Usability Heuristics for Tabletop Systems Design

FiVinícius Diehl de Franceschi

, Lisandra Manzoni Fontoura

and Marcos Alexandre Rose Silva

Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Computação, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Brazil

Colégio Politécnico, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Brazil

Keywords: Tabletop, Heuristics, Usability.

Abstract: Tabletops are large interactive displays that enable many users to interact at the same time. These devices

have different characteristics than other touchscreen devices, such as smartphones or tablets. They cannot be

easily moved to bring the screen closer to the eyes or rotate interface elements, changing the screen to

horizontal or vertical, for example. In this context, this paper presents a set of heuristics to be considered in

tabletop interface design from the initial planning until validation. Nielsen’s heuristics and others adapted or

formalized from Nielsen, as well as researches about tabletop characteristics and user tests, were identified

and analyzed to adapt and formalize heuristics to tabletop context. A set of twelve heuristics for tabletop

context was created and they were considered to design simulator interfaces. Observing the militaries using

them, we have gathered evidence that these heuristics can help designers to think about essential interface

characteristics to support users to realize and understand the interface goal and how to interact with it.

1 INTRODUCTION

Different technological devices as laptops,

smartphones, and tablets are changing people’s

behaviors and activities (Shneiderman, 2016). Then,

systems for these devices must be designed to

support people’s use. On the other hand, this design

can be a challenge because each device may have

different characteristics and specificities to be

considered.

Tabletops, large dimension devices, have been

used in different contexts, and their use shows

satisfactory results, e.g., with systems related to

maps, because of the birds-eye view. In health, due

to the number of elements that can be displayed on

the screen, allowing to see more details about the

medical image and supporting better analysis,

among other contexts (Madni, 2016; Yang, 2014).

Tabletops size and weight represent different

characteristics from other devices as smartphones,

and this paper describes research that allowed

noticing these characteristics to be considered, and

they were useful to adapt Nielsen’s heuristics for

tabletop context.

According to Prates and Barbosa (2003),

heuristic evaluation is one of the evaluation methods

more widespread and better known by researchers

and professionals from human-computer interaction.

This evaluation examines the interface and judges its

compliance with recognized usability principles,

which are the heuristics (Nielsen, 1994).

Dourado (2016) says heuristics are easy to

understand and useful to identify usability problems

with low costs. In contrast, they can be very general,

causing the recognition of specific problems a

difficult task. The evaluators need much experience

with these heuristics and device to judge the specific

characteristics and needs of a device. Therefore, it is

possible to improve the effectiveness of the method

significantly using adapt heuristics with problems

and examples related to a specific context (Rusu et

al., 2011; Dourado 2016; Nielsen, 1994).

2 METHODOLOGY

The potential and use of Nielsen’s heuristics,

heuristics adapted from Nielsen or others formalized

for different contexts, such as smartphone and tablet,

are described in Chuan et al. (2014), Joyce et al.

(2014), Neto et al. (2013), Humayoun et al. (2017),

Shneiderman et al. (2016). However, these authors

do not describe the process of adapting or

formalizing heuristics. In this context, Rusu et al.

(2011) report a six-step methodology for defining

heuristics. Rusu's methodology was used in this

work to adapt and formalize heuristics to tabletop

context.

Diehl de Franceschi, V., Fontoura, L. and Silva, M.

Usability Heuristics for Tabletop Systems Design.

DOI: 10.5220/0009389805550562

In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2020) - Volume 2, pages 555-562

ISBN: 978-989-758-423-7

555

2.1 Step 1 – Exploratory

It was intended to investigate works related to use,

formalization, and adaptation of interface heuristics

for multi-touch tabletop, but few works were found.

Because of that, works related to any touchscreen

devices were considered in this investigation.

Shneiderman (2016) formalized eight heuristics

to be considered in any interactive technology. Neto

et al. (2013) describe heuristics to mobile devices

like smartphones and tablets. D’Carlo et al. (2017)

present a set of heuristics to evaluate the usability of

mobile educational devices. Humayoun et al. (2017),

Inostroza et al. (2012), and Chuan et al. (2014)

formalized heuristics to analyze multi-touch gestures

in mobile devices. Rusu et al. (2011) defined a set of

heuristics to evaluate grid computing systems. Joyse

et al. (2014) formalized a set of heuristics based on

touchscreen mobile devices.

