EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 66 (2016) MATEC Web Conf., 66 (2016) 00117 References
Open Access
Issue
MATEC Web Conf.
Volume 66, 2016
The 4th International Building Control Conference 2016 (IBCC 2016)
Article Number 00117
Number of page(s) 7
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20166600117
Published online 13 July 2016
  1. Y. Afacan, & C. Erbug (2009). An interdisciplinary heuristic evaluation method for universal building design. AE, 40(4), 731–744. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2008.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  2. K. Alexander (2006). The application of usability concepts in the built environment. JFM, 4(4), 262–270. doi:10.1108/14725960610702947 [Google Scholar]
  3. J. Alho, & S. Nenonen (2008). Usability of shopping centres: Components of a usability rating tool. W111 usability of workplaces phase 2. CIB Reports 316. Rotterdam: CIB. [Google Scholar]
  4. S.T. Andre, H.R. Hartson, M.S. Belz, F.A. Mccreary, 2001. The user action frame-work: a reliable foundation for usability engineering support tools. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 54 (1), 107–136 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. J.D. Arthur, M.K. Gröner, 2005. An operational model for structuring the require- ments generation process. Requirements Engineering 10 (1), 45–62. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. G. A. Bowen (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal (RMIT Training Pty Ltd Trading as RMIT Publishing), 9, 27–40. doi:10.3316/qrj0902027 [Google Scholar]
  7. J. Chebat, C. Ge, & K. Therrien (2005). Lost in a mall, the effects of gender, familiarity with the shopping mall and the shopping values on shoppers ‘way finding processes, 58, 1590–1598. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  8. C.K.K. Teck, “A user-centred approach to effective wayfinding map design: Integrating theory, practice and user participation’,Faculty of Built Environment, Art and Design. Curtin University of Technology. Disertation Doctor of Philosophy, 2006 [Google Scholar]
  9. J. Clarkson, R. Coleman, I. Hosking, S. Waller, 2007. Inclusive Design Toolkit. Cambridge Engineering Design Centre Press, Cambridge. Retrieved from: www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/betterdesign (1.10.07). [Google Scholar]
  10. J. Corbin & A. Strauss (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  11. F. Darses, M. Wolff, 2006. How do designers represent to themselves the users’ needs? Applied Ergonomics 37 (6), 757–764. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. A. De Angeli, M. Matera, M.F. Costabile, F. Garzotto, P. Paolini, 2003. On the advantages of a systematic inspection for evaluating hypermedia usability. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 15 (3), 315–335. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. N. K. Denzin (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: Aldine [Google Scholar]
  14. E. W. Eisner (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Toronto: Collier Macmillan Canada. [Google Scholar]
  15. F. Becker, and K. S. Parsons, “Hospital facilities and the role of evidence-based design”. Journal of Facilities Management 5(4),pp.263-274,2007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. L. Fu, G. Salvendy, L. Turley, 2002. Effectiveness of user testing and heuristic evaluation as a function of performance classification. Behaviour and Infor- mation Technology 21 (2), 137–143. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Geir K Hansen; Siri H Blakstad; W. Knudsen (2011). USEtool Evaluating Usability: Methods Handbook. Ntnu. [Google Scholar]
  18. J.A. Harding, K. Popplewell, R.Y.K. Fung, A.R. Omar, 2001. An intelligent information framework relating customer requirements and product characteristics. Computers in Industry 44 (1), 51–65. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. J. Harrison, K. Parker, 2005. Designing for real people’s lifelong needs. In: Proceedings of UIA Region IV Work Programme ‘Architecture for All’ UIA/ ARCASIAWorkshop. 3–10 Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  20. S. N. Haron, & M. Y. Hamid (2011). Patient perspective: The “ Usability evaluation” approaches as assessment for quality of outpatient spatial design. Ipcbee, 8, 4–8. [Google Scholar]
