+351 253 510 580 Mon - Fri. 09:00 - 18:00
Follow us:

The statement that underlies this text is from the former American President Barack Obama, who, in essence, underlines what remains to be the enormous impact of the Internet on contemporary society and humanity.

Like water or electricity, the truth is that the Internet, in fact, has become a dependency for much of the world’s population. According to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), there are an estimated 3,448 million Internet users worldwide, an impressive number that has grown more than three times since 2005. At that time, they were “just over” 1 billion Internet users.

According to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), there are an estimated 3,448 million Internet users worldwide, an impressive number that has grown more than three times since 2005.


However, this number reveals another harsh reality. In practice, it confirms that we live in an unjust world, an unequal and asymmetrical world that does not respond equitably to the needs of the citizens scattered throughout our planet. It is that those almost 3.5 billion Internet users account for less than half the world’s population. The truth is that only 47 out of 100 inhabitants are Internet users, that is, with the Internet being a necessity, more than half of the population is on the margins of its use and of the benefits of this technology.

If we disaggregate the information by the level of development of the countries, 81 out of every 100 inhabitants in the developed countries are Internet users, while only 40 out of every 100 inhabitants in the developing countries are Internet users. In the regional context, in Europe we are 79 in every 100 inhabitants, while in Africa there are 25 in every 100 inhabitants Internet users. In Asia and the Pacific we are talking about 42 out of 100.

Turning to the Portuguese reality, according to data recently published by INE, we are 70% Internet users, below the EU28 average.


Turning to the Portuguese reality, according to data recently published by INE, we are 70% Internet users, a number below the EU28 average. However, as it happens in the international context, this number does not say everything in relation to what is happening in Portugal. In order to know more about our reality, we must mention that in the North there are 65%, while in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area (AM Lisboa) there are 82%, which confirms, also, that also in this matter the regional asymmetries registered in our country are significant.

This is even confirmed by the Regional Digital Index that measures the regional asymmetries in the construction of the Information Society in Portugal. The edition published in June 2016 in a partnership between Universidade do Minho / CCG and FCT, records the enormous supremacy of AM Lisboa in relation to all other Portuguese NUTs II regions, not only in the global index, but also in each of the four sub-indices that integrate the IDR: Context, Infrastructure, Utilization and Impact.


There is a need to find ways to blur asymmetries and to promote more equitable access and use of ICT and the Internet, not only in the global context, but also in our own country.


In this world characterized by the rapid technological evolution, assuming as true the opening phrase of President Obama that considers the Internet a necessity, it is urgent to find ways to blur asymmetries and to promote conditions of greater justice for access and use to ICT and the Internet, not only in the global context, but also in our own country. To do this, we need to know our territory much better than we know it today, not only as a whole, but above all according to local and regional specificities and weaknesses. Only in this way will we be able, now and in the future, to define public (and private) policies that can make our country more cohesive and, by the way, globally more competitive.





Luís Miguel Ferreira | External researcher @CCG

Luís Miguel Ferreira has a degree in Mathematics, a Master in Mathematics Teaching and a PhD in Information Technologies and Systems from the University of Minho, with a thesis on “Measuring the Information Society in the Regional Context: A new instrument and its application to the current situation”. He expresses interest in research in the area of measurement of information society and e-government. He has been collaborating with the national authorities responsible for the information society and the development of e-government. He is also an external researcher of the GCC.


Event website: http://wud.eventos.ccg.pt/

O Domínio de Investigação aplicada PIU: Perception, Interation and Usability, do CCG, Centro de Computação Gráfica, assinala no próximo dia 10 de novembro, o Dia Mundial da Usabilidade, com um conjunto de palestras e demonstrações interativas.

The applied Research Domain PIU: Perception, Interation and Usability, from CCG, Center for Computer Graphics, marks next November 10th, the World Usability Day, with a set of lectures and interactive demonstrations.

