1 / 19

Erfaringer med Remote Usability Testing?

Erfaringer med Remote Usability Testing?. Jan Stage Professor, PhD Forskningsleder i Informationssystemer (IS)/Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) Aalborg Universitet, Institut for Datalogi, HCI-Lab jans@cs.aau.dk. Oversigt. Undersøgelse 1 Undersøgelse 2. Oversigt.

bibiana-cesar
Download Presentation

Erfaringer med Remote Usability Testing?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Erfaringer med Remote Usability Testing? Jan Stage Professor, PhD Forskningsleder i Informationssystemer (IS)/Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) Aalborg Universitet, Institut for Datalogi, HCI-Lab jans@cs.aau.dk

  2. Oversigt • Undersøgelse 1 • Undersøgelse 2

  3. Oversigt • Undersøgelse 1: synkron eller asynkron • Metode • Resultater • Konklusion • Undersøgelse 2

  4. Empirical Study 1 • Four methods: LAB – RS – AE – AU • Test subjects: 6 in each condition (18 users and 6 with usability expertise), all students at Aalborg University • System: Email client (Mozilla Thunderbird 1.5) • 9 defined tasks (typical email functions) • Setting, procedure and data collection in accordance with method • Data analysis: 24 outputs were analysed by three persons in random and different order • Generated their individual lists of usability problems with their own categorizations (also for the AE and AU conditions) • These were merged into an overall problem list through negotiation

  5. Results: Task Completion • No significant difference in task completion • Significant difference in task completion time • The users in the two asynchronous conditions spent considerably more time • We do not know the reason

  6. Results: Usability Problems Identified • A total of 46 usability problems • No significant difference between LAB and RS • AE/AU identified significantly fewer problems, also critical problems • No significant difference between AE and AU in terms of problems identified

  7. Conclusion • RS is the most widely described and used remote method. The performance is virtually equivalent to LAB (or slightly better) • AE and AU perform surprisingly well • Experts do not perform significantly better than users • Video analysis (LAB and RS) required considerably more evaluator effort than the user-based reporting (AU and AE) • Users can actually contribute to usability evaluation – not with the same quality, but reasonably well, and there are plenty of them

  8. Oversigt • Undersøgelse 1 • Undersøgelse 2: hvilken asynkron metode • Metode • Resultater • Konklusion

  9. Empirical Study 2 • Purpose: examine and compare remote asynchronous methods • Focus on usability problems identified • Comparable with the previous study • Selection of asynchronous methods based on literature survey

  10. The 3 Remote Asynchronous Methods • User-reported critical incident (UCI) • Well-defined method (Castillo et al. CHI 1998) • Forum-based online reporting and discussion (Forum) • Assumption: through collaboration participants may give input which increases data quality and richness (Thompson, 1999) • A source for collecting qualitative data in a study of auto logging (Millen, 1999): the participants turned out to report detailed usability feedback • Diary-based longitudinal user reporting (Diary) • Used on a longitudinal basis for participants in a study of auto logging to provide qualitative information (Steves et al. CSCW 2001) • First day: same tasks as the other conditions (first part of diary delivered) • Four more days: new tasks (same type) sent daily (complete diary delivered) • Conventional user-based laboratory test (Lab) • Included as benchmark

  11. Empirical Study (1) • Participants: • 40 test subjects, 10 for each condition • Students, age 20 to 30 • Distributed evenly: gender and tech/non-tech education • Setting: • LAB: in our usability lab • Remote asynchronous: in the participants’ homes • Participants in the remote asynchronous conditions received the software and installed it on their computer • Training material for the remote asynchronous conditions • Identification and categorisation of usability problems • A minimalist approach that was strictly remote and asynchronous (via email)

  12. Empirical Study (2) • Tasks: • Nine fixed tasks • The same across the four conditions to ensure that all participants used the same parts of the system • Typical email tasks (same as previous study) • Data collection in accordance with the method • LAB: video recordings • UCI: web-based system for generating problem descriptions while solving tasks • Forum: after solving tasks, one week for posting and discussing problems • Diary: a diary with no imposed structure; first part after the first day

  13. Data Analysis • All data collected before the data analysis started • 3 evaluators did the whole data analysis • The 40 data sets were analysed by the 3 evaluators • In random order: by a draw • In different order between them • The user input from the three remote conditions was transformed into usability problem descriptions • Each evaluator generated his/her own individual lists of usability problems with their own severity ratings • A problem list for each condition • A complete problem list (joined) • These were merged into an overall problem list through negotiation

  14. Results: Task Completion Time • Considerable variation in task completion times • Participants in the remote conditions worked in their home at a time they selected • For each task there was a hint that allowed them to check if they had solved the task correctly • As we have no data on the task solving process in the remote conditions, we cannot explain this variation

  15. Results: Usability Problems Identified • LAB: significantly better than the 3 remote conditions • UCI-Forum: no significant difference • UCI-Diary: significant overall: Diary – also significant on cosmetic • Forum-Diary: significant overall: Diary – not significant on any level

  16. Results: Evaluator Effort • The sum for all evaluators involved in each activity • Time for finding test subjects is not included (8h, common for all) • Task specifications from an earlier study. Preparation in the remote conditions: work out written instructions • Considerable differences between the remote conditions for analysis and merging of problem lists

  17. Conclusion • The three remote methods performed significantly below the classical lab test in terms of the number of usability problems identified • The Diary was the best remote method – it identified half of the problems found in the Lab condition • UCI and Forum performed similarly for critical problems but worse for serious problems • UCI and Forum took 13% of the lab test. Diary took 30% • The productivity of the remote methods was considerably higher

  18. Interaktionsdesign og usability-evaluering Master i IT Videreuddannelse under IT-Vest Fagpakke i Interaktionsdesign og usability-evaluering starter 1/2-12 Optager bachelorer, men også indgang for datamatikere Information: http://www.master-it-vest.dk/

More Related