Heuristics for tabletop context were not found,

and then works about tabletop systems design were

collected to observe important information and

experience. Madni et al. (2016) reported the use of

tabletop for supporting medical diagnostics based on

images where a group of doctors could see and

interact at the same time. Yang et al. (2014) describe

a tabletop system design about GIS (Geographical

Information System). Bortolaso et al. (2013) present

a multi-display tabletop simulator to support military

training.

2.2 Step 2 – Descriptive

Table 1 contains investigated heuristics and

Nielsen’s heuristics comparison to identify the most

essential characteristics, interface elements

discussed by these heuristics, among others. This

comparison showed that Nielsen’s heuristics are

widely used in them.

For example, the first heuristic proposed by

Nielsen is “Visibility of system status” which

describes the system should always keep users

informed about what is going on. Joyces et al.,

(2014), [P6] in Table 1, also describe that the system

should show new users a welcome message, at their

first heuristic (H1), as well as their second heuristic

(H2) is related to show the status of system as soon

as users interaction happens. It is important to

highlight that this reasoning was considered with

other heuristics from other studies.

Some heuristics describe specific contexts and

examples not related to Nielsen’s heuristics. In this

case, a line was created with this information and

which heuristics are related to this specific context.

Franceschi et al. (2018) describe the systematic

review to identify these works, describing their

names and more details about their content. Because

of that, this paper aims to present the use of this

information to formalize and adapt heuristics.

Works about tabletop were also analyzed and

compared among them, as shown in Table 2. Each

work designed system to be used in a different

context, but there are many common characteristics

among their works and the one presented in this

paper as radial menu, geographic information at

different angles as described in Yang (2014); route

planning, geographical charts as described by

Bortolaso (2013); and manipulating digital content

and images as in the work of Mandi (2016).

Table 1: Heuristics Comparison.

Nielsen’s heuristics [P1] [P2] [P3] [P4] [P5] [P6] [P7] [P8]

Visibility of system status

H1 H4 H2 H4 H1 H1, H2 H9, H3 H1

Match between system and the real world

H2 H1, H2 ------ H5 H2 H3 H5 H2

User control and freedom

H3 H8, H9 ------ ------ H3 H4 H8 H3, H6

Consistency and standards

H4 H5 H3 H1 H4 H5 H2 H4

Error prevention

H5 H10 ------ H6 H5 H6 H6 H5

Recognition rather than recall

H6 H7 H1 H8 H6 ------ H11 H11, H13

Flexibility and efficiency of use

H7 H6 H4 H3, H9 H7 H7, H8 H7, H1 H9, H10

Aesthetic and minimalist design

H8 H3 ------ ------ ----- H9 ------ H7

Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors

H9 H11 H10 H8 ------ H4 H13

Help and documentation

H10 H12 ------ H14 ----- ------ H10 H8

Cooperative/Collaborative Usability

H11 ------ ------ H11 ----- ----- ------ ------

View adaptation

------ ------ ------ ------ ----- ------ ------ H15

Authors - [P1] Inostroza et al.; [P2] Rusu et al; [P3] Chuan et al.; [P4] D’Carlo et al.;[P5] Shneiderman et al.; [P6] Joyce et

al.; [P7] Neto et al.; [P8] Humayoun et al.

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

556

Table 2: Tabletop Characteristics Comparison.

[Yang et al. 2014] [Bortolaso et al. 2013] [Madni et al. 2016]

• Simultaneous and collaborative

interaction

• Interactive table 40-inch

• Blocks can be dynamically

oriented

• Radial menu

• Can be used on multiple devices

simultaneously

• Works with geographic

information at different angles and

dimensions

• Shared interaction for multiple users

• 55-inch 2D tabletop

• Multi-touch inputs

• Bifocal lenses (Zoom)

• Route planning by drawing waypoints

• Can be used on multiple devices

simultaneously

• Uses geographical charts

• Allows future and past locations,

tracking line, visibility, and range of a

military unit

• Collaborative interaction

• Samsung SUR40 (40-

inch interactive tabletop)

• Manipulation of digital

content and images

• 2D / 3D information

display

• Multi-touch interaction,

tangible objects, pens, or

mouse.