IT companies

Departments of Design, Usability, Marketing

Researchers from universities, institutes and other interested parties

November 10, 2016


9h00: Check-in
9h30: Boas-vindas. João Nuno Oliveira, Diretor Executivo do CCG
Apresentação PIU e Programa WUD2016. Jorge Santos (Coordenador Científico PIU, CCG) /Sandra Mouta, Coordenadora PIU, CCG
10h00: O processo de UX em Inovação. Nuno Ribeiro, BOSCH
10h45: A Importância de Conhecer o Utilizador para o Desenvolvimento de Ambientes Imersivos. Carlos Silva, CCG

11h30: Coffee Break // DEMOS

12h00: UX na Altice Labs – Estratégia e Impacto. Inês Oliveira, Altice Labs
12h45: Intervalo para Almoço


14h30: Apresentação ADUUX – Associação para o Desenvolvimento da Usabilidade e Experiência de Utilização. Joana Vieira, CCG.
14h45: O novo renascimento, ou o utilizador no centro do nosso mundo. Hugo Silva, NOS
15h30: Emília Duarte, IADE
16h15 Coffee Break // DEMOS

16h45 Ana Barros, CITEVE
17h30: MagUXto

The demonstrations will always be available in Coffee Breaks and other breaks. They will be in the hall and CAVE of the CCG. Will be present:

Associação CCG / ZGDV : Centro de Computação Gráfica

Free (but mandatory): Registration here

Address: Campus de Azurém, 4800-058, Guimarães – Portugal

GPS: Lat 41º 27´ 11.80´´ Long -8º 17´ 18.21´´

Telephone: +351 253 510 580

email: comunicacao@ccg.pt

Web: www.ccg.pt


The kick off meeting of the European project HeritageCARE from the Interreg-SUDOE program took place on October 3rd and 4th, 2016, at the Department of Civil Engineering of the University of Minho (Portugal), leader partner of the project.

The main goal of the HeritageCARE project is to implement an integrated and sustainable methodology for the preventive conservation and maintenance of the historic and cultural heritage buildings, based on a joint system of services provided by a non-profit entity to be created in Portugal, Spain, and France.

This project will give rise to the first joint strategy for preventive conservation of built cultural heritage within the South-West Europe.

  1. University of Minho (Portugal, Project Leader) at ISISE and IB-S
  2. Direção Regional de Cultura do Norte (Portugal)
  3. Centro de Computação Gráfica (Portugal)
  4. Universidad de Salamanca (Escuela Politécnica Superior de Ávila) (Spain)
  5. Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico (Spain)
  6. Fundación Santa María la Real del Patrimonio Histórico (Spain)
  7. Université de Limoges (France)
  8. Université Blaise Pascal (France)


  1. Associação Portuguesa das Casas Antigas (Portugal)
  2. Arquidiocese de Braga (Portugal)
  3. GECoRPA – Grémio do Património (Portugal)
  4. Asociación Hispania Nostra (Spain)
  5. Asociación Española de Gestores de Patrimonio Cultural (Spain)
  6. Adeco Camino (Spain)
  7. Direction régionale des affaires culturelles Auvergne Rhône-Alpes (France)
  8. Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Clermont-Ferrand (France)
  9. Louis Gineste (France)
  10. Atelier d’Architecture PANTHEON (France)
  11. Cabinet d’Architecture Pascal Parmantier – Architecte Du Patrimoine (France)


The HeritageCARE project is Co-funded by the ERDF within the Interreg-SUDOE program with a total financial commitment of (Euro) 1.686.282,82 €.


