Jordanian Journal of Informatics and Computing

ISSN: 3080-6828 (Online)

MUMSPI: A Model for Usability Measurement of Single-Platform Interface for Multi-Tasking in Big Data Tools

by 

Mony Ho ;

Sokroeurn Ang ;

Sopheaktra Huy ;

Midhunchakkaravarthy Janarthanan

PDF logoPDF

Published: 2026

Abstract

This study presents MUMSPI, a model to evaluate the usability of a single-platform interface that supports multi-tasking, compared to command line interface (CLI) in Big Data workflows. Eighty IT participants performed the same tasks using Hadoop, Sqoop, and Python through two interfaces: the Linux Terminal and Jupyter Notebook. Usability was measured across five dimensions such as effectiveness, efficiency, learnability, robustness, and satisfaction. Results show that Jupyter outperformed the Terminal in all areas, with higher task completion (85.18%), faster execution (38.33 minutes), fewer errors (35.12%), and better user satisfaction (SUS score: 70.31%). Overall MUMSPI scores were 74.03% for Jupyter and 45.95% for the Terminal. These results confirm MUMSPI’s value and support the use of integrated graphical environments for better usability, especially for users with limited technical skills.

Keywords

Big Data tools usabilityMUMSPI modelsingle-platform interfaceJupyter Notebookmulti-tasking workflows

Doi Link

https://doi.org/10.63180/jjic.thestap.2026.1.1

How to Cite the Article

Ho, M., Ang, S., Huy, S., Janarthanan, M., & . (2026). MUMSPI: A Model for Usability Measurement of Single-Platform Interface for Multi-Tasking in Big Data Tools. Jordanian Journal of Informatics and Computing, 2026(1), 1–14.https://doi.org/10.63180/jjic.thestap.2026.1.1

MUMSPI: A Model for Usability Measurement of Single-Platform Interface for Multi-Tasking in Big Data Tools is licensed under CC BY 4.0CCBY

