手法を比較

	インタラクション等価性	コグニティブ・ウォークスルー
分野	ヒューマンコンピュータインタラクション	ヒューマンコンピュータインタラクション
系統	Hypothesis test	Hypothesis test
提唱年	2013	1990
提唱者	Shari Trewin, IBM Research	Clayton Lewis, Peter Polson, Cathleen Wharton, John Rieman
種類	Evaluation method validating functional equivalency across alternative interaction modalities	Evaluative walkthrough examining how users learn to use an interface
原典	Trewin, S. (2013). The Interaction Equivalency Principle in assistive technology and universal design. In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 535–544). Springer.	Lewis, C., Polson, P. G., Wharton, C., & Rieman, J. (1990). Testing a walkthrough methodology for specifying and evaluating user interface designs. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 387–392).
別名	Equivalent Interaction Design, Alternative Input Validation	Cognitive Walkthrough, CW Analysis
関連	3	4
概要	Interaction Equivalency is an evaluation method for validating that alternative input and output modalities (voice, gesture, eye tracking, switch control) provide functionally equivalent access to system capabilities compared to standard input (keyboard, mouse). Developed by Shari Trewin, this method ensures that assistive and alternative interaction methods do not create barriers or diminish user capability. Rather than retrofitting accessibility as an afterthought, Interaction Equivalency assesses multi-modal design at design time, ensuring users with disabilities can access all functionality with comparable efficiency.	Cognitive Walkthrough is an inspection method for evaluating interface designs by simulating and analyzing how users will learn to use a system through exploration and trial. Developed by Clayton Lewis, Peter Polson, Cathleen Wharton, and John Rieman in 1990, this method is grounded in cognitive psychology and focuses specifically on learnability—whether first-time or occasional users can discover how to perform tasks without formal training. Evaluators role-play user actions, answer a set of critical questions about feedback and discovery at each step, and document usability problems.