Usability requirements and their elicitationDocument Transcript
Usability requirements and their elicitation
Lucas Machado, Menglin Xu,
Muhammad Qasim, Silvia P. H. Rubio
(SIS) School of Information Sciences – University of Tampere
October 25, 2013
understanding and knowledge of the purpose leads
us to requirements engineering; an approach to procure useful speciﬁcations (requirements) which aid in
deciding on how to build an artefact. Requirements
engineering is, as its name suggests, the engineering discipline of establishing user requirements and
specifying software systems (Sutcliﬀe, 2013). It involves ﬁnding out what people expect from a software system and specifying their expectations (purpose of software system) in terms of software system design. Nuseibeh and Easterbrook (2000) give
a more comprehensive deﬁnition as ”software systems requirements engineering (RE) is the process of
discovering that purpose, by identifying stakeholders
and their needs, and documenting these in a form
that is amenable to analysis, communication, and
Requirements of a software system are gathered
and implemented to produce a usable system. To ensure the easiness of use and acceptance of this system,
its usability must be validated. Usability is a quality
attribute of a system. It is the extent to which speciﬁc users to their satisfaction can perform a speciﬁc
goal eﬀectively and eﬃciently in a speciﬁed context
(ISO, 1998). The usability of a system is stated by usability requirements. Usability requirements are the
speciﬁcations that incorporate ﬁve usability factors:
This essay is a result of a group work about usability requirements, testing and their elicitation for
the Requirements Engineering course. The content
of this article is organized as follows: Section 1
introduces concepts and general ideas, Section 2 is
about usability requirements styles and testing, and is
based mainly in the article by Lauesen and Younessi
(1998). Section 3 is based mainly in the article
by Jos Trienekens (2012) and is about categorizing
usability requirements elicitation methodologies and
exploring the most suitable of them for determined
project needs. In Section 4, some practical experience
with requirements engineering of one of the authors
is reported. Finally, Section 5 gives the conclusions.
Key concepts: usability requirements,
methodologies for eliciting and analyzing usability requirements, usability testing.
Engineering involves building of purposeful artefacts
often known as machines. Software engineering as a
subdiscipline of engineering, concerns with the conﬁguration of a general-purpose machine (the computer)
to work for a speciﬁc purpose. Before building a machine or artefact to fulﬁl a speciﬁc purpose, it is important to understand what that purpose is. This
1. Ease of learning: Both novice and experienced
users must quickly learn the system.
2. Task eﬃciency: The system must be swift and
responsive for user tasks.
the lifecycle when modiﬁcations are often diﬃcult,
impractical, or even impossible.”
There exist many issues regarding the usability requirements elicitation, their methodologies, and their
validation. In this essay, we will discuss two emergent issues. First issue is “What is the relation between usability requirements elicitation and usability
testing? ” and the second issue is “How to identify the most suitable usability requirements elicitation methodology according to the needs of diﬀerent
projects/situations? ” With regard to ﬁrst issue, six
styles for usability requirements elicitation are discussed with focus on their veriﬁcation, using them
during development process and how usability testing
is useful in eliciting the data for speciﬁcation. It will
help to understand at what extent theses styles address usability issues in a software system. There are
also many methodologies for the elicitation and analysis of usability requirements available in the literature. But the challenge is to select the best methodology for speciﬁc needs. So, in second question we argue which method/methodologies are the best suited
according to the particular demands of the project
for gathering usability requirements. The results of
this discussion help non-experts of usability to select
the best suited method in accordance to the software
system requirements or project needs.
3. Ease of remembrance: The system functionality must be easy to remember by casual users.
4. Understandability: The user must understand the system eﬀortlessly.
5. Subjective Satisfaction: The user must be
satisﬁed with the system after using it.
These requirements may interact with each other,
and so should be prioritized for a particular system.
These requirements are elicited and analysed by various approaches, for example, by analysing the current systems, by observing the interaction of a user
with a system, or by following guidelines and doing
heuristics analysis. Usability requirements play crucial factor in determining the success of a software
system. Accurateness of usability requirements being transformed into usability features of a system is
directly proportional to the acceptance of the system
by the users. In order to guarantee the acceptance of
the system, validation of the usability requirements is
required which is done by conducting usability testing. Usability testing is a technique to evaluate a
system for usability problems by testing it with real
users. The users with relevant background are provided with the tasks to test a system or a prototype.
