1 / 60

User Studies Methods

User Studies Methods Feb 01, 2007 Case Studies Chameleon Case Study: Chameleon Design proposal introducing new user interface metaphor Case Study: Chameleon Iterative Design Paper prototype -> Visual Basic -> Implement Increasingly refined prototypes Evaluation of each prototype

paul2
Download Presentation

User Studies Methods

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. User Studies Methods Feb 01, 2007

  2. Case Studies • Chameleon

  3. Case Study: Chameleon • Design proposal introducing new user interface metaphor

  4. Case Study: Chameleon • Iterative Design • Paper prototype -> Visual Basic -> Implement • Increasingly refined prototypes • Evaluation of each prototype

  5. Chameleon Study #1 • Understand feasibility of basic idea • How people used security features • Explicit vs implicit role switching • Used paper prototype • Recruited 10 people from campus • Unclear, but presumably typical users w/o extensive computer experience

  6. Chameleon Study #1 • “We recruited 10 people from around our campus to use the paper prototype while we observed them ad listened to their comments about what they found confusing, easy, difficult, helpful, etc.” • “Participants also filled out a web-based questionnaire about their experiences using the prototype”

  7. Chameleon Study #1 • Fairly typical of an early formative study • Formative means early stages of design • Summative means later stages (timing data) • Lots of qualitative feedback • Useful for early stages • Should be able to notice major issues w/o having to do extensive analysis • Little unclear what the tasks were • Specific tasks to understand usability • Freeform tasks to understand utility

  8. Chameleon Study #1 • Web survey useful too • Lots of positive and negative comments • Always a good idea to do a survey • Helped flesh out major issues • Switching roles needed to be improved • User motivation issues • Names of roles

  9. Chameleon Study #1 • Comments: • Good to show alternative designs after such a study • People not as good evaluating a single design, better to show alternatives and have them compare differences

  10. Chameleon Study #2 • Drilling down on the UI • How people should perform key operations • Ex. Moving a file from one role to another • Roughly three designs per operation • Within-subjects design (each person tries all) • How to address learning effects?

  11. Chameleon Study #3 • Visual Basic prototype • More refined prototype let them study issuesmore in-depth than possible with paper • Injected an “attack”, window that appeared to be in certain role but was in another • One issue with security studies is timing, may want people to become comfortable and then see if they notice and how they react • Few participants noticed 

  12. Chameleon: General Comments • Start simple and with big issues first • Progressively refine the prototypes • Don’t drill down to small issues until needed • UI design studies should inject an attack • See whether people notice • Can try various UIs to compare effectiveness

  13. Kazaa File Sharing Study • Good and Krekelberg, CHI 2003 • Could people understand what files were downloadable by others? • Found lots of people sharing inbox.dbx • Found that some people were downloading a fake inbox.dbx file

  14. Kazaa Cognitive Walkthrough • Cognitive Walkthrough • Put yourself in shoes of users and try to use the interface from their perspective • Somewhat effective approach, depends on ability of person to see other perspectives • Problem #1: Multiple names for similar things • My Shared Folder - a folder + all shared files • My Media - all shared files by media type • My Kazaa - all shared files by media type • Folder for downloaded files - root folder of all shared files

  15. Kazaa Cognitive Walkthrough Problem 2: Downloaded files are also shared files Problem 3: Kazaa recursively shares folders

  16. Kazaa Cognitive Walkthrough Problem 4: Can select a folder, but what files are inside? Error-prone approach. Also risk with recursive folders.

  17. Kazaa Cognitive Walkthrough Note: Gives one-time warning if you select an entire hard drive

  18. Kazaa Cognitive Walkthrough • Problem 5: Inconsistent views • Two UIs for doing similar tasks, but show different information about state of system

  19. Cognitive Walkthru Discussion • Fairly effective technique • May be useful to apply multiple times from multiple perspectives • Parent who has things to protect • Teen who wants to download music • May have false positives • Probably best to do cog walkthru with multiple people, combine issues, and triage • Importance (not a problem -> catastrophe) • Cost (trivial -> major rework)

  20. Kazaa File Sharing Study • 12 users, 10 had used file sharing before • Figure out what files being shared by Kazaa • Download files set to C:\ (ie all files) • Results • 5 people thought it was “My Shared Folder” • which one UI did suggest

  21. Kazaa File Sharing Study • 12 users, 10 had used file sharing before • Figure out what files being shared by Kazaa • Download files set to C:\ (ie all files) • Results • 5 people thought it was “My Shared Folder” • which one UI did suggest • 2 people used Find Files to find all shared files • This UI had no files checked, thus no files shared?

