SlideServe
Télécharger Obtenir Pro
Menu
Accueil Pro
Préférences
ApparenceLight Aide et commentaires
© SlideServe · v2026

Usability evaluation and testing

sabin avatar
sabin
20 diapositives · 419 Views · Jul 25, 2014

Usability evaluation and testing. User interfaces Jaana Holvikivi Metropolia. Methods for usability evaluation. Wide variety of methods, often ad-hoc testing (not too systematic) More than one approach may be needed one test cannot find all problems One evaluator cannot see all aspects

#usability evaluation and testing #usability evaluation and testing ppt #powerpoint #presentation
Usability evaluation and testing - slide 1
01 / 20Usability evaluation and testing
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

Usability evaluation and testing
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation

  1. Usability evaluation and testing User interfaces Jaana Holvikivi Metropolia

  2. Methods for usability evaluation • Wide variety of methods, often ad-hoc testing (not too systematic) • More than one approach may be needed • one test cannot find all problems • One evaluator cannot see all aspects • Consult standards for basic requirements!

  3. Methods, categories http://www.usabilityfirst.com/glossary/cat_15.txl

  4. Usability evaluation methods used in Finland

  5. Usability standards • The ISO 23973 ReferenceModel For Web design • The process domain. This domain describes the design process used by the organisation, such as the one described in ISO 13407:1999 Human-centred design processes for interactive systems. • The evaluation domain. This domain contains the tools and techniques used to assess the final design, such as usability testing. • The design domain. This is the domain within which the designer develops the web site.

  6. Methods • End-user testing • Upgraded Nielsen heuristics • Cognitive walk-through • Situation analysis – use cases

  7. End-user testing • Test subject belongs to the target group • Genuine tasks • Videotaping of tests (talk-aloud) • Eye-tracking • EEG measurements • Result analysis • Classification of errors according to seriousness • Test report

  8. Testingprocedures and labs • http://lab.mediacity.fi/ • http://www.noldus.com/

  9. Classes of design errors • Local mistake • Systematic error • Fixing would need redesign • Fixing needs use case analysis

  10. Strenghts and weaknesses • Strenghts • Gives understanding of real use situations • Finds critical usability problems • Genuine user views • Credibility of results • Weaknesses • Demanding and expensive: • Planning, implementation and analysis • Real users needed

  11. A Usability problem exists if • Test person • Proposed improvement to the system • Got confused • Tried to find solution more than three times • It took over 3 minutes to reach the goal • Gave up! • System failure Jacobsen: The evaluator effect in usability tests

  12. Nielsen heuristics • Visibility of system status • Match between system and the real world • User control and freedom • Consistency and standards • Error prevention • Recognition rather than recall • Flexibility and efficiency of use • Aesthetic and minimalist design • Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors • Help and documentation http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html

  13. Addition to the Nielsen heuristics • Respect for user and user needs • Pleasant product use experience • Support for quality standards • User privacy protection Muller et al (1995) Validating an extension to Participatory…

  14. Heuristic assessment 1/2 • 3-5 evaluators • Experts of the application area and usability • Independent learning of the application • Discussion on findings • 1-2 hours

  15. Heuristic assessment 2/2 • Note each problem separately • problem • Use case • What heuristic category is violated • Fixing proposal • Classification of seriousness • Regularity, effects, permanence • Also good sides of the design

  16. Classification of problemseriousness • Not a problem • Cosmetic problem • Minor usability problem • Major usability problem • Catastrophic usability problem

  17. Strenghts and weaknesses • Strenghts • Cheap, fast, intuitive and can be applied in many situations • Good for fixing easy problems • Are fixes really improvements? • Weaknesses • User interaction observation is not caught • Hard to find really fatal problems

  18. CognitiveWalkthrough Methodwith endusers Questions: • Is the user goal right for the user interface? • Can the user find the right function? • Can the user connect her goal to the function? • When the task is completed, does the feedback indicate that user has proceeded in the right direction?

  19. Situation: use case • A familiar and genuine work place • Interviews with users and observations • A well-defined subject • The user is the expert – the researcher is an apprentice

  20. Polite applications • A polite application is • Easy to approach • Ready to fill user needs • Good information • Is not confused and sticks to the task • Does not bother users with its own problems • Reliable