# The Human-Centredness Metric: Early Assessment of the Quality of Human-Centred Design Activities
## 3 Results
### Assessment of Concepts
A further representation of the results, extracted from SPSS(r), can be seen in Figure 6; the associated descriptive statistics' values can be found in detail in Table 1. Here, the mean values of the metric per human-centred design goal are listed individually and as a sum value (M_HumanCentredness) sorted by the methods used. For this mean calculation, the Likert scale was converted into metric values, i.e., probably fulfilled = 4, rather fulfilled = 3, rather not fulfilled = 2, probably not fulfilled = 1. Individual items marked as not applicable were excluded from the mean calculation. The minimum value for the overall human-centredness score (M_HumanCentredness) was thus lowest for the concepts without the additional use of human-centred methods (M = 3.3, SD = 0.05) and highest for the concepts for which the Universal Design Principles (M1) were additionally used (M = 3.55, SD = 0.25); in the latter, however, the standard deviation was also higher. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Additional Method**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**N**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Std. Deviation**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Variance**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Statistic** & **Statistic** & **Std. Error** & **Statistic** & **Statistic** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{M0: None} & M\_Usability & 4 & 3.17 & 0.070 & 0.140 & 0.020 \\  & M\_UserExperience & 4 & 3.26 & 0.121 & 0.242 & 0.059 \\  & M\_Accessibility & 4 & 3.00 & 0.117 & 0.233 & 0.054 \\  & M\_UseRelatedDamage & 4 & 3.62 & 0.160 & 0.320 & 0.103 \\  & M\_HumanCentredness & 4 & 3.30 & 0.028 & 0.055 & 0.003 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{M1: Universal} & M\_Usability & 4 & 3.62 & 0.097 & 0.194 & 0.038 \\  & M\_UserExperience & 4 & 3.39 & 0.199 & 0.399 & 0.159 \\ \cline{1-1}  & M\_Accessibility & 4 & 3.43 & 0.130 & 0.261 & 0.068 \\ \cline{1-1}  & M\_UseRelatedDamage & 4 & 3.63 & 0.187 & 0.374 & 0.140 \\ \cline{1-1}  & M\_HumanCentredness & 4 & 3.55 & 0.126 & 0.252 & 0.063 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{M2: Persona} & M\_Usability & 4 & 3.52 & 0.126 & 0.251 & 0.063 \\  & M\_UserExperience & 4 & 3.37 & 0.095 & 0.190 & 0.036 \\ \cline{1-1}  & M\_Accessibility & 4 & 3.36 & 0.180 & 0.360 & 0.129 \\ \cline{1-1}  & M\_UseRelatedDamage & 4 & 3.60 & 0.176 & 0.352 & 0.124 \\ \cline{1-1}  & M\_HumanCentredness & 4 & 3.51 & 0.040 & 0.079 & 0.006 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{M3: Dialogue} & M\_Usability & 4 & 3.57 & 0.101 & 0.203 & 0.041 \\ \cline{1-1}  & M\_UserExperience & 4 & 3.22 & 0.122 & 0.245 & 0.060 \\ \cline{1-1}  & M\_Accessibility & 4 & 3.32 & 0.090 & 0.178 & 0.032 \\ \cline{1-1}  & M\_UseRelatedDamage & 4 & 3.63 & 0.176 & 0.352 & 0.124 \\ \cline{1-1}  & M\_HumanCentredness & 4 & 3.49 & 0.103 & 0.206 & 0.043 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive statistics on the fulfilment of human-centred design goals, sorted by the additional methods used. Figure 6: Mean values of human-centred design goals sorted by the additional methods used. In this evaluation, tendencies with regard to the differences between the mean values are no longer so clearly visible. The mean values for the usability items (M_Usability) still show the clearest differences (Figure 6, red bars); the mean value without additional methods (M0) is M = 3.17, while it is at least M = 3.52 for the concepts with additional methods (Table 1). The mean values for accessibility (M_Accessibility) also indicate a slight positive trend due to additional method use (Figure 6, green bars); the mean value without additional methods (M0) is M = 3.0, while, for the concepts with additional methods, it is M = 3.32 and higher (Table 1). The mean values for the avoidance of use-related damage (M_UseRelatedDamage), on the other hand, do not indicate any change due to different methods (Figure 6, light blue bars); all mean values are around M \(\approx\) 3.6 (Table 1).