• Zoom in/on objects

2.3 Step 3 – Correlational

This step is to identify the useful characteristics for

tabletop usability heuristics based on other heuristics

and observation analysis. The observation occurred

in a military simulator project (Franceschi et al.

2018). This project means to develop a tactical

virtual simulator for teaching military doctrines

related to recognition, choice, and position

occupation of a missile and rocket battery for

commanders from these areas. Figure 1 shows the

tabletop where the simulator is working. It is TV 84-

inch with a capacitive sensor to recognize users’

interaction by touch on the screen.

Figure 1: Tabletop Tactical Virtual Simulator.

There were maps, cards, spatial/geographical

information in this simulator where a group of five

users interacted with during observation. According

to Nielsen (2000), the best results come from testing

no more than 5 users.

Military doctrine is the expression of how military forces

contribute to campaigns, battles, and engagements.

The users are military instructors who will use

this simulator to support missile and rocket battery

teaching. It is important to say that this simulator

was developed by other professionals with no

influence by the group of researchers of this paper.

Figure 2 shows one of the perceptions where

users did not find where to click because after

pressing a button with an icon, its name shows up in

the middle of the radio button, and users tried to

click on it, but the name is just an instruction, not a

button, so users need to click on icon button again.

The five users wrongly clicked on the name.

Interface element showed upside down

considering user’ view in some times because the

interface of the simulator was programmed

considering the proximity of the sides, that is, if the

user is on one side but extends his hand to be closer

to the other side, the tabletop will show the elements

in this other side. The tabletop size also allows many

users to interact at the same time, and some

interaction conflicts happened, such as a user could

cancel another user’s action, even they were on

opposite sides.

Figure 2: Radial Menu.

Usability Heuristics for Tabletop Systems Design

557

Considering characteristics from other heuristics,

tabletop studies, and this observation, it was

collected essential characteristics to be considered

on tabletop design. Figure 3 shows them into two

parts, elements and quantity.

Elements can be shown, taking into

consideration where the user is, i.e., which side

occurred touch on the screen. Through this informa-

tion, tabletop recognizes users’ place to show visual

elements (proximity) to them and oriented

(orientation) to them, facilitating the interaction.

The proximity of the sides is not a perfect

criterion to identify where users are. Because of that,

there is a necessity to allow rotating the visual

elements 360 degrees. Zoom out and zoom in

represent other useful strategies to consider design,

allowing wider view, for example, to see a country,

or detailed view, to see a street in a city. Moving

elements is also another required to be thought

because if an element appears over what users want

to see, they can move it, as well as bring the element

closer to where they are (zoom/move).

Tabletop sizes allow displaying a lot of

information at the same time, so it is important to

highlight which information can be clicked so that

interactivity is highlighted, and the user does not

have to look for options. Whenever items and sub-

items exist, it is necessary to visually inform the user

(highlighted interactivity).

The (quantity) is a tabletop characteristic that

stands out from other types of smaller touchscreen

devices, such as smartphones and tablets, which

usually only one person uses at a time. In tabletop, it

is important to identify how many users can use at

the same time, and how many features can be

performed at the same time, and the action of one

user should not interfere with the action of another.

Figure 3: Characteristics of tabletop design.

The quantity of (touches) should also be

considered, because users, with no intention to enter

in an option, can unintentionally click on it, while

they are explaining and just pointing with their

fingers what they want to show. It is necessary to

identify how to show the feedback for each system

feature and possible click (highlighted interactivity)

for each user who is interacting with, as well as

always indicate when an item was selected and if

there are other sub-items available (feedback).

2.4 Step 4 - Explicative

This step intends to specify the set of the proposed

heuristics. Ten heuristics aimed by Nielsen for the

tabletop, and two new heuristics (H11 and H12).

H1 - Visibility of System Status

Definition: System status visibility refers to how

well system status is transmitted to users.

