CF PASCAL. Participants, were assigned to either the interactive batch run IBM mainframe or an interactive syntax-directed editor programming environment on an IBM PC. They evaluated the environment they had used during the first 6 weeks of the course (version 3.0). Then, for the next 6 weeks, the participants switched programming environments and evaluated the new system with the QUIS Version 4.0. Although version 4.0 appeared to be reliable, there were limitations to the study due to sampling. The sample of the users doing the evaluation were limited to those in an academic community. There was a clear need to determine if the reliability of the QUIS would generalize to other populations of users and products, like a local PC User's Group. Version 5.0 Another study using QUIS Version 5.0 was carried out with a local PC User's Group. In order to look at ratings across products, the participants were divided into 4 groups. Each group rated a different product. The products were: a product the rater liked a product the rater disliked a command line system (CLS) a Menu Driven Application (MDA) This investigation examined the reliability and discriminability of the questionnaire. In terms of discriminability, the researchers compared the ratings for software that was liked vs. the ratings for the software that was disliked. Lastly, a comparison between a mandatory CLS with that of a voluntarily chosen MDA was made. The researchers found that the overall reliability of QUIS Version 5.0 using Cronbach's alpha was .939. Version 5.5 Even though the QUIS Version 5.0 was a powerful tool for interface evaluation, interface issues limited the utility of the on-line version. Previous versions of the QUIS have been laid out in a very linear fashion, in which one question would be shown on each screen. However, this format is unable to capture the hierarchical nature of the question sets in the QUIS. This in turn limits the continuity between questions. QUIS 5.5 presented related sets of questions on the same screen. This helped improve question continuity within a set and reduced the amount of time subjects would spend navigating between questions. Users of the QUIS often avoided the on-line version because it failed to record specific user comments about the system. This was not acceptable since these comments are often vital for usability testing. In response to this need, QUIS Version 5.5 collected and stored comments online for each