The concept of smart city is present in the agendas of the main stakeholders that gravitate around cities, municipalities, or in a broader way, of issues of the territory. This is true in both developed and developing countries. This concern comes from the added value of information technologies in the management of a city, as well as from the continuous deterioration of the quality of life in cities. On the one hand, the increase in urban population is unprecedented, with the UN estimating that the world’s urban population will increase from 52% to 80% by 2050. This increase is also driven by increases in pollution levels and congestion in cities. There is thus the challenge of improving the quality of life for urban citizens, also serving as an engine for economic performance, as well as enhancing the efficient use of resources, supporting environmental sustainability. Information technologies, allied to the human capital of a city, can be the means to realize this intelligence and to achieve the goals of making a city socially, economically and environmentally sustainable.


“Information technologies, allied to the human capital of a city, can be the means to realize this intelligence and to achieve the goals of making a city socially, economically and environmentally sustainable.”


A smart city can be defined as a multidisciplinary domain, which brings together several areas of intervention and skills to achieve development. These areas are, at their core, supported by information technologies, hence their intelligence endowment, but they must also have a strong orientation towards their governance, supported by civic participation, as well as being sources of economic development. Intelligent cities therefore need action plans that will enable them to monitor the implementation of initiatives, as well as to measure the expected benefits of each investment, and with that, there is an understanding that information technologies are not an end, but rather a means to attain intelligence.

“A smart city can be defined as a multidisciplinary domain, which brings together several areas of intervention and skills to achieve development.”


Each city is different, and has been “built” and developed based on different paradigms. In this sense, any development and evolution, thought for a city, must take into account this reality and which paradigm will want to achieve. To improve the quality of life of citizens, you must realize their needs, but also realize what the needs of a city are. It can focus on developments derived from information technologies, or evolve in a technology-driven, technology-driven society. It can also be a smart city from the point of view of a competitive and advanced industry that creates an urban ecosystem, or an environmentally advanced city that uses green technologies and is the pinnacle of environmental sustainability. It is up to decision-makers to think the path ahead and choose the best initiatives they should support, but always taking into account the desired evolution paradigm, that transformation is slow and necessary, and that information technologies are a valuable support.


“A city can thus focus on developments derived from information technologies, or have a development focused on the needs of a society, supported by technologies.”


To support this evolution, and to enable a monitoring, there are several tools and models that can be used. A tool, in the form of a model, that can respond to this need, to consider a paradigm of evolution, that defines and measures areas of action, and allows prescribing actions to achieve the desired evolution is the maturity models. A maturity model has as main objective to improve processes of an organization, making them efficient, from defined evolutionary paths. An organization evolves based on defined maturity levels, and cumulative, which are measured through indicators. It is also important in the field of cities to develop maturity models that define maturity paths that allow the adaptation and configuration of monitoring criteria to be applied to different cities and to consider a city in a holistic way.





Pedro Torrinha | business developer @CCG


Site do evento: http://opendayepmq.eventos.ccg.pt/

O Domínio de Investigação Aplicada EPMQ: “Engineering Process Maturity and Quality”, do CCG: Centro de Computação Gráfica irá abrir portas às temáticas:

Saúde – “A interoperabilidade da informação no setor da saúde”;

Indústria – “O papel dos sistemas de informação na 4ª revolução industrial”;

Cidades – “Dados Abertos e a Sustentabilidade das Cidades”.

Este Open Day irá reunir um conjunto de profissionais, investigadores e empresas (TI e Não TI), com interesse nas áreas da Saúde, Indústria, Cidades, e nas suas aplicações, promovendo, deste modo, a discussão de temas relevantes na área de Sistemas de Informação.