  22. Kazaa File Sharing Study • Results • 5 people thought it was “My Shared Folder” • which one UI did suggest • 2 people used Find Files to find all shared files • This UI had no files checked, thus no files shared? • 2 people used help, said “My Shared Folder” • 1 person couldn’t figure it out at all • Only 2 people got it right

  23. Kazaa File Sharing Study • 12 participants a little low, though results strong enough to indicate big problems • Could have tried to verify cognitive walkthrough issues • Could have tried to test people’s ability to configure system (defaults important!) • Interesting point: • Had to set up system to prevent any actual sharing of files • We’ve had similar issues wrt phishing

  24. Are people still accidentally sharing files? • A rough & ready experiment by your friendly instructor (2006) • eMule (open source) • Combines eDonkey and Kad file sharing Different from FastTrack (Kazaa file sharing) • eMule stats • Downloaded by over 85 million people • 5.3 mil people / 633 mil files on eDonkey • 1.7 mil people / 300 mil files on Kad

  25. eMule File Sharing UI

  26. Design Model User Model System Image Putting Them Together • Lessons from Chameleon + Kazaa • Examples of how to run user studies • Not the most rigorous studies, but good enough to demonstrate main point • Examples of mental models

  27. Other General Comments • Inform people that it’s a security study? • Can’t get useful results if informed • Ethics of not informing people • Involves some element of deception • Phishing studies framed as email studies • Golden rule useful here: treat people as you would like to be treated

  28. Heuristic Evaluation • Mentioned in “Why Johnny Can’t Encrypt” • Similar to cognitive walkthrough • Helps find usability problems in a UI design • Can perform on working UI or on sketches • Small set (3-5) of evaluators examine UI • independently check for compliance with usability principles (“heuristics”) • different evaluators will find different problems • evaluators combine findings afterwards

  29. Why Multiple Evaluators? • Every evaluator doesn’t find every problem • Good evaluators find both easy & hard ones

  30. Heuristic Evaluation Process • Evaluators go through UI several times • inspect various dialogs and screens • compare with heuristics and other usability principles • “Standard” set of heuristics • Can also create domain-specific heuristics • competitive analysis & user testing of existing products • Use violations to redesign/fix problems

  31. searching database for matches Heuristic H2-1 • H2-1: Visibility of system status • keep users informed about what is going on • example: pay attention to response time • 0.1 sec: no special indicators needed, why? • 1.0 sec: user tends to lose track of data • 10 sec: max. duration if user to stay focused on action • for longer delays, use percent-done progress bars

  32. Heuristic H2-2 • H2-2: Match between system & real world • speak the users’ language • follow real world conventions • Example: Mac desktop • Dragging disk to trash • should delete it, not eject it • finally fixed in Mac OS X

  33. Heuristic H2-3 • H2-3: User control & freedom • “exits” for mistaken choices, undo, redo • don’t force down fixed paths • like that BART machine…

  34. Heuristic H2-4 • H2-4: Consistency & standards

  35. Heuristic H2-5 • H2-5: Error prevention

  36. Heuristic H2-6 • H2-6: Recognition rather than recall • make objects, actions, options, & directions visible or easily retrievable

  37. Heuristic H2-7 • H2-7: Flexibility and efficiency of use • accelerators for experts (e.g., gestures, kb shortcuts) • allow users to tailor frequent actions (e.g., macros)

  38. Heuristic H2-8 • H2-8: Aesthetic and minimalist design • no irrelevant information in dialogues

  39. Heuristic H2-9 • H2-9: Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors • error messages in plain language • precisely indicate the problem • constructively suggest a solution

More Related