1 / 62

Usability and Accessibility Lecture 14 – 09/04/10

Usability and Accessibility Lecture 14 – 09/04/10. Dr. Simeon Keates. Exercise – Part 1. Last week you were asked to prepare your user trial protocols Today – put them into practice Perform a pilot study of the usability of your web-site with at least 1 user

shayna
Download Presentation

Usability and Accessibility Lecture 14 – 09/04/10

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. Usability and AccessibilityLecture 14 – 09/04/10 Dr. Simeon Keates

  2. Exercise – Part 1 • Last week you were asked to prepare your user trial protocols • Today – put them into practice • Perform a pilot study of the usability of your web-site with at least 1 user • Remember – the principal aim is to “test the test” • (or “trial the trial” or “evaluate the evaluation”…)

  3. Exercise – Part 2 • Prepare a progress presentation for the board for Friday • Show that good progress is being made • Summarise: • The tasks performed • The data collected • Whether the user liked the site • Whether the user could use the site (e.g. complete the tasks) • What you think is working well in the design • What you think needs to be looked at more closely in the design • Any changes you would like to make to the site and protocol

  4. Exercise - Practicalities • Remember to print out copies of your protocol • Allow plenty of blank space for adding observation notes • Allocate one person to do the pre-session briefing and debrief • Allocate one person to be the facilitator (the person who directs the user) • The remaining members act as observers

  5. Cognitive models

  6. The Power Law of Practice • Tn = T1 n-α • α = 0.4, T1 = 60s, T2 = 45.5s (24% faster), T10 = 23.9s (60%faster)

  7. Motor skills – Fitts’ Law • A person wishes to hit this target: • We know that a correction cycle takes: τp + τc + τm≈ 240 ms • And so n corrections takes n * 240 ms S x0 x1 x2 Start D

  8. Fitts’ Law • Now let xi be the remaining distance after the i-th correction • And let x0 (= D) be the starting point • We will assume that the relative accuracy of movement is constant, i.e.: • Where ε < 1 and is the constant error • On 1st cycle: x1 = ε x0 = ε D • On 2nd cycle: x2 = ε x1 = ε (ε D) = ε2 D • On n-th cycle: xn = εn D • Process stops when: εn D ≤ ½ S • Solving for n gives:

  9. Fitts’ Law • From: • Total movement time, Tpos is given by: • This can be re-written as: Where: ε has been found to be ~ 0.7 Thus IM ≈ -240 / log2(0.7) = 63 ms/bit[27~122 ms/bit] Fitts’ Law

  10. Fitts’ Law corrections • There are several modifications to Fitts’ Law • Fitt’s Law becomes less accurate for low values of log2(2D / S) • i.e. where the target is quite big compared with the distance • An example correction by Welford (1968):

  11. Fitts’ Law – Implications for web-site design • Long, thin targets are not good • Small S value => longer acquisition times • Example of long, thin target: • Text-only hyperlinks • e.g. Heinz tomato ketchup • Better to include something large • e.g. an image of a ketchup bottle…

  12. Merging the models One basic merged model is the Keystroke Level Model (KLM): Texecute = TK + TP + TH + TD + TM + TR • Where TK = total time spent keystroking = nk tk (# * time per stroke) • Time per stroke determined experimentally • TP = total time spent pointing (from Fitts’ Law) • Assume, say, 1.1 s per pointing action • TH = total time spent homing (moving hands between devices) • Assume 0.4 s per homing • TD = total time spent drawing = tD (nD, lD) (i.e. f(#, total length)) • Example: 0.9nD + 0.16lD • TM = total time to mentally prepare • Assume 1.35 s per preparation • TR = total system response time

  13. Using the KLM [Note: M = mental prep, K = keyboard, P = pointing] • Rule 0: Insert Ms in front of all Ks that are not part of argument strings proper. Place Ms in front of all Ps that select commands • Rule 1: If an operator following an M is fully anticipated in an operator just previous to M, then delete the M (e.g. PMK -> PK) • Rule 2: If a string of MKs belongs to a cognitive unit (e.g. name of a command), then delete all Ms but the first one • Rule 3: If a K is a redundant terminator (e.g. terminates a command immediately following the terminator of its argument), then delete the M in front of it • Rule 4: If a K terminates a constant string (e.g. a command name), then delete the M in front of it, but if the K terminates a variable string (e.g. an argument string) then keep the M in front of it

  14. An more generic approach - GOMS The user’s cognitive structure consists of: • A set of Goals • A set of Operators • A set of Methods • A set of Selection rules

  15. GOMS – a quick breakdown Goals: • Symbolic structures that define a state of affairs to be achieved • Examples: GOAL: EDIT-MANUSCRIPT or GOAL: MODIFY-TEXT • Goals can comprise sub-goals Operators: • Elementary perceptual, motor or cognitive acts whose execution is necessary to change any aspect of the user’s mental state or to affect the task environment • Examples: GET-NEXT-PAGE or GET-NEXT-TASK

  16. GOMS – a quick breakdown Methods: • Procedures for accomplishing a goal – must be pre-learned at performance time (i.e. user already knows them) • Contain sets of Operators Selection rules: • Rules for helping the user decide which method to use to accomplish the goal • Example: if_such_and_such_is_true_then_use_method_M1_else_use_M2 To summarise: • Several Operators make up a Method, and • Selection rules are used to determine the best Method to reach the Goal