Empresas, organizações, investigadores

21 de outubro de 2016




Associação CCG / ZGDV : Centro de Computação Gráfica

Gratuitas (obrigatórias): Inscreva-se aqui

Morada: Campus de Azurém, 4800-058, Guimarães – Portugal

GPS: Lat 41º 27´ 11.80´´ Long -8º 17´ 18.21´´

Telefone: +351 253 510 580

email: comunicacao@ccg.pt

Web: www.ccg.pt





In this article, an analysis will be made of the communication of requirements between a client entity and the team, and in the team there may be someone directly responsible for collecting the client’s needs, commonly called Business Analyst (BA), or Engineer of Requirements (ER). Three possible ways of communicating the requirements are mentioned:

Criteria for success / failure

Once a project has been completed, lessons learned sessions will be held. Has the project been successful or unsuccessful? For the organization, the definition of success / failure can be based on the criteria:

More than realizing whether the project was successful or unsuccessful, it is also important to understand the circumstances that led to this success / failure. To this end, the annual report CHAOS Report of the Standish Group [1] is a reference that defines the success factors of a project. From the point of view of requirements analysis, the factor at the top of this report is customer involvement. This relates mainly to communication, having the client “close” to the development team and involving him in the whole process. Involvement is related to the success of the project in that, if the client is aware of the project, he knows exactly the outcome that will be delivered to him and can communicate in a timely manner any changes he may wish to make.

The client must have space to listen and to be heard, he should be treated as a partner (working with him and not for him).


“Involvement” is high on the CHAOS Report list because of the expectations management during the project. Managing customer expectations is to ensure that the assumptions made by the client in a software project are realistic and consistent with software delivery. Since the requirements process is a primary channel between the client and the team, can there be a relationship between expectations management and the way the requirements are communicated? And how do you define requirements communication to enhance project success?


“A problem well stated is a problem half solved.”

Charles F. Kettering


A requirement depicts a condition or ability that is necessary to satisfy a purpose or need. The communication of needs, through the definition of requirements, is of high importance for developing the solution that the team has proposed. The requirements are transversal to any engineering project, be it software, electronic, mechanical, civil, etc. projects. Each engineering project must include requirements tasks, whether related to survey, documentation, negotiation, validation, communication, among others [2]. Communication (verbal or written, formal or informal) is the medium for passing information between the client and the development team. One of the most critical requirements problems is that it depends heavily on the interpretation of who raises or documents them. The research on problems in requirements refers us to the following illustration:


Fonte img: projectcartoon

  1. As the client explained
  2. As the analyst specified
  3. As the programmer developed
  4. As the client really wanted!

“The most important single aspect of software development is to be clear about what you are trying to build.”
Bjarne Stroustrup


 The communication of needs by the Client to the BA/ER

The Business Analysis Body of Knowledge (BABoK) [3], from IIBA®, a reference guide for requirements, categorizes requirements in:

BABoK, as well as the Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge  (SWEBoK), present the following requirements-gathering techniques:

All of these techniques have advantages and disadvantages, and are more suitable in certain circumstances than others (they will not be described here, given the number of techniques, so BABoK describes these situations in detail for each technique in its “Techniques” chapter) , so the process of (communication of) the requirements to be adopted depends on the specificity of each project. It should be taken into account who participates, how many participate, the processes to be supported, among others. For example, an interview is advantageous in the sense of direct contact, allowing for more personal responses, as well as the observation of gestures or tone of voice. On the other hand, if the number of participants is high, then the most advantageous option is to conduct questionnaires. If the idea focuses heavily on flows and sequential tasks, process observation is most appropriate.

The communication of the requirements collected by the BA/ER to the Client for validation

The next step in the BA / ER task is to record what was raised in the previous customer-> BA / RE interaction. This record is given the name of documentation of the requirements, and refers to a set of documentary information that will serve as evidence in the “contract” concluded between client and team. Documentation of requirements serves two purposes. 1. Validation of requirements with the client; 2. Pass the information to the development team for the implementation of the solution (the last two “ways” mentioned at the beginning of this article). This latter purpose, not constituting a client-team communication, is not analyzed in depth in this article.

Documentation of more customer-oriented requirements follows more high-level formats and no more technical information. The most significant examples are: UML diagrams (use cases and activities), user stories, prototyping (via wireframes or mockups).

