move "External links" to the appropriate location (at end of article} and trim per below and remove tags.

There are nine entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]