References

  1. Madden, S. (2012). From databases to big data. IEEE Internet Computing, 16(3), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2012.50
  2. Anuradha, J. (2015). A brief introduction on Big Data 5Vs characteristics and Hadoop technology. Procedia computer science, 48, 319-324.
  3. Xu, Z., Shi, D., & Tu, Z. (2021). Research on diagnostic information of smart medical care based on big data. Journal of Healthcare Engineering, 2021, Article 9977358. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9977358
  4. Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017
  5. Luengo, J., García-Gil, D., Ramírez-Gallego, S., García, S., & Herrera, F. (2020). Big data preprocessing. Cham: Springer, 1, 1-186.
  6. Soibam, B., & Roman, G. (2024). PySmooth: A Python tool for the removal and correction of genotyping errors. BMC Research Notes, 17, Article 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-024-06753-4
  7. Perkel, J. M. (2018). Why Jupyter is data scientists' computational notebook of choice. Nature, 563(7732), 145-147. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07196-1
  8. Thomas, R., & Cholia, S. (2021). Interactive supercomputing with Jupyter. Computing in science & engineering, 23(2), 93-98. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2021.3059037
  9. Johnson, J. W. (2020, October). Benefits and pitfalls of jupyter notebooks in the classroom. In Proceedings of the 21st annual conference on information technology education (pp. 32-37).
  10. Randles, B. M., Pasquetto, I. V., Golshan, M. S., & Borgman, C. L. (2017, June). Using the Jupyter notebook as a tool for open science: An empirical study. In 2017 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL) (pp. 1-2). IEEE.
  11. Barba, L. A. (2021). The python/jupyter ecosystem: Today’s problem-solving environment for computational science. Computing in Science & Engineering, 23(3), 5-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2021.3074693
  12. Granger, B. E., & Pérez, F. (2021). Jupyter: Thinking and storytelling with code and data. Computing in Science & Engineering, 23(2), 7-14.
  13. Vista, F. P., IV, & Chong, K. T. (2019). Design and real‐time implementation of a 3‐stage CnW heading system on an Ubuntu Linux‐embedded board. Journal of Sensors, 2019, Article ID 1345202. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1345202
  14. Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 1096–1100. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.1096
  15. Ali, M. I., Qadir, J., Rasool, R. U., Sathiaseelan, A., Zwitter, A., & Crowcroft, J. (2018). Big data‐driven smart transportation: A review. IEEE Access, 6, 42211–42258. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2868771
  16. Chung, W.-C., Chen, C.-C., Ho, J.-M., Lin, C.-Y., Hsu, W.-L., Wang, Y.-C., Lee, D. T., Lai, F., Huang, C.-W., & Chang, Y.-J. (2014). CloudDOE: A user-friendly tool for deploying Hadoop clouds and analyzing high-throughput sequencing data with MapReduce. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e98146. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098146
  17. González-García, A., de Amescua, A., & García-Holgado, A. (2023). Design and implementation of a graphical interface for command line-based data processing pipelines. Applied Sciences, 13(3), 1183. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031183
  18. Li, K., & Gui, N. (2020). CMS: A continuous machine-learning and serving platform for industrial big data. Future Internet, 12(6), 102. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12060102
  19. Oestreich, M., Holsten, L., Agrawal, S., Dahm, K., Koch, P., Jin, H., Becker, M., & Ulas, T. (2024). hCoCena: A toolbox for network-based co-expression analysis and horizontal integration of transcriptomic datasets. Software Impacts, 19, 100663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpa.2024.100663
  20. Kumwichar, P. (2023). Enhancing learning about epidemiological data analysis using R for graduate students in medical fields with Jupyter Notebook: Classroom action research. JMIR Medical Education, 9, e47394. https://doi.org/10.2196/47394
  21. Granger, B. E., & Pérez, F. (2021). Jupyter: Thinking and storytelling with code and data. Computing in Science & Engineering, 23(2), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2021.3059263
  22. Nguyen, H., Case, D. A., & Rose, A. S. (2018). NGLview-Interactive molecular graphics for Jupyter notebooks. Bioinformatics, 34(7), 1241-1242. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx789
  23. Bussonnier, M., Freeman, J., Haven, T., Head, T., Holdgraf, C., Kelley, K., Nalvarte, G., Osheroff, A., Pacer, M., Panda, Y., Pérez, F., Ragan-Kelley, B., Willing, C., & Grout, J. (2021). JupyterHub: A multi-user server for Jupyter notebooks. Software Impacts, 9, 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpa.2021.100072
  24. Nielsen, J. (1995). 10 usability heuristics for user interface design. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/
  25. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 9241-11:2018 – Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. https://www.iso.org/standard/63500.html
  26. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & A. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). London: Taylor & Francis.
  27. Castellan, C. M. (2010). Quantitative and qualitative research: A view for clarity. International journal of education, 2(2), 1.
  28. Singh, A. S., & Masuku, M. B. (2014). Sampling techniques & determination of sample size in applied statistics research: An overview. International Journal of economics, commerce and management, 2(11), 1-22.
  29. Liu, Z., & Yang, Y. (2025). Fundamental usability evaluation in visualization: Integrating Nielsen’s principles and the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(20), 13012-13040.
  30. Bevan, N., Carter, J., & Harker, S. (2015, July). ISO 9241-11 revised: What have we learnt about usability since 1998?. In International conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 143-151). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  31. Lewis, J. R. (2018). The system usability scale: past, present, and future. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 34(7), 577-590.
  32. Mikropoulos, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & education, 56(3), 769-780.
  33. Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2013). Experimental research methods. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 1007-1029). Routledge.
  34. Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Mixed methods research. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 305-306.
  35. Hasan, M. K. H., & Kumar, L. K. (2024). Determining adequate sample size for social survey research: sample size for social survey research. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University, 22(2), 146-157.
  36. Rasmussen, J., Damsgaard, M., & Voigt, M. (2001). Muscle recruitment by the min/max criterion-a comparative numerical study. Journal of biomechanics, 34(3), 409-415.
  37. Ibrahim, A., Kadhim, A. F., Hamzah, A. E., & Al-Shareeda, M. A. (2026). A secure and scalable IoT home automation architecture with web and biometric control. International Journal of Cybersecurity Engineering and Innovation, 2026(1).