It is on the set of documented requirements that the second possible “way” reported in this article, the BA / RE -> customer communication is based. In this case, the communication is not associated to the survey of requirements and needs, but to validate the information that was collected in the previous interactions. This type of communication is of great relevance in the aforementioned client involvement, since the form (as well as the frequency) as this interaction is carried out has direct implications in the management of customer expectations. Here, BABoK and SWEBoK also propose identical techniques for the validation of requirements, and, unlike the previous interaction, the BA / ER can use complementarily:

It should be noted that there are no great advantages in communicating too technical requirements to the customer, since this “language” is not always perceivable by the customer. The more technical documentation should be directed to the development team, where the communication of the requirements is done in a perspective of “passing of knowledge” acquired in previous interactions (client-> BA / RE-> client). The most significant examples are: UML diagrams (classes, components, deployment, sequence), user stories when accompanied by technical details and acceptance tests, technical user stories (e.g., stories that directly derive from implementation issues or architecture of the solution and not of functionalities).

It is important to know…

The maturity of the processes adopted within the scope of requirements (or any other) is always reflected in the organizational efficiency of these processes in a project. Regarding the criteria presented at the beginning of this article, the way the processes are executed has direct implications on product / prototype / service presentation with quality and reliability, top organization / management satisfaction and profit. However, the specificities of each project do not suggest the implementation of a single process (“one size fits all”), but rather take into account a set of criteria to “model” the requirements process according to the context in which it operates.

On the other hand, the requirements process must include interactions with clients, through verbal or written communication, formal or informal. Good communication with the client can not be seen only from a “good practice” perspective. It should be an integral part of the organizational vision, with a view to the efficiency of the requirements process, since the management of expectations has implications, not only in the success of the project, in relation to customer satisfaction and loyalty, but also in the reputation and notoriety of the organization.


[1]         Standish Group, “CHAOS Report 2014,” 2014.

[2]         J. M. Fernandes and R. J. Machado, Requirements in Engineering Projects. Springer International Publishing, 2016.

[3]         IIBA, A Guide to the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge® (BABOK® Guide) Version 2.0. 2009.



Nuno Santos | Researcher D.I.A EPMQ “Engineering Process Maturity and Quality” @CCG



WEBSITE DO EVENTO: http://workshopcvig.eventos.ccg.pt/

A Associação CCG / ZGDV Centro de Computação Gráfica da Universidade do Minho, vai organizar, no dia 29 de Setembro de 2016, um Workshop dedicado às temáticas da Análise de Imagem e Visão por Computador e as suas aplicações.

A Visão por Computador é assumidamente uma das áreas científicas de suporte às atividades de investigação e desenvolvimento realizadas no Domínio de Investigação Aplicada “CVIG – Computer Vision, Interaction and Graphics”. O produto destas atividades de I&D tem sido aplicado em diversas áreas, incluindo Aplicações na análise de Imagem Médica, Saúde e Bem estar, Vigilância Eletrónica e outras Aplicações Industriais.

Este workshop visa juntar um conjunto de profissionais, investigadores e empresas, com interesse na área da Análise de Imagem e Visão por Computador, e nas suas aplicações, com especial enfoque nas Aplicações Médicas, na Vigilância Eletrónica e Aplicações Industriais, de uma forma geral, ambicionando constituir-se um fórum de divulgação e de discussão de ideias e de trabalhos proporcionando, simultaneamente, um ambiente ideal para a troca de experiências entre as comunidades académica e empresarial.

Empresas, SMEs, Hospitais e Clínicas, Universidades e Centros de Investigação

Luís Gonzaga Magalhães

Miguel Angel Guevara Lopez

Nelson Alves

Convidam-se as empresas e instituições de investigação e ensino a participar e a submeter propostas de apresentações de projetos / aplicações / produtos comerciais e trabalhos científicos relacionados com as áreas do Workshop.

