Cengage Learning Opposing Viewpoints In Context Usability Test Hao - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Cengage Learning Opposing Viewpoints In Context Usability Test

Hao Zeng, Mikko Tuomela, Josh Keyes, Travis LaFleur

SI 622 Group 3 April 14, 2011

Cengage Learning

• Publisher of print and digital information services for

academic, professional and library markets

• Delivers customized learning solutions for colleges,

universities, professors, students, and libraries

Opposing Viewpoints In Context (OVIC)

• OVIC is an online resource covering today’s hottest

social issues

• It helps students research, analyze, and organize broad

variety of data

• Used for conducting research, writing assignments,

debates and more

Test Recruiting

• Sent email to SI Informatics email list
• Gave general information about study along with how

much time it would take

• Promised them a $25 Amazon gift card after their

participation

• We aimed for 5-7 subjects
• Scheduled 7, 2 canceled so we tested 5 subjects

Usability Test Tasks

• 4 Tasks
• 15 minutes
• Client: focus on search and multimedia content

+

• Try to simulate normal operations that a general user will

usually do in the system

Usability Test Tasks

• 1. Find two articles about nuclear power, one in favor and
• ne opposed. Translate the second article into French

and send it to your French friend (hao.hci@gmail.com).

• 2. Find 2 radio broadcasts about the 2011 earthquake and

tsunami in Japan, save them to your personal favorites in the system, and then start playing one of them.

• 3. Find a magazine article about unemployment and

download the article’s APA citation.

• 4. Find an article related to stem cell research from a peer

reviewed journal that was published in 2005.

Test Logging

• Logging sheet for each task
• From 2 to 4 subtasks
• Completed? Y / N
• General questions
• Surprised? Y / N
• Stuck? Y / N
• Confused? Y / N
• Space for comments and

notes

• To be filled either by pen or

by computer (Word document)

Moderation & Debriefing

• Introduction script
• Sign consent form
• Pre-test questionnaire
• Background, demographics, experience
• Begin tasks
• Encourage talk aloud
• Post-test questionnaire
• Reflect on experience
• Likes, dislikes, improvements
• Ask for questions
• Thank and dismiss

Recording

Location and Setup

• 1150B/1150C at North Quad
• 3-4 researchers present
• Audio recording by computer

Usability Test Findings and Recommendations

Usability Test Findings: #1

The “Listen” appears on top of the content of every document for people with visual impairment; But it causes significant confusion for general users.

Usability Test Findings: #1

Usability Test Findings: #1

Usability Test Recommendations: #1

Recommendation: Rename to "Read the Screen" and move to Tools section.

Usability Test Findings: #2

Pro and Con Indicators Are Needed In Search Results

• System is designed to give

users arguments from "both sides" of an issue

• Sides of articles aren't readily

identifiable in search results

Usability Testing Recommendation #2

• Implement short summary to let user know

if articles is "Pro" or "Con" for the subject that they are searching about

• "Pro" or "Con" summary could be anywhere

from one sentence up to a short paragraph.

• Summary text could be placed to left of

search results, just make column with results in it a bit skinnier (which would be

• k)

Usability Testing Recommendation #2

Usability Test Findings: #3

Basic Search is used often, but is not fully satisfactory.

Usability Test Findings: #3

• Does not handle Google-style queries

"stem cell research 2005" "Japan tsunami audio"

• Recommendation: improve search

algorithm to accept more parameters (not just keyword)

Usability Test Findings: #3

Recommendation: add filtering options from advanced search into results page for basic search

Usability Test Findings: #4

Finding 4: Options in Advanced Search Are Ambiguous

• Users were confused about what "Content Level"

means

• Because they don't know what content level means,

they can't make sense of the options that they can select

• It frustrated users when they weren't able to tailor the

advanced search options clearly

Usability Test Recommendations: #4

• Cengage should name "Content Level" something

that is more descriptive of what the feature actually filters

• Cengage could add a help section that describes all
• f the features that are offered in the Advanced

Search

Thank you! Questions?