Adaptation: In a tabletop, there are interactive

elements that blend in with non-interactive elements.

Because of their size, the amount of these elements

can make it difficult for the user to understand where

on the screen to look for feedback, so it should be

clear enough to indicate which feature is related to

and be concerned with the location of the feedback.

The location should be close to the clicked

component because it is possibly the location the

user is looking at. On a smaller device, the user can

view what happens across the screen. On the other

hand, on a tabletop, feedback may be outside the

user’s field of view. Also, items and sub-items, for

example, in menus, need to be visually informed to

users, indicating what items are, if they have sub-

items, e.g., with arrow like dropdown, and whether

they have been selected, e.g., changing the color.

Related Characteristics: Feedback, Item and sub-

item.

H2 - Match between System and the Real World

Definition: The system should speak the user's

language with familiar words.

Adaptation: Evaluate whether icons are self-

explanatory regarding their function and application

domain conventions. There may be a textual

description to help users understanding the meaning

of the icon, but it should always be close to and in

the same visual element as the icon. For example, in

a button design, the icon and description may be

within the button area. Any distance between icon

and description can make the user confused as to

which one to click to confirm the interaction.

Because tabletops are touch, some gestural

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

558

conventions of these devices should be used for

sliding, dragging, and so on.

Related Characteristics: Icons and textual

description.

H3 - User Control and Freedom

Definition: Users can choose system functions by

mistake and need to undo and redo options without a

lengthy process.

Adaptation: Enable the user to undo their actions

even when using multiple users at the same time,

ensuring that undoing one user’s actions will not

impact another user’s actions. Undo and redo

options should be easily understood by all users

interacting at the table.

Related Characteristics: Quantity of Users,

Quantity of Features.

H4 - Consistency and Standards

Definition: The device must follow established

conventions, allowing the user to do things in a

standardized and consistent manner.

Adaptation: Conventions established for other

touchscreen devices should be followed, such as

gestures to select, execute, zoom in/out, slide and

drag used on smartphones, for example. It is

emphasized that the proportion of the movement will

not always be equal to the desired result. On the

smartphone, the user can pinch the element and open

their fingers to the desired size. In the case of the

tabletop, the user may be interested in greatly

enlarging an element, so with a little opening

between fingers could allow enlarging the image to a

much larger size than is between your fingers.

Interactions throughout the system must be

consistent.

Related Characteristics: Proximity Adaptation,

Zoom/Move Adaptation.

H5 - Error Prevention

Definition: Verify that the interface contains only

essential elements and eliminate error-prone

conditions.

Adaptation: Context-associated menus can be used

to reduce user choice options, disabling options not

currently available. Depending on the outcome of

the interaction, confirmations must be requested for

the user to have the option to rethink an action. For

example, the user may tap the screen only to point

out an element during the explanation and not to

activate a feature, so it is essential to question if the

user wants to do the action. In case of just opening a

feature or a menu option, no problem, since realizing

that opened the option, the user can click the close or

cancel icon. Besides, because of potential touch

accuracy issues, it may be desirable to identify the

user’s intent.

Related Characteristics: Quantity of Touches.

H6 - Recognition Rather than Recall

Definition: The user should not have to remember

information for system use.

Adaptation: The icons should be accompanied by

textual descriptions making it easy for the user to

understand the action that will be performed. When

selecting an element, before executing, it is essential

to make it clear which action the element will

perform. It is also necessary to highlight the next

actions to be performed. Interactive elements should

be distinct from other elements, not requiring the

user to remember. Because of their size, which

allows many more elements to be displayed than

other touch devices, the difficulty in identifying

what can and cannot be clicked impairs interaction.

User-tabletop interaction may occur similarly to

smartphones. On these devices, users do not analyze

the entire system to understand it before starting the

interaction, but find clickable items and compare it

with their intention of finding out where to click. On

a smaller device, when the user does not identify

what can be clicked, the user can click on what is

being displayed to identify resources by trial and

error. This possibility can also occur on a tabletop,

but more clicks will be done. Therefore, the

interactive components must be distinct from the

other components. Icons and descriptions should be

defined to clearly illustrate their goals.