A data limite para a submissão das apresentações é o dia 18 de Setembro. O programa final do Workshop será publicado na página do evento: workshopcvig.eventos.ccg.pt/

As apresentações de projetos / aplicações / produtos comerciais devem ser submetidas usando uma folha tipo A4 (máximo 2 páginas), escrita com letra Arial tamanho 10 ou 11, com o seguinte formato: título do produto, autores, afiliação (incluindo o nome da instituição e o e-mail) e descrição sucinta do(s) produto(s) a apresentar, que deverá incluir o mercado alvo, as funcionalidades e principais características técnicas dos produtos a apresentar.

No caso das apresentações de trabalhos científicos, deverão também ser submetidos usando uma folha tipo A4 (máximo 2 páginas) com letra Arial tamanho 10 ou 11, com o seguinte formato: título do trabalho, autores, afiliação (incluindo o nome da instituição e o e-mail) e um resumo (abstract) descrevendo de forma sucinta os objetivos do trabalho, materiais e métodos, resultados, conclusões e 3 ou 4 referências bibliográficas.

29 de Setembro de 2016

Associação CCG / ZGDV : Centro de Computação Gráfica

Gratuitas (obrigatórias)

Morada: Campus de Azurém, 4800-058, Guimarães – Portugal

GPS: Lat 41º 27´ 11.80´´ Long -8º 17´ 18.21´´

Telefone: +351 253 510 580

Inscrição de presença: Clique aqui

Submissão de apresentações para: miguel.guevara@ccg.pt

Web: www.ccg.pt





No dia 20 de Junho de 2016, o D.I.A. EPMQ “Engineering Process Maturity and Quality”, esteve representado no evento “Oportunidades de financiamento para a Administração Pública”, organizado pelo GPPQ (Gabinete de Promoção do Programa Quadro de I&DT), no Auditório da eSPap.

O evento destinou-se a apresentar as oportunidades de financiamento para a Administração Pública, através da apresentação dos instrumentos disponíveis, os PCPs, PPIs e o CEF Telecom, e a partilha de experiências de projetos de sucesso com participação nacional.

A colaboradora do EPMQ, Paula Monteiro, participou como oradora da Mesa Redonda: Partilha de Casos de Sucesso no H2020 para a Administração Pública, moderada por Elisabete Pires, Ponto de Contacto Nacional H2020, GPPQ e com a presença do Vice-Presidente da eSPap, César Pestana.

Paula Monteiro partilhou a experiência da participação do EPMQ no projeto C4E (CloudforEurope), projecto europeu para fomentar a aplicação de um modelo de aprovisionamento (ou procurement) pré-comercial (PCP), como instrumento de inovação na indústria e, simultaneamente, para incremento da adoção de tecnologias e serviços cloud no sector público. A intervenção na mesa redonda consistiu em transmitir as vantagens e a experiência da participação num PCP tanto para a Administração Pública como para o Sector Privado.

Mais info: http://www.gppq.pt/h2020/eventos.php?id=5532


O iDroneExperience, em Braga de 22 a 24 de abril, vai incluir competições do campeonato mundial de drones, veículos aéreos não tripulados, reunir empresas, escolas e startups naquele que será o “mais completo evento” do género no país.

Apresentado esta quinta-feira, o iDroneExperience, organizado pela Associação Industrial do Minho, a InvestBraga, a câmara de Braga e pelo Instituto Politécnico do Cávado e Ave, espera atrair ao Parque de Exposições 10 mil visitantes.

Além das competições do campeonato mundial da modalidade e de etapas para a final do campeonato europeu, o Aerial World Cup Europe, o evento terá performances ao vivo, um festival de fotografia, um simulador de realidade virtual e uma “componente pedagógica” através de competições de robótica.

“Trata-se de um evento inovador e diferenciador, mais uma oportunidade para Braga se tornar um palco privilegiado de um evento de dimensão internacional numa área em claro crescimento e que vem para Braga com a ambição clara de ser o maior do género do país”, considerou o presidente da Câmara Municipal de Braga, Ricardo Rio.