This testing ensures the ease of use, learnability and
satisfaction of a user from the system. Usability testing should not be delayed into the later stages of the
software development process but it should be done
concurrently with production of the components of
a software system. Addressing usability at the requirements stage has the same beneﬁts as considering other quality attributes early on in the development process (Mario R. Barbacci, 2003): “The earlier key quality attribute requirements are identiﬁed
and prioritized, the more likely it is that the essential quality attributes will be built into the system.
It is more cost-eﬀective to reason about quality attribute trade-oﬀs early in the lifecycle than later in
What is the relation between
usability testing and usability
The concept of usability requirements has been described previously, but it is important to note that
there are several ways of writing these requirements.
In their paper “Six Styles for usability requirements”
Lauesen and Younessi (1998) explain the diﬀerent
styles in which usability requirements can be represented according to the part of the development process that they are focused on and it is also described
be changed or reﬁned and most importantly if any
new usability requirements emerge.
Usability testing in this style covers most of the usability factors, however, subjective satisfaction cannot be analyzed with this kind of requirements as it
only provides the information on how well the user
performs a task and even though they do well in one
particular task, their overall impression on the system can be diﬀerent.
Defect-style requirements are very similar to
performance-based ones, they also work with tasks
but the main focus is on the limit of usability problems that users can encounter while performing this
task. A usability problem arises when a user makes
mistakes or ﬁnds diﬃculties while using the system.
For instance, if we think of the ATM scenario this
could be an example of a defect-style requirement:
how usability testing is involved in the elicitation of
these requirements. These six styles mentioned in the
paper are: performance, defect, process, subjective,
design and guideline.
Performance-based requirements specify different user groups and a set of tasks- a work that
needs to be completed by the user with help of the
system - that the users must undertake. A performance objective is established for each task. If we
consider an ATM system, the following could be an
example of a performance-based requirement:
Customers with ATM experience from other
banks: In their ﬁrst attempt, they must be
able to withdraw a preset amount of cash
within an average of 2 minutes. (Lauesen
and Younessi, 1998)
In this example, we can identify the user (customers with ATM experience from other banks), the
task (withdrawing a preset amount of money) and
the performance objective (taking an average of 2
The initial elicitation of performance-based requirements follows the same steps as any other functional requirement by evaluating the stakeholders’
needs and possibly some previous systems. However, usability testing is used to verify and modify
(if needed) these initial requirements.
There are several techniques in usability testing. If
we consider the previous example of a performancebased requirement, the testing could be done by
recording a group of ATM users (randomly chosen)
while using the new system and evaluating the way
they interact with it. These users could also be asked
to perform their task while saying what they are
thinking (think aloud usability testing technique) or
even a combination of the two techniques described
previously. Regardless of the testing technique, the
goal of usability testing in this case scenario is to
verify the usability requirements initially elicited and
evaluate whether the performance objectives need to
Customers with ATM experience from other
banks: In their ﬁrst attempt, no more than
0.2 task failures can be encountered. (Lauesen and Younessi, 1998)
The same kind of usability tests proposed to verify
performance-based requirements could be used in this
case. However, since the focus is in usability problems, these have to be counted and then the data obtained can be analyzed. The importance of counting
usability problems is that they can reveal usability
defects which are the defects in the system design
that cause the usability problems. To reveal usability defects feedback needs to be collected from users,
an example of this would be interviewing a user and
asking: “What did you ﬁnd diﬃcult in this particular
task?” when referring to a task where the user failed
or had diﬃculties with.
Once again, usability testing provides a way to get
feedback from users that allows the validation and
reﬁnement of the initial requirements and even the
elicitation of new ones. It is also important to point
out that these tests can be executed even before the
system is ready with the use of prototypes, this is
For instance, one subjective-style requirement
in the ATM case scenario would be:
important to guide the development process in the
As with performance-based requirements, the subjective satisfaction cannot be tested with this kind of
requirements because the fact that users do not encounter problems in certain tasks does not mean that
they will be satisﬁed with the complete system.
Depending on the system being implemented, performance objectives and usability defects may be difﬁcult to identify. In these cases, it is better to specify the requirements that will ensure usability and
how they will be addressed during the design process
rather than the usability requirements on the product
An illustration of this process-style requirement is the following:
80% of customers having tried the ATM
at least once must ﬁnd the system helpful.
60% must recommend it to friends if asked.