  21. M Nagamachi and A. Lokman, 2010. Kansei Engineering: A Beginner Perspective. UniversityPublication Centre (UPENA),UiTM 2010 [Google Scholar]
  22. J. A. Granath and J. Gilleard, “Usability in the Workplace:Case study of Pamela Youde Eastern Hospital Hong Kong”, Usability of Workplaces 2, CIB and EuroFM. CIB reports 316. Rotterdam,2008 [Google Scholar]
  23. J. Gulliksen, “Usability Professionals—Current Practices And Future Development.” Interacting With Computers 18,pp 568–600,2006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. L. Kantner, S. Rosenbaum, 1997. Usability studies of www sites: heuristic evaluation vs. laboratory testing. Reprint of paper from SIGDOC 97 Proceedings (Salt Lake City, UT). Published by Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. Retrieved from: http://www.teced.com/PDFs/sigdoc97.pdf [01.12.05] [Google Scholar]
  25. M. Fenker, “Towards A Theoretical Framework For Usability Of Buildings”. Usability of Workplaces 2, CIB and EuroFM. CIB reports 316. Rotterdam,2008. [Google Scholar]
  26. M. Jensø and T. Haugen, “Usability Of Hospital Buildings :Is patient focus leading to usability in hospital buildings?”, Usability Of Workplaces:Case study: Nord-Trøndelag University College Nylåna, Røstad. CIB Task Group 51,2005. [Google Scholar]
  27. J. Nielsen, R. Molich, 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. SIGCHI Bulletin April (Special Issue), 249–256. [Google Scholar]
  28. J. Nielsen, 1992. Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. In: Proceedings of CHI ‘92, California, USA, pp. 373–380 [Google Scholar]
  29. R. Niemi, S. Nenonen & J-M. Junnonen (2013), Investigating the competencies for Serviceability of Urban areas, paper presented at the CIB World Building Congress 2013, Brisbane. 7.5.2013. [Google Scholar]
  30. M. Q. Patton (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  31. W. Preiser, 2003. Inclusiveness through universal design feedback and evaluation. Education and evaluation – resources and methods at student level. In: Proceedings of Include 2003. Royal College of Art, London. [Google Scholar]
  32. T. Rapley (2007). Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis. London: Sage [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. I. Sinkkonen, H. Kuoppala, and J. Parkkinen (2002), Käytettävyyden psykologia. Edita Oyj, Helsinki. [Google Scholar]
  34. S. H . Blakstad, G. K. Hansen and W. Knudsen, “Methods and tools for evaluation of usability in buildings”, Usability of Workplaces 2, CIB and EuroFM. CIB reports 316. Rotterdam,2008. [Google Scholar]
  35. S. Nenonen and H. Rasila, “Customer Journey – a method to investigate user experience”, International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) reports 316. 2008 [Google Scholar]
  36. T . Kazanasmaz, “Design Efficiency in Hospital Architecture”, Proceedings of First International CIB Endorsed METU Graduate Conference, Ankara, Turkey, 17-18 March 2006, pp.231–242,2006. [Google Scholar]
  37. T. J. M. v. d. Voordt, “Quality of design and usability: a vetruvian twin.” Ambiente Construído, Porto Alegre 9,(2),pp. 17-29,2009 [Google Scholar]
  38. T. Uehira and C. Kay, “Using design thinking to improve patient experiences in Japanese hospitals: a case study”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 30 Iss: 2/3, pp.6–12,2009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. R. K. Yin (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  40. Y. Kamarulzaman, & C. Author (2010). Attracting Shoppers to Shopping Malls: The Malaysian Perspective, 185–199. [Google Scholar]
  41. N. M. Sapie, M. Y. Hussain, S. Ishak, A. H. Awang, & N. Lyndon (2014). Motif dan daya tarikan pusat membeli-belah dalam kalangan pengunjung metropolitan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Patron motives and perspectives of shopping malls’ attraction in Metropolitan Kuala Lumpur, 1(1), 70–77. [Google Scholar]
  42. A. R. Zahari, E. Esa, U. T. Nasional, S. Haji, & A. Shah (2012). TIMBJ, 2(2), 47–60. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.