Segundo a organização, que garante o “o mais completo evento dedicado a drones e às novas tecnologias””, o PEB irá ser dividido em várias zonas: “Uma zona para as provas académicas, outra para os expositores, uma zona para as provas em First-Person-View (Vista em Primeira Pessoa) e outra zona para as bancadas”.

A iDroneCup é outra das atividades desenvolvidas, uma “liga universitária” com provas destinadas ao Ensino Superior e uma “liga júni0r” para e escolas secundárias e profissionais, competições cujas inscrições para as equipas interessas (quatro elementos e um mentor) já estão abertas.

Para o presidente da Associação Industrial do Minho, António Marques, o iDroneExperience é uma ” oportunidade de negócio para as áreas tecnológicas e para dinamizar a criação de novas empresas e postos de trabalho”.

A entrada no iDroneExperience tem um preço de 3 euros (bilhete de três dias) e 1,5 euros o bilhete diário sendo que até aos 12 anos a entrada é gratuita.

Fonte: JN


Mais info: http://www.idroneexperience.com/


image: bresslergroup

When you talk about ROI (Return on Investment), of usability in a company, applied to a product or a service, several questions arise:

In this article we intend to address these issues by clarifying some concepts, suggesting practices to be implemented, finally, illustrating with some examples.


The confusion between terms like “User Experience (UX)” and “Usability” is frequent. While UX is a comprehensive definition that covers all aspects of user interaction with the brand, its services or end products, usability is directly related to the observation and quantification of performance (effectiveness and efficiency), the learning process and satisfaction during the interaction or use of a particular interface or product at certain points in its development process. Simply put, we can consider UX as the emotional side of a service or product, and Usability as its most rational and methodical side.


Image translation:

Rational | Emotional

Usability User Experience

Observation | Task performance | Satisfaction questionnaire | Interaction | Experience quality


For a product to be truly successful, the design must be user-centered – taking into account its needs, capabilities and limitations – but should reflect the company’s business objectives. For this,

usability teams should be responsible for fueling the user-centered design process as well as collaborating directly with the implementation teams including usability practices and metrics in the development process.


It is also important to differentiate the concepts of “Marketing research” and “User Research“. While the former refers to the definition of market trends and definition of target audiences, creating consumer needs and new business models; the second refers to the set of empirical methodologies that gather information about the user, quantify and analyze behavior, and more objectively identify their needs and characteristics.

Sell Usability

In 2002, Don Norman suggested that Usability analysts learn to convert their work into ROI. On the other hand, Oracle Corporation’s Daniel Rosenberg criticizes this cost vs. gain approach, referring to it as reducing. However, in some companies, the implementation of usability and user-experience projects are dependent on previous ROI reviews, as is the case with eBay.

When a project’s budget begins to face contingencies, it is usually the usability services that are the first to be waived – that is, considering that they are included at all in the project definition phase. Jim Ross recently said that delivering these services was like maintaining a healthy diet or exercising: Everyone recognizes its importance, but most do not do it. The justifications range from “I know the users and I know what they want” to “then we explain better in the manual”.

Based on these assumptions, there are two main ways to demonstrate the real value that usability can have in a business: (1) translate usability into ROI, e.g. to realize financial gains and / or (2) show, through examples, the benefits of applying a user-centered design.


Image translation:

ROI: benefits of applying a user-centered design

Quantify Usability

Quantifying usability is particularly important because it is the most effective way of communicating with the stakeholders of the product or service being evaluated. In addition, the development of metrics and tools allow us to compare different solutions or to estimate the magnitude and impact of a usability problem.

These metrics become even more useful if they can directly illustrate and communicate usability ROI, whether through increased sales, lead creation, adoption of the product or technology, or customer satisfaction itself that can be translated into identification and loyalty with the brand.