(Lauesen and Younessi, 1998)
In this example, we can observe that the requirement is not related to any task in particular but for
the satisfaction of the system as a whole. Usability
testing is again required to validate that the requirements are being met; during the development period
and most importantly after the product is ready, feedback from the users has to be collected to verify that
users are satisﬁed with the product.
This requirement style is, as its name states, particularly good for analyzing the subjective satisfaction
During design, a sequence of 3 prototypes
factor. However, this is a very complex factor to anahas to be made. Each prototype must be uslyze because satisfaction can vary among users (even
ability tested and the most important defects
in the same situations) depending on the culture and
corrected. (Lauesen and Younessi, 1998)
even their personality.
In this example we can observe instructions that
Design-style requirements specify what the
must be followed during the design process to achieve prototype design should look like. These requireusability. Even though these requirements do not al- ments are set by the requirements engineer and unways speciﬁcally request usability testing, most expe- like other usability requirements, which are considrienced developers will request usability testing dur- ered as non-functional requirements, design-style reing the design and development process as getting quirements are part of the functional requirements of
feedback from users is the only way to make sure the system as they specify what the prototype should
that usability is achieved.
With process style requirements, the usability facAn example of this style would be the following:
tors measured depend on the requirements chosen by
The menu points and push buttons shall
the developers, the downside of this type of requirefunction as shown in App. yy
ments is that they only address usability testing durWith this approach, inspections and validations are
ing the design process and usability factors could not
necessary throughout the development process. Simibe tested after this stage.
Another way of eliciting the requirements is based larly to previous requirements styles, usability testing
on measuring the user experience as a whole. This is used in design-style requirements to get feedback
style of requirements is subjective and its measure- from users and evaluate if the requirements are corment can be imprecise as diﬀerent users may have rect and complete.
Moreover, usability testing in design-style requirecompletely diﬀerent perspectives of the same issue,
however, a general idea of the usability of the prod- ments is also used to elicit the initial usability requirements. In order to do so an initial prototype is
uct can be obtained.
built and tested, after that, the feedback obtained in
these tests is used as the initial requirements for the
How to identify the most
suitable Usability Requirements Elicitation Methodology according to the needs of
Experts have suggested many guidelines to achieve
usability, some companies even have their own guidelines that they follow when developing a new system. The last requirements described in the paper
are guideline-style requirements, which are basi- Usability Requirements Elicitation is a complex task
cally focused on how the ﬁnal product must meet the that should not be performed without following a
speciﬁcations of certain preset guidelines.
structured methodology. There are several diﬀerent
The following is an illustration of a guideline-style methodologies to elicit usability requirements and as
more options become available to those project manrequirement:
agers and developers there is an emerging need to
identify which of the methodologies is more suitable
for a project in terms of cost, time and eﬀort.
Jos Trienekens (2012) propose a framework to comThe system shall follow the MS-Windows
pare what they consider the four most important apstyle guide. (Lauesen and Younessi, 1998)
proaches in the requirements elicitation and analysis (i.e. The Usability Engineering Lifecycle (UEL),
The Delta Method, Approach Centered on Usability and Driven by Use Cases (ACUDUC) and GuideFollowing this kind of requirement style is a challines for Eliciting Usability Functionalities (GEUF)).
lenge because inspections and veriﬁcations can reHowever, in this paper we will focus in understandquire too much work (guidelines are usually too long)
ing how the framework works and how it can help
and still not lead to usability. Once again, a solution
project managers identify the best methodology for
to this problem is usability testing, after selecting the
their project. In order to do so, only the Delta
guidelines that the system will follow a prototype can
Method and the Usability Engineering Lifecycle will
be built and tested. Testing is used to reﬁne this ﬁrst
prototype according to the user’s needs and then this
The framework divides each methodology into
prototype can be used as the guideline that developseveral methods, which are single functions of the
ers need to follow.
methodology, and then evaluates each one of these
To sum up, there are several styles in which usabil- methods according to some preset criteria. Conseity requirements can be elicited. Each style focuses quently, an overall score is assigned to the methodolon diﬀerent aspects of the development process but ogy based on the individual scores of all the methods
all of them have usability as a common goal. Also, for a speciﬁc criterion.
usability testing is closely involved in the elicitation
The criteria are divided into four categories: exprocess of these usability requirements, it is generally ternal factors, characteristics, maintaining the inused as a way to validate that the initial requirements tegrity of the speciﬁcations and quality and eﬀectiveare being met, to reﬁne initial requirements and in ness. Each category encircles the criteria related to
some cases even to elicit new or initial usability re- that area, criterion are basically questions about the
method. The set of categories and their criteria are
D. Quality and eﬀectiveness: The criteria in
this category address the level of detail that is elicited
using the methodology/method.