  17. Using models of interaction • Fundamentally, you need to perform a comprehensive task analysis • The models indicate suggested performance for each sub-task • Those models help you to predict the performance of the interface • This can be used: • In design: Estimate performance using standard parameters to optimise your design • In usability trials: Estimate the performance and compare with actual observed data – investigate significant discrepancies

  18. Extending to Universal Access applications – The MHP

  19. Experiment I – Testing the MHP for motor-impaired users

  20. Perceptual response times

  21. Cognitive cycle times

  22. Motor function times

  23. Reaction times

  24. Explaining the observed motor times (100-310 ms) • Theoretical interaction is: • Press the button (motor function) • Release button (motor function) • Consequently, either • very slow motor function times • or • extra steps being inserted

  25. Identifying the delays • c & p calculated as for Experiment I • m button-down and button-up times separated • Motor function and reaction time tasks performed • Range of input devices used • mouse • touchpad button • space bar • EasyBall

  26. The MS EasyBall

  27. User descriptions

  28. Results

  29. Results

  30. Results τm ?

  31. PI7 results – Motor function task

  32. Background ~c The MHP results

  33. Conclusions • Extra cognitive cycles are being inserted • Interaction process is: • Decide to press button (cognitive) - OPTIONAL • Press the button (motor) - REQUIRED • Decide to release button (cognitive) - OPTIONAL • Release button (motor) - REQUIRED

  34. Sources of extra cognitive steps • Users always in learning mode? • Users being overly careful? • Extra cognitive load from impairment?

  35. Implications for use of user models • Individual components were comparable • However • method of combination was not • Therefore • need to verify user model assumptions before use

  36. Implications for design • Users “add” own extra cognitive load • Need to support users by: • Minimising user uncertainty • Minimising cognitive load from program • Maximising interface intuitiveness • Maximising useful feedback

  37. Extending to Universal Access applications – Cursor control

  38. Symptoms associated with ageing and Parkinson’s Symptoms: • Essential tremor • Restricted motion • Reduced strength • Poor hand-eye co-ordination • Fatigue

  39. Examples of motor-impaired cursor control

  40. Cursor movement theories • Fitts’ Law • Relates target distance and width to time • Movement Optimization Model • Initial, pre-planned ballistic move • (Optional) Secondary corrective submovements • Submovements based on visual feedback • Analysis of movement paths • Describes effect of changes in distance, width and height of target • Longer distances => higher peak velocity • Smaller target => longer deceleration phase • Initial studies [Hwang et al., 2004] suggest NOT universally applicable

  41. Cursor measures(MacKenzie et al - CHI 2001) • Target Re-Entry (TRE) • Task Axis Crossing (TAC) • Movement Direction Change (MDC) • Orthogonal Direction Change (ODC)

  42. Cursor measures (cont.) • Movement Offset (MO) • mean deviation of points from task axis ( y ) • signed • Movement Error (ME) • average deviation of points from task axis • unsigned • Movement Variability (MV) • standard deviation of points from task axis • Missed Click (MCL) • Path Length / Task Axis Length (PL/TA) Additional measures

  43. Cursor measures (cont.) • Can distinguish between motor impaired and able-bodied users • As “groups” • Keates et al. ASSETS 2002 • Can they do more? • Designed to explain why differences exist

  44. User trials - The users • 4 groups of users • IBM interns (Y) – mean age 23, SD = 2.0 • IBM regulars (A) – mean age 47, SD= 9.4 • Older adults (OA) – mean age 79, SD = 4.5 • APDA members (P) – mean age 57, SD = 5.2 • 6 users per group

  45. User trials - The experimental methodology • Fitts’ Law type task • 3 target sizes • 3 target distances • 36 target acquisitions per target session • 4 of each size/distance combination • Random angle of approach to target • 4 target sessions per user session (144 target acquisitions) • Interviews between each target session • Post-session debrief

  46. User trials – Qualitative results • 21 difficulties reported with mouse use, e.g.: • Keeping hand steady when navigating • Slipping off menus • Losing the cursor • Moving in the desired direction • Running out of room on the mouse pad • Mouse ball getting stuck (and/or dirty) • 12 compensatory strategies, e.g.: • Avoid use of menus • Switch hands • Consciously go slower • Pause before clicking

  47. Peak velocities No. of incorrect clicks User trials – Quantitative results Target activation times

  48. User trials – Cursor measures (cont.)

  49. No. of pauses >100 msec No. of pauses >250 msec User trials – Nature of movement observed • Differences in peak velocity do not explain all of target activation time differences • Theory: Target user movements are like able-bodied movements only more of them needed to complete the task

  50. Normalised measures User trials – Nature of movement observed • Submovements can distinguish between user groups (p<0.01) • Submovements are significantly related to: • Path length / task axis length (PL/TA) • Missed/incorrect clicks (MCL) • Task axis crossings (TAC) • Target re-entries (TRE) • Movement direction changes (MDC) • Orthogonal direction changes (ODC) • Submovement not significantly related to: • Movement error (ME) • Movement offset (MO) • Movemenet variability (MV) Cumulative measures

More Related