Collaborative Document Editing: Quality and Improvement
This study evaluates the acceptability and quality of collaborative document editing services, focusing on user needs and the evolution of usability. We compare Google Docs with competitive services and propose a framework to improve service acceptability. The paper highlights methods for process execution and continuous usability monitoring, utilizing user feedback and data to enhance service quality. Our research emphasizes the importance of usability measures, including effectiveness and user satisfaction in collaborative environments, particularly for students in academic settings.
Collaborative Document Editing: Quality and Improvement
E N D
Presentation Transcript
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
Agenda • Comparison of competitive services • Framework • Comparison • Improving acceptability for a service • Usability evolution process • Methods for process execution • Evolution continuity • Using measured data
User base growth and duplexity Use Base Growth Duplexity
Phase 2 Assessing and developingacceptability and quality for one of the previousapplications
UsabilityEvolutionProcess Applied from Theofanos et al, A Practical Guide to the CIF: UsabilityMeasurements, 2006
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
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
Measurementmethods Applied from the Usability method toolbox (http://jthom.best.vwh.net/usability/index.htm)
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
Monitoring Google docs • Record and analyze user behavior and preferences • Improve service quality and acceptability • Non-interactive, non-functional