A. External factors: This refers to the environment in which the project is to be developed. Three
main questions are the subcategories in this criterion:
• C4.1. Does a methodology/method elicit
enough information to help the developer
specify the ﬁt criterion?
• C1.1. Does a methodology/method need
a human computer interaction (HCI) expert? A score of (+) is assigned if the method
needs an HCI expert, (-) if not needed.
• C4.2. Does a methodology/method elicit
the dependencies between the usability requirements and other functional and nonfunctional requirements?
• C1.2. Does a methodology/method need
access to representative users? A score of
Now that all the criteria have been explained, it
(++) is assigned if the method needs a deep of
involvement from the users, (+) if needs involve- is important to understand each methodology to anment from users, (-) if involvement is not needed. alyze their representation in the framework. First,
we will describe the Usability Engineering Lifecycle
• C1.3 Does a methodology/method work (UEL) methodology which was one of the ﬁrst to prowith non-experienced users? A score from vide methods to incorporate usability engineering in
1 to 5 is assigned to represent how much experi- the product development process. UEL methods can
ence a user must have for this particular method. also be applied in the usability requirements elicitaThis may not be applicable to some methods.
tion and analysis, these methods are the following:
Know the user refers to obtaining information
B. Characteristics: This refers to the character- about the users (e.g. job, gender, computer experiistics of each methodology. There are two criteria in ence, etc.), observing users do their tasks and their
interaction with the system, as well as follow their
• C2.1. Does a methodology/method give learning of the system.
Competitive analysis refers to doing heuristic
strict guidance to help the developers to
analysis (using given usability guidelines) and protocarry it out?
typing on existing (competition) products. Products
• C2.2. Does a methodology/method take from the competition are a very good source for prothe user feedback into account for further totyping as they are currently working products and
analysis on their strengths and weaknesses can contribute to a good design.
C. Maintaining the Integrity of the SpeciﬁcaSetting usability levels indicates establishing a
tions: This category encircles the criteria related set of usability goals beyond the main ﬁve usability
to the eﬀort required by methods. Two criteria are characteristics (e.g. learnability, subjective user satspeciﬁed in this category:
isfaction, etc.). To do so, levels of usability should be
• C3.1. Is a methodology/method time con- deﬁned (i.e. worst acceptance level, planned usability level, current level and best possible level) that
indicate specify measurable usability goals.
• C3.2. Is a methodology/method common
Participatory design means involving the reprein the software development process?
sentative users in the design by having regular meet6
Figure 1: Analysis results for the UEL methodology. (Jos Trienekens, 2012)
ings with the designers. Users can ask questions and
help to discover problems with the designers’ vision
of the task and the real task.
Coordinated design means having one (or more)
coordinator(s) that can supervise the user interface
design in order to achieve consistency not only in
the current design but in further development of the
product (e.g. future versions). Agreements on the
user interface design, prototyping and following standards are also recommended to achieve consistency.
Guidelines and heuristic analysis encircles following pre-established guidelines (e.g. usability, userinterface design, product-speciﬁc, etc.) and performing heuristic evaluations based on such guidelines.
Prototyping indicates building and testing diﬀerent prototypes throughout the development process,
it is recommended to prototype early and often to
avoid extra eﬀort in implementation of unnecessary
or erroneous assumptions of the user needs.
Empirical testing refers to users performing tests
on the product and then analyzing the collected results. Testing can be done with early or late versions
of the product.
Collect feedback from ﬁeld use is a method
similar to empirical testing.
Figure 1 shows the extract of the framework proposed in Jos Trienekens (2012) paper that corresponds to the UEL methodology. We can observe
that each method has been evaluated with all of the
criteria and then an overall score was assigned to the
methodology based on the combination of all the individual scores.
Based on the information in the table the UEL
• Needs advice from a HCI expert.
• Needs frequent access to the representative users
of the product in most of the methods.
• Does not require experienced users
• Does not provide strict guidance to developers.
• Gets users’ feedback to improve usability.