Related characteristics: Icon and textual

description, Highlighted interactivity.

H7 - Flexibility and Efficiency of Use

Definition: The device must be able to load and

display information within a reasonable period and

minimize the steps required to perform a task.

Adaptation: The interaction elements (menus) must

be distributed considering each context and close to

the respective feature. This enables fewer options in

each menu and fewer interactions to perform the

task because each feature will be close to its

interface element. It is also necessary to ensure that

the information is displayed in sufficient detail for

the correct operation of the application, and zoom

operations will perform satisfactorily.

Related Characteristics: Quantity of Features.

H8 - Aesthetic and Minimalist Design

Definition: The device should avoid displaying

unwanted information by overloading the screen.

Usability Heuristics for Tabletop Systems Design

559

Adaptation: Tabletops allow users to view a large

amount of content at the same time, but too much

information can compromise the viewing of

information. Whenever possible, enable the user to

access information without overloading the

interface. Swipe menus can be hidden whenever not

in use, making it easy to access when needed. Also,

the menus should be aesthetically simple and describe

the features clearly. The buttons, text, and colors

should be a contrast to the background and, when

necessary, be transparent enough to see what is in the

background, allowing the information to be viewed.

Related Characteristics: Icon and textual

description, Highlighted interactivity.

H9 - Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and

Recover from Errors

Definition: Error messages should be expressed in

plain language (no codes), accurately indicate the

problem, and constructively suggest a solution.

Adaptation: Messages indicating errors should be

clearly defined to assist the user in identifying and

correcting them. The error may have been caused by

another user’s interaction with the tabletop so that it

may be distant from the user’s current interaction

location. In this case, it is necessary to indicate the

error information so that all users can view it.

Related characteristics: Quantity of Feedback.

H10 - Help and Documentation.

Definition: Provide user-friendly, task-focused help,

and documentation mechanisms.

Adaptation: Assist the user in interacting with the

system, providing relevant information. It is

noteworthy that the use of instruction manual or any

other option with a lot of content/text is not always

the best way, because just like smartphones, users

tend not to read all the help information to start the

interaction. Therefore, help may be indicated

according to the user’s need and interaction. For

example, by designing a symbol that represents the

action that should be taken, such as a hand symbol

with the finger-pointing at an item may indicate that

it is clickable.

Related Characteristics: Quantity of Feedback,

Highlighted interactivity.

H11 – View Adaptation

Definition: Whereas several people use the table at

the same time, the system must identify each user's

position and display interactive visuals oriented to it.

If the guidance is not efficient or the user wishes to

orient the visual element to another person, the

system must be able to change this orientation

simply. Because tabletops can be large, interactive

elements should be displayed close to and oriented

to the interacting user. For devices of this type, it is

relevant to be able to zoom in on the viewer

allowing users to display more detail or show more

interface elements with less detail (multiresolution).

These operations must be associated with

conventions established by touchscreen devices.

Related Characteristics: Orientation Adaptation,

Proximity Adaptation, Zoom/ Move Adaptation.

H12 - Cooperative/Collaborative Usability

Definition: Collaborative devices must allow

multiple users to interact at the same time. It is

essential to evaluate whether the tabletop allows

more than one user to interact with the same or

different elements at the same time. The execution

of a feature by one user may not affect the execution

of another user. Actions taken by one user must be

visible to other users. The use of elements to

explicitly express the user’s intent is required. For

example, a close button to close a feature or option.

In this case, an explicit touch on close is required to

close the feature. Another user interaction with other

elements cannot close it.

It is crucial to verify that an action that a user is

performing does not cancel another action that is

being performed by another user. Therefore, if a user

is choosing or has already chosen an option, the

other options, which may cancel or directly affect it,

must be blocked. If they become available, when

chosen, there should be a warning that this option

will influence another user’s action. In this case,

explicitly report which option will be influenced.

Related Characteristics: Quantity of Touches,

Quantity of Users, Quantity of Features, Quantity of

Feedback.

2.5 Step 5 – Validation

The validation of the proposed heuristic set was

performed through a case study, in which a

prototype was elaborated. The prototype was an

instance of the simulator (Figure 4).

