ANALISIS KOMPARATIF STANDAR PROFESI GLOBAL DALAM PENGEMBANGAN ANTARMUKA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69714/q5x91837Keywords:
Human-Computer Interaction, Professional Standards, ISO 9241-110, Comparative Analysis, Interface DevelopmentAbstract
The rapid advancement in human-computer interaction demands rigorous professional standardization to ensure the quality and ethics of interface development globally. This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of global professional standards, with a primary focus on ISO 9241-110 and the rapidly evolving artificial intelligence (AI) interaction guidelines between 2020 and 2025. Using the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) method, this research evaluates relevant literature to identify convergences and divergences between conventional interface design principles and the requirements of modern adaptive interaction. The analysis results indicate that while classical ergonomic principles remain the core foundation, there is a significant shift toward more flexible standards in handling Human-AI interaction. These findings provide insights for information system practitioners and developers in adopting international standards appropriate to the current technological context. In conclusion, the integration between traditional ISO standards and the latest AI guidelines is essential to create interfaces that are not only user-friendly but also professionally accountable.
References
[1] Alief Renaldy and Evy Nurmiati, “Penerapan kecerdasan buatan,” Jurnal Masyarakat Informatika, vol. 13, pp. 59–69, 2022.
[2] E. Nurmiati and E. Saputri, “Penerapan usability pada aplikasi C-Access KAI Commuter menggunakan metode System Usability Scale,” Jurnal Perangkat Lunak, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 275–286, 2024, doi: 10.32520/jupel.v6i2.3293.
[3] F. Aulia, N. Khairi, and M. K. Gibran, “Literature review on future technology trends in user interface development in human computer interaction,” Jurnal Kendali Teknik dan Sains, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 37–46, 2025, doi: 10.59581/jkts-widyakarya.v3i2.5033.
[4] ISO, Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction—Part 110: Interaction Principles (ISO 9241-110). Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2020.
[5] E. L. Pop and A. Ratiu, “Human-computer interaction in artificial intelligence with applications in healthcare: A review,” Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 393, pp. 49–57, 2024, doi: 10.3233/FAIA241213.
[6] R. Rachmawati, “Pengenalan metode systematic literature review (SLR),” Pelatihan Pemanfaatan Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1–30, 2024.
[7] R. S. Prudente, R. G. Avenido, J. M. Bacongco, and R. Salo, “Brain Engagement and Assistance Companion (BEACON): A cognitive support system for elderly individuals in Tupi, South Cotabato,” International Journal of Science and Research Archive, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 904–921, 2025, doi: 10.30574/ijsra.2025.17.2.3068.
[8] E. Triandini, S. Jayanatha, A. Indrawan, G. W. Putra, and B. Iswara, “Metode systematic literature review untuk identifikasi platform dan metode pengembangan sistem informasi di Indonesia,” Indonesian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 63, 2019, doi: 10.24002/ijis.v1i2.1916.
[9] G. Vindigni, “Enhancing human-computer interaction in socially inclusive contexts: Flow heuristics and AI systems in compliance with DIN EN ISO 9241 standards,” European Journal of Contemporary Education and E-Learning, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 115–139, 2024, doi: 10.59324/ejceel.2024.2(4).10.
[10] P. Wright et al., “A comparative analysis of industry human-AI interaction guidelines,” 2020. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.11761
[11] Wu and H. Xu, “Harmonizing human-computer interaction: Exploring evolution and integration in media and computing,” Applied and Computational Engineering, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2024, doi: 10.54254/2755-2721/106/20240910.
[12] Zhao and W. Xu, Handbook of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, “Human-AI interaction design standards,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16472
[13] D. Moher et al., “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement,” PLoS Med., vol. 6, no. 7, 2009, doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jurnal Riset Teknik Komputer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