• Requires a lot of eﬀort from the developer team.
• Does not provide a lot of methods commonly
used in the software engineering process.
• It provides the developer with enough information to elicit requirements.
• It provides enough information to elicit the dependencies between requirements.
As an example, we can think of the manager of a
new mobile app project who has his/her customers
spread in ﬁve diﬀerent countries and needs to launch
Figure 2: Analysis results for the Delta method. (Jos Trienekens, 2012)
this product in less than two months with a small
group of novice programmers. Just by using this
framework in less than ﬁve minutes he/she could decide that this methodology is not suitable for this
particular project for several reasons: it demands a
lot of time and eﬀort, it requires constant access to
the users and it provides no guidance for the novice
Prototyping and Usability Testing indicates
that a ﬁrst paper-based prototype is built and tested
(using the usability speciﬁcation) and based on the
feedback collected from users are the foundations for
the design process. These steps are repeated through
the entire development process with several prototypes until the goals are achieved.
Figure 2 contains the extract of the framework
proposed in Jos Trienekens (2012) paper that corresponds to the Delta method. Once again, each
method was evaluated with all the criteria and an
overall score for the methodology was derived from
the combination of all the methods and criteria.
Based on the information in the table the UEL
The second methodology that we will be discussed
in this paper is the Delta method. This methodology
is a task-based and usability-oriented approach used
in requirements engineering. It consists of the ﬁve
Pre-study addresses the evaluation of the “hard”
requirements (e.g. policies, industry standards, etc.)
and the agreement on a vision scope from all parts
• Does not need advice from a HCI expert.
• Needs access to the representative users in all
User proﬁling involves recording an overview of
the users by means of a questionnaire containing
users’ preferences, problems, main tasks, etc.
• Requires moderate experience from users.
Task Analysis refers to interviewing the diﬀerent
representative users of the system in order to identify
and describe their working tasks in detail including
information about the current problems they have in
performing these tasks.
• Provides strict guidance to developers (through
questionnaires, usability speciﬁcations, etc.).
• Gets users’ feedback to improve usability in some
of the methods.
Usability speciﬁcation refers to agreeing on the
desired level of usability which is established in a
measurable form that can be tested later on in the
process; the inputs for this process are the conceptual design and the previous documentation.
• Does not require a lot of eﬀort from the developer team.
• Some methods are commonly used in the software engineering process.
• It provides the developer with enough (not quanIn the third stage, when the user interfaces were betitative) information to elicit requirements.
ing coded and tested, some of them were not needed
anymore, and there was the need for other interfaces
• It does not provide enough information to elicit that were not speciﬁed too. Also, in the developed
the dependencies between requirements.
interfaces, a lot of problems of usability were found
because the requirements were not correctly managed
If we consider the same example from above (the
and there was no much attention to them.
project manager dilemma), he/she might consider
With all of that, the user interfaces of the system
this a more suitable methodology in this particular
had to be rebuilt, but at this time, guidelines, checkproject for the following reasons: it does not require
lists of common features, and usability testing were
a lot of eﬀort (less time-consuming), it requires less
established, so the system could ﬁnally have an acexperience from the developers as it provides guidceptable services quality and easy of use. However,
ance and even though it still needs involvement from
the project used much more resources and time than
the representative users it can be completed faster.
what was originally planned.
Finally, there is probably not a “perfect” methodThis example clearly shows the importance of the
ology for a project but since each project has its own
requirements engineering, and the need to have clear
priorities this framework can be a precise and reliable tool to analyze the beneﬁts and drawbacks of and well-developed requirements. Also, in the last
each methodology, it can help managers make the stages the usability requirements suﬀered the same
necessary trade-oﬀs and ultimately choose the most problems as the functional ones, then needing ansuitable methodology to elicit usability requirements. other set of rework to ﬁx them. With well-designed
functional and usability requirements, and using usability testing, the project was ﬁnished. If a methodology of usability requirements elicitation was used
4 Practical experience
since the beginning along with good processes of funcIt is possible to observe the software engineering tech- tional requirements development, the project could
niques, as well as the usability requirements elicita- have saved extra expenses.
tion in the practical work experience of one of the
authors. As an example, there was a system being
developed that went through by three diﬀerent stages 5
in the company, these stages are described as follows:
In the ﬁrst stage, the company was not using the Usability is an important feature in a software, and
proper requirements-engineering techniques in the can be determining in its success. It inﬂuences the
project. So the objective of the requirements engineer system performance, adoption and easy to use, but
was actually just generating documentation, and the often does not receive the deserved attention in the
development and it is hard to analyze, recognize the
requirements quality was poor.