2.5.1 Prototype Design

This prototype was developed based on tabletop

heuristics, as well as the characteristics are shown in

Figure 3. The following is a brief description of how

each characteristic was contemplated.

Orientation Adaptation: Icons are always

displayed considering the proximity of the touch and

oriented to the user’s position (compared to center

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

560

and edges). If the click occurs between the center

and the left edge, the elements are initially facing

left; however, there is an arrow to rotate the view

360 degrees so that the user can adjust to the view.

Proximity Adaptation: Menus are displayed

where the user clicks, but he can drag them on the

screen with one tap. Feature-specific icons appear

next to that feature, without the option to move it

because, without the feature, the option could lose

context, and the user might have difficulty

recognizing its purpose later.

Zoom/Move Adaptation: There is a possibility

to move the elements of the screen by dragging them

with one touch. You can zoom in by zooming in on

a specific area and showing more detail about the

displayed scenario, as well as zooming out, showing

less detail and more elements with multi-resolution

rendering that performs well.

Icon and Textual Description: Each menu item

contains the icon associated with its description,

making it easy for the user to understand.

Highlighted Interactivity: When a radial menu

item contains interaction sub-items, there is an

indicator (arrow, as illustrated in Figure 5 - Embark

option). Besides, there is a hand icon for all

clickable options, as shown in Figure 4. We chose to

have a visible hand, but not so prominent in color, so

as not to detract from the background view.

Figure 4: Simulator Interface.

Quantity of Users and Features: The simulator

is intended for use by more than two people, so

menus are closed only when explicit close

commands are executed (click the X icon) and not

the next click, which could interrupt or cancel

another user’s interaction. Therefore, more than one

menu may be visible at a time, and commands may

be entered into each menu by different users.

Quantity of Touches: The click hand icon

(Figure 4) indicates that only one tap is required to

open the options.

Quantity of Feedback: Feedbacks are always

displayed next to the clicked items, and when an

option is active, it turns a different color to stand out

from the default background color.

Figure 5: Radial Interaction Menus.

2.5.2 Case Study

It was performed with five users. All users have a

military background and they frequently use

touchscreen applications: three captains, two from

Artillery (user 1 and 2), and one from Computer

Engineer (user 3) and two Artillery sergeants (users

4 and 5). User 1 uses the simulator very easily and

often; User 2 is familiar but does not use very often;

User 3 is unfamiliar and uses infrequently. Users 4

and User 5 never interacted with the simulator.

During the study, the ease of completion of the

tasks was assessed by observing the interaction and

understanding of the user to perform the tasks, as

well as the feedback provided. In the end, the users

were asked about: Q1) It is easy to identify which

interface elements are associated with some

interaction; Q2: You can understand the content of

each interface and what its purpose is.

Regarding Q1, 80% of users strongly agreed that

it was easy to identify the interactive elements, while

20% partially agreed i.e., one user who had never

used the simulator. He commented about some

difficulty initially in finding the elements of

interaction, but when he noticed the hand sign, the

interaction became easier. All users agree that it was

possible to understand the interface elements (Q2).

Later, other questions were asked: Q3: It is

possible to verify the features and objectives of the

menus; Q4: The menu icons correspond to the

purpose itself. In Q3 and Q4, all users strongly

agreed that the features, their names, objectives, and

icons presented are consistent.

2.6 Step 6 – Refinement

By observing the use of the prototype, it was

necessary to refine some information of the adapted

Usability Heuristics for Tabletop Systems Design

561

heuristics. It is noteworthy that all refinements have

already been included in the description of heuristics

in Section 2.4 so that each description already

represents the final version for ease of understanding

and use by other researchers, designers, among

others.

A refinement occurred in H10, as users reported

the hand drawing as a decisive factor to indicate

clickable options, as the drawing somewhat

illustrates the action they should take. Therefore, in

this heuristic, it was explicitly described the

possibility of using a symbol that represents the

action that must be done.

The H12 was changed to reinforce that multiple

users can interact at the same time, but one user’s

action cannot interfere with another user’s action.

