1 / 16

Collaborative Document Editing: Quality and Improvement

Helsinki University of Technology 11.12.2008 S-72.2530 Acceptability and Quality of Service. Olli Kulkki Markus Lappalainen Ville Lehtinen Reijo Lindroos Ilari Pulkkinen. Collaborative Document Editing: Quality and Improvement. Agenda. Comparison of competitive services Framework

robbin
Download Presentation

Collaborative Document Editing: Quality and Improvement

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. Helsinki University of Technology11.12.2008 S-72.2530 Acceptability and Quality of Service Olli Kulkki Markus Lappalainen Ville Lehtinen Reijo Lindroos Ilari Pulkkinen Collaborative Document Editing: Quality and Improvement

  2. Agenda • Comparison of competitive services • Framework • Comparison • Improving acceptability for a service • Usability evolution process • Methods for process execution • Evolution continuity • Using measured data

  3. Topic

  4. UserNeeds

  5. User base growth and duplexity Use Base Growth Duplexity

  6. Nielsen: Acceptability

  7. Phase 2 Assessing and developingacceptability and quality for one of the previousapplications

  8. UsabilityEvolutionProcess Applied from Theofanos et al, A Practical Guide to the CIF: UsabilityMeasurements, 2006

  9. Measure Usability Now and After • Measure effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction • Carry out participative usability tests • Focus on teamwork and document co-editing • Group tests with Think Aloud • Use representative tasks • Measure completeness, errors, time on task • Questionnaires to measure satisfaction

  10. Target Usability • How much we want (and how we measure) • Effectiveness • Efficiency • Satisfaction with intended users, tasks and context? Google Docs Users: Students doing course exercises together Tasks: Co-editing text, using source material etc. Context: Computer classrooms, home computers

  11. Measurementmethods Applied from the Usability method toolbox (http://jthom.best.vwh.net/usability/index.htm)

  12. Heuristicevaluation • Simplistic user interface • Two separate views for document management and text editing • Problems • Limited formatting tools • Access inconsistency with other Google apps • Tools for collaboration support are missing • Benefits • Easy to learn

  13. Continuoususabilitymonitoring

  14. Monitoring Google docs • Record and analyze user behavior and preferences • Improve service quality and acceptability • Non-interactive, non-functional

  15. Usingcontinuoususabilitymonitoring data

  16. Thankyou.

More Related