In the second stage, when some parts and compo- gaps and implement them.
nents of the system were being be integrated, a lot of
To help solve this issue, there are methodologies
problems and conﬂicts were found due to the lack of in the requirements engineering that can be used to
speciﬁcation and poor interfaces. With this problem gather and establish usability requirements. Usabilin hands, the team managed to redo all the require- ity testing can also be used to detect usability probments speciﬁcation of the components that were in lems in the system and correct or prevent them (depending on the style, testing can be done with a functrouble, but did not update all the documentation.
tional software or even with prototypes or design).
Division of work
There are diﬀerences between the methodologies in
a way that we need to choose a proper one based
in the needs of the project. The ﬁrst addressed
methodology of the described UREAM framework by
Jos Trienekens (2012) (Usability Engineering Lifecycle) is more suitable to large scale projects in large
companies as it requires several resources and a great
amount of eﬀort and time. The second addressed
methodology, the Delta Method, is easier to apply
as it not requires many resources (like experts or
user involvement) and is less time-consuming. Then
it should be appropriate for smaller and simpler
The work division for writing this essay was mainly
based in its sections. Section 1 was written by
Muhammad, Section 2 was written by Silvia, Section 3 was written by Menglin with Silvia’s help, and
ﬁnally Sections 4 and 5 were written by Lucas. Additionally, all the group members revised the entire
document and made corrections.
P. Carlshamre and J. Karlsson.
A usabilityoriented approach to requirements engineering.
In Requirements Engineering, 1996., Proceedings of the Second International Conference on,
It is also possible to skip some of the methods
pages 145–152, 1996.
within a methodology, as well as adding others de1996.491439.
pending on the project or system needs. The methodxpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=491439.
ologies should be interpreted as good practices and
ISO. ISO 9241-11:1998 Ergonomic requirements for
not as strict instructions.
oﬃce work with visual display terminals (VDTs)
– Part 11: Guidance on usability. Technical
The diﬀerent styles of usability requirements elicreport, International Organization for Standarditation are all aimed at improving the usability of a
ization, 1998. http://www.userfocus.co.uk/
system in diﬀerent ways and by complementing all
of them we can have a wide coverage over the main
usability problems that can occur in a system.
Rob Kusters Jos Trienekens.
A framework for
characterizing usability requirements elicitation
Finally, usability testing can be closely involved
and analysis methodologies (uream). In ICSEA
with the requirements elicitation as a way to improve
2012, The Seventh International Conference on
the general usability. When a system is already funcSoftware Engineering Advances, page 308 to
tional, they can reﬁne or create new requirements
313, Lisbon, Portugal, November 2012. IARIA.
based on feedback, or they can even prevent usabilhttp://www.thinkmind.org/index.php?view=
ity problems during the design or prototyping stages
by eliciting initial requirements.
Søren Lauesen and Houman Younessi. Six styles
for usability requirements.
In Eric Dubois,
With a proper selection of the usability requireAndreas L. Opdahl, and Klaus Pohl, ediments methodology and/or methods, along with intors, REFSQ, pages 155–166. Presses Univertegrated usability testing, depending on the style of
sitaires de Namur, 1998.
ISBN 2-87037-272these methods of requirements elicitation, it is possi8. http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/refsq/
ble to minimize the problems and improve or achieve
a high level of usability in a system.
Anthony J. Lattanze Judith A. Staﬀord Charles
B. Weinstock William G. Wood Mario R. Barbacci, Robert J. Ellison.
workshops (qaws), third edition.
report, Software Engineering Institute, 2003.
J. Nielsen. The usability engineering life cycle. Computer, 25(3):12–22, 1992. ISSN 0018-9162. doi: 10.
Bashar Nuseibeh and Steve Easterbrook. Requirements engineering: a roadmap. In Proceedings of
the Conference on The Future of Software Engineering, ICSE ’00, pages 35–46, New York, NY,
USA, 2000. ACM. ISBN 1-58113-253-0. doi: 10.
Alistair G. Sutcliﬀe.
from an HCI Perspective. The Interaction Design
Foundation, Aarhus, Denmark, 2013. http://