A common estimate is that each dollar invested in usability in the design phase of the project would cost $ 10 in the development phase and $ 100 in the implementation phase.

The usual arguments are to include usability as early as possible in the product development process, but even when applied at the end of the process, a summative test can identify many problems and give 70 to 100 improvement recommendations.

Usability implementation costs mainly go through salaries, operation, equipment, place for testing, recruitment and payment to participants, and planning time. These costs can be compared to the “frustration costs” derived from poor design of the product or service, such as increased expenses, lost revenues, lost productivity, and wasted development time.

The gains are extended by increased online and offline sales; in the case of websites, increased conversions from visitor to consumer, increased number of visitors, of time on site, return on advertising; reduction in customer support; reduction of training needs, documentation and maintenance; increased confidence in the brand, product or service. You can also use performance measures such as the time required to perform tasks such as login, client plug-in creation, etc.

Case Studies

The 300 million button

On the website of a large online trading company, a page had a common form, with the “Login” or “Register” fields. This form appears after selecting the items to be purchased and clicking on the “Checkout” button. It appeared before they included the information to pay for the product.

The goal was to allow repeat customers to buy faster, and “new customers would not mind making a record.”

Usability tests were done, and it turned out that, in fact, new customers really cared about registration. The form only made the purchases faster to a very small number of customers, that is, the form had the opposite effect: it prevented sales.

The proposed solution was simple. The “Register” button was removed and the “Continue” button was inserted with the message “It is not necessary to create an account to purchase products on our site. Click the “Continue” button to proceed to checkout. To make your purchases in the future even faster, you can create an account during checkout. ”

After the change, the number of customers completing purchases increased by 45%, resulting in an extra $ 15 million in the first month.

The “Search” button at IBM

On IBM’s website, the most commonly used feature was “Search” since the site was difficult to navigate. The second was “Help,” because research was usually ineffective. The solution went through a 10-week effort to redesign the site, which involved more than 100 employees with an estimated cost of millions of dollars.

In the first week after launching the new site, the use of the “Help” button decreased by 84% and sales increased by 400%.

Walmart’s $ 1.85 billion dollar error

In 2008, the North American chain Wallmart launched the project “Impacto” that aimed at a great change in strategy and user experience inside its stores. Customers mentioned in questionnaire to prefer halls with fewer products, and more free space. Wallmart reviewed its variety policy at low prices, and reduced inventory in stores by 15%. In this remodeling, they removed the products placed in the center of the corridors, some storefronts and shortened the shelves.

In addition to the cost of remodeling the infrastructure, there was an immediate loss in sales, which totalled $ 1.85 billion.

The need to observe users interacting with the product, not just questioning it, remains latent in these examples. “Know your user” should be the motto of any service or product.

Usability in Practices and Processes

The earlier and iterative the process, the more impact it will have on development practices and the more obvious the ROI will become.


Know the company, the processes and the business model

We understand that in many companies the way to reach these numbers is not straightforward or easy to calculate, because in some businesses or products the results may not be as tangible. To do this, in the information and needs assessment phase, the business objectives and development process must be clearly communicated to the usability team and the metrics discussed.

Definition of usability requirements

User needs should be “translated” into system / product requirements from the beginning of the process, into the requirements phase or into an initial sprint, depending on the project management methodology used.

Results presentation

The usability team should deliver results in a straightforward and quick-to-understand way that addresses the user’s needs but at the same time addresses specific issues related to business objectives and ideally speeds the development process. In this way the results should be transmitted in a simple, objective and with an adequate timing regarding the project planning. The earlier and iterative the process, the more impact it will have on development practices and the more obvious the ROI will become. All stakeholders, both those responsible for development and project management, should be included in this process because they bring different objectives, priorities and indicators to the discussion.


Vu, K., & Proctor, R. (2011). Handbook of human factors in Web design.








About the authors:


Joana Vieira


Sandra Mouta