The use of icon and textual description was rewritten

on H2 because icons like arrows "menu rotate -

arrow" can allow many interpretations such as

returning an action or rotating, then a text can

facilitate this interpretation.

3 CONCLUSIONS

In short, adapting usability heuristics for tabletop

applications is relatively new compared to the

proposed web and mobile heuristics. In this context,

this research adapted usability heuristics and defined

some observations that can be useful during the

design of interactive interfaces for the tabletop

context. As future work, it is proposed to use these

heuristics for other systems contexts and to invite

other researchers/developers to use these heuristics

to develop and evaluate other systems.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the Brazilian Army for the financial

support through the SIS-ASTROS Project

(813782/2014), developed in the context of the PEE-

ASTROS 2020.

REFERENCES

Bortolaso, C., Oskamp, M., Graham, T. C. N., Brown, D.

2013. OrMiS: a tabletop interface for simulation-based

training. In ACM Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces.

Chuan, N., K., Sivaji, A., Ahmad, W., F., W. 2014.

Proposed Usability Heuristics for Testing Gestural

Interaction. In Artificial Intelligence with Applications

in Engineering and Technology.

D’Carlo, D., Barbosa, G., A., R., Oliveira, E., R. 2017.

Proposta de Um Conjunto de Heurísticas para

Avaliação da Usabilidade de Aplicativos Móveis

Educacionais. Abakós, Belo Horizonte, 2

edition.

Dourado, M., Canedo, E. 2018. Usability Heuristics for

Mobile Applications - A Systematic Review. In

Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on

Enterprise Information Systems.

Franceschi, V., D., Fontoura, L., M., Silva, M., A., R.

2018. Heurísticas para o Design de Sistemas

Educacionais em Tabletop. In Nuevas Ideas en

Informática Educativa.

Humayoun, S., R., Chotala, P., H., Bashir, M., S., Ebert,

A. 2017. Heuristics for evaluating multi-touch

gestures in mobile applications. In British Computer

Society Human Computer Interaction.

Inostroza, R., Rusu, C., Roncagliolo, S., Jimenez, C.,

Rusu, V. 2012. Usability Heuristics for Touchscreen-

based Mobile Devices. In Proceedings - 9th

International Conference on Information Technology:

New Generations.

Joyce, G., Lilley, M. 2014. Towards the Development of

Usability Heuristics for Native Smartphone Mobile

Applications. In Proceedings Design, User

Experience, and Usability. Theories, Methods, and

Tools for Designing the User Experience.

Madni, T. M., Nayan, Y., B., Sulaiman, S., Abro, A.,

Tahir, M. 2016. Usability evaluation of orientation

techniques for medical image analysis using a tabletop

system. In 3rd International Conference on Computer

and Information Sciences.

Neto, M.; José, O. 2013. Usabilidade da interface de

dispositivos móveis: heurísticas e diretrizes para o

design. In Phd thesis – São Paulo University.

Nielsen, J. 2000. Why You Only Need to Test with 5

Users. In https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-

only-need-to-test-with-5-users/.

Nilsen, J. 1994. Usability Inspection Methods. In:

Conference Companion on Human Factors In

Computing Systems.

Prates, R., O., Barbosa, S., D., J. 2003. Avaliação de

interfaces de usuário–conceitos e métodos. In:

Jornada de Atualização em Informática do Congresso

da Sociedade Brasileira de Computação.

Rusu, C., Roncagliolo, S., Rusu, V., Collazos, C. 2011. A

methodology to establish usability heuristics. In: 4

International Conferences on Advances in Computer-

Human Interactions.

Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M., Jacobs, S.,

Elmqvist, N., Diakopoulos, N. 2016. Designing the

user interface: strategies for effective human-

computer interaction. Pearson,6

edition.

Yang, Q., Liu, J., Qin, Y., Yu, C., Yuan, Q., Shi, Y. 2014.

Studying accessible states of user interfaces on

tabletops. In IEEE 11th Intl Conf on Ubiquitous

Intelligence and Computing and IEEE 11th Intl Conf

on Autonomic and Trusted Computing and IEEE 14th

Intl Conf on Scalable Computing and Communications

and Its Associated Workshops.

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

562