Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Volume 13, Issue 3 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2025)
Iran J Ergon 2025, 13(3): 177-187 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.MAZUMS.REC.1399
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Amouzadeh E, Etemadinezhad S, Yazdani Charati J. Usability Evaluation of the Chargoon Office Automation System Using A Mixed User- and Expert-Centered Approach (Heuristic Assessment). Iran J Ergon 2025; 13 (3) :177-187
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-1102-en.html
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-1102-en.html
1- Department of Ergonomics, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
2- Faculty of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran ,dr.setemadi@yahoo.com
3- Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
2- Faculty of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran ,
3- Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
Abstract: (2847 Views)
Objectives: Office automation systems are essential for optimizing administrative processes, reducing human errors, and improving organizational efficiency. However, their effectiveness depends on usability and the quality of user interaction. This study assesses the usability of the Chargoon office automation system at Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences using a mixed-methods approach, addressing gaps in prior evaluations of similar systems in Iranian academic settings.
Methods: A mixed-methods design was employed, with the quantitative component using the standardized System Usability Scale (SUS) and the qualitative component involving heuristic evaluation based on Nielsen's 10 principles, conducted by 5 UX experts. A total of 240 employees and faculty members were selected through simple random sampling. Performance data, including task completion time and error rates for six frequent tasks, were collected and analyzed using ANOVA and Pearson correlation in SPSS software (version 26).
Results: The mean SUS score was 64.83 (±12.84), indicating acceptable usability with room for improvement. The task “sending a letter to multiple recipients” had the highest error rate (15.2%) and the longest completion time (57.3 seconds). Heuristic evaluation identified 99 issues, primarily in system feedback (25%) and error prevention (20%).
Conclusion: The Chargoon system demonstrates moderate usability but requires targeted improvements in interface design, feedback mechanisms, and error prevention to reduce cognitive load and operational costs in academic settings.
Methods: A mixed-methods design was employed, with the quantitative component using the standardized System Usability Scale (SUS) and the qualitative component involving heuristic evaluation based on Nielsen's 10 principles, conducted by 5 UX experts. A total of 240 employees and faculty members were selected through simple random sampling. Performance data, including task completion time and error rates for six frequent tasks, were collected and analyzed using ANOVA and Pearson correlation in SPSS software (version 26).
Results: The mean SUS score was 64.83 (±12.84), indicating acceptable usability with room for improvement. The task “sending a letter to multiple recipients” had the highest error rate (15.2%) and the longest completion time (57.3 seconds). Heuristic evaluation identified 99 issues, primarily in system feedback (25%) and error prevention (20%).
Conclusion: The Chargoon system demonstrates moderate usability but requires targeted improvements in interface design, feedback mechanisms, and error prevention to reduce cognitive load and operational costs in academic settings.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Other Cases
Received: 2025/08/16 | Accepted: 2025/10/23 | ePublished: 2025/12/21
Received: 2025/08/16 | Accepted: 2025/10/23 | ePublished: 2025/12/21
References
1. AlBar AM, Hoque MR. Factors affecting the adoption of information and communication technology in small and medium enterprises: A perspective from rural Saudi Arabia. Information Technology for Development. 2019;25(4):715-38. [DOI: 10.1080/02681102.2017.1390437]
2. Nikolopoulou K. Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Exploring ways of harnessing pedagogical practices with the assistance of ChatGPT. IJCE. 2024;1(2):103-111. [DOI: 10.47852/bonviewIJCE42022489]
3. International Organization for S. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs). Part 11: Guidance on usability. ISO 9241-11; 1998. [Link]
4. Nascimento IJB, Abdulazeem H, Vasanthan LT, Martinez EZ, Zucoloto ML, Østengaard L, et al. Barriers and facilitators to utilizing digital health technologies by healthcare practitioners. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1):161. [DOI: 10.1038/s41746-023-00899-4] [PMID]
5. Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and individual differences. Learn Individ Differ. 2024;110:102423. [DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102423]
6. Hamasaki T, Briand C, Mahroug A, Sauvageau A. Digital health technology adoption factors: a rapid review of systematic reviews and checklist development. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2025;1-18. [DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2025.2526175] [PMID]
7. Ahmed A, Imran AS. The role of large language models in UI/UX design: A systematic literature review [internet]; 2025. [Link]
8. Liu Y, Tan H, Cao G, Xu Y. Enhancing User Engagement through Adaptive UI/UX Design: A Study on Personalized Mobile App Interfaces. WJIMT. 2024;7(5). [DOI: 10.53469/wjimt.2024.07(05).01]
9. Evans P, Vansteenkiste M, Parker P, Kingsford-Smith A, Zhou S. Cognitive load theory and its relationships with motivation: a self-determination theory perspective. Educ Psychol Rev. 2024;36(7). [DOI: 10.1007/s10648-023-09841-2]
10. Chiang F, Balaji MS, Lyu C. Cultivating initial trust in ghost kitchens: A mixed-methods investigation of antecedents and consequences. Int J Hosp Manag. 2024;119: 103727. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.103727]
11. Maqbool B, Herold S. Potential effectiveness and efficiency issues in usability evaluation within digital health: A systematic literature review. J Syst Softw. 2024;208: 111881. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2023.111881]
12. Kuric E, Demcak P, Krajcovic M, Lang J. Systematic literature review of automation and artificial intelligence in usability testing [internet]; 2025. [Link]
13. Hassenzahl M. A personal journey through user experience. Journal of Usability Studies. 2018;13(4):168-176. [Link]
14. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2018. [Link]
15. Brooke J. SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester B, McClelland AL, editors. Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor & Francis; 1996:189-94. [Link]
16. Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. J Usability Stud. 2009;4(3):114-23. [Link]
17. Dianat I, Ghanbari Z, Asghari Jafarabadi M. Psychometric properties of the Persian language version of the System Usability Scale. Health Promot Perspect. 2014;4(1):82-9. [DOI: 10.5681/hpp.2014.011] [PMID]
18. Nielsen J. Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1994;152-8. [DOI: 10.1145/191666.191729]
19. Nasser G, Morrison BW, Wiggins MW. Mental models and driver takeover in automated vehicles: a systematic review. Ergonomics. 2025;1-14. [DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2025.2514599] [PMID]
20. Rosenman R, Tennekoon V, Hill LG. Measuring bias in self-reported data. Int J Behav Healthc Res. 2014;2(4):320-332. [DOI: 10.1504/IJBHR.2011.043414] [PMID]
21. Yom SS, Deville Jr C, Boerma M, Carlson D, Jabbour SK, Braverman L. Evaluating the Generalizability and Reproducibility of Scientific Research. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022;113(1):1-4. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.02.002] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
