Kursusgang 5 Oversigt: Sidste kursusgang Fremlggelse - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Kursusgang 5 Oversigt: Sidste kursusgang Fremlggelse Brugbarhedsevaluering: - Teknikker til brugbarhedstest - Heuristisk inspektion - Tnke-hjt kontra heuristisk inspektion - Learning to find usability problems in internet time
Design af brugerflader 5.1
Oversigt:
Design af brugerflader 5.2
Design af brugerflader 5.3
Hver gruppe (ca. 5 minutter):
(testproceduren)
brugbart, hvad var der af brugbarhedsproblemer)
svært ved planlægning og udførelse af testen.
Design af brugerflader 5.4
Let
når det kører Svært
testperson er gået i stå eller går i forkert retning
siger bare hvad han/hun gør
et mobilt system (opstilling af kameraer)
(modtager, logger, operatør)
Design af brugerflader 5.5
Tilbagemelding Interview Spørgeskemaer Fokusgruppe Observation Anvendelsesstatistik Brugerorganisation (felt) Heuristisk inspektion Kognitiv inspektion Tænke-højt Konstruktiv interaktion Laboratorium Udvikler kontrollerer Bruger kontrollerer Andre dimensioner: Rigorisme (planlagt og styret forløb) Realisme Kvalitativt Kvantitativt
Design af brugerflader 5.6
en checkliste
strukturere processen
1.Fokus på helhed og umiddelbare
indtryk
2.Fokus på detaljer såsom funktioner i
forhold til opgaver
noterer problemer
(kritisk, alvorligt, kosmetisk)
Eksempel på checkliste:
Enkel og naturlig dialog Tal brugerens sprog Minimer krav til hukommelsen Sørg for konsistens Giv feedback Lav tydelige udgange Lav genveje Giv konstruktive fejlmeddelelser Forebyg fejl
Eksempel på checkliste:
Enkel og naturlig dialog Tal brugerens sprog Minimer krav til hukommelsen Sørg for konsistens Giv feedback Lav tydelige udgange Lav genveje Giv konstruktive fejlmeddelelser Forebyg fejl
Design af brugerflader 5.7
Antal inspektioner – Molich & Nielsens resultater:
1: ca. 35% af alle problemer findes 3-5: ca. 70% af alle problemer findes
Denne påstand er meget omdiskuteret Øvelse (fra Molich & Nielsen):
Functionality: A service from Manhattan Telephone (MANTEL) to home users. Typical users have little knowledge of data processing. They can dial into the system, which will provide the name and address of a telephone subscriber in the United States, given the telephone number of the subscriber. Assumptions: For each telephone number there is at most one subscriber. All telephone numbers consist of exactly ten digits (3 digit area code and 7 digit local number). The user's computer has a traditional alphanumeric, monochrone display with 24 lines of 80 characters each and a typewriter-like keyboard with the usual extra keys found on most keyboards, including 10 function keys marked PF1-PF10.
Design af brugerflader 5.8
Dialogue: Enter by selecting "Computer Telephone Index" from the main MANTEL
issues the prompt: ENTER DESIRED TELEPHONE NO. AND RETURN If the user enters anything
to this prompt, the system answers: ILLEGAL NUMBER: TRY AGAIN If the user enters a telephone number which is not in use, the system answers: UNKNOWN TELEPHONE NUMBER If the area code is 212 (Manhattan), the system will normally display the the screen shown within 5
databases.This may take up to 30 seconds.
Design af brugerflader 5.9
Design af brugerflader 5.10
Design af brugerflader 5.11
Design af brugerflader 5.12
Design af brugerflader 5.13
Design af brugerflader 5.14
stedet
specificerede funktioner
tilrettelægges frit
kvaliteten af brugbarhedstest
seriøst i undersøgelsen
deres evaluering på test med brugere
problemer af forskellige kategorier
deres evaluering på en kombination af heuristisk inspektion og test med brugere
formuleringen “might be a problem”
ikke af nogen af de andre
problems” men uklart hvordan
Design af brugerflader 5.15
Design af brugerflader 5.16
94 49 1.9 18 5.2 118 68 1.7 23 5.1 160 159 1.0 40 4.0 1 13 8 9 1 29 9 13 1 24 19 18 3 7 49 68 159 Tænke-højt forsøg Gruppe-inspektion Individuel inspektion Problemtyper (antal) Problemkategorier Kategori 1 (antal) Kategori 2 (antal) Kategori 3 (antal) Ingen aktion (antal) Unikke problemer for hver metode (antal) Samlet tid (i timer) Problemtyper (antal) Tid/problem Kategoriproblemer Tid/SPA (Karat, Campbell og Fiegel, Comparison of Empirical Testing and Walkthrough Methods in User Interface Evaluation, 1992)
Design af brugerflader 5.17
Mikael B. Skov & Jan Stage
Design af brugerflader 5.18
paced projects by multidisciplinary teams
Web developers, graphic designers, brand and content strategists, etc.
human-computer interaction
effectively prohibits usability testing in the classical sense, conducted by experienced testers in sophisticated laboratories
usability testing reflects a potential barrier for universal access of information on the Web
Design af brugerflader 5.19
Research questions:
supporting universal access through dissemination of fundamental usability engineering skills
approach to usability testing to people with an interest in information technology but without formal education in software development or usability engineering, and to do it in less than a week.
Overall design:
Aalborg University, Denmark.
computerized systems with particular emphasis on usability issues.
exercises in smaller teams.
and the entire test (Spool et al.)
class meetings made the students conduct small usability pilot tests in
practical skills.
to conducting a more realistic usability test of a web-site: Hotmail.com.
Design af brugerflader 5.20
students used the simple approach to conduct a usability evaluation of the email services at Hotmail.com.
students in total, of which 129 acted as test subjects
design, informatics, planning and environment, and chartered surveyor
engineering program at Aalborg University
two primary techniques, and could supplement this with other techniques
choose a test monitor and a number of loggers and the rest of each team acted as test subjects
page scenario stating that they should conduct a usability test of the Hotmail web-site (www.hotmail.com)
analysis and identification of usability problems and produced the usability report
Team size Average Team size Min / Max Number of test subjects Average Number of test subjects Min / Max Age of test subjects Average Age of test subjects Min / Max 6.5 4 / 8 3.6 2 / 5 21,2 19 / 30
Design af brugerflader 5.21
primary source of data for our empirical study
evaluated, and marked by both authors:
each report in terms of 16 different factors
new factor was added, and the characteristics of each factor was specified explicitly
all reports according to the 17 factors
compared and a final evaluation on each factor was negotiated
The markings were made on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best
Five of the 17 factors: 1. The planning and conduction of the evaluation 2. The quality of the task assignments 3. The clarity and quality of the problems listed in the report 4. The practical relevance of these problems 5. The number and relevance of the usability problems identified Five of the 17 factors: 1. The planning and conduction of the evaluation 2. The quality of the task assignments 3. The clarity and quality of the problems listed in the report 4. The practical relevance of these problems 5. The number and relevance of the usability problems identified
produced by eight professional laboratories (Molich 1999)
according to the scenario used by the students
evaluated, and marked through the same procedure as the student reports
Design af brugerflader 5.22
tasks, and the extent to which they cover the areas specified in the scenario
almost the same result, with an average
professionals; a general low quality of the tasks
explained, and illustrated and how easy it is to gain an overview of the complete list
around the middle of the scale, with an average of 2.9
distributed from 2 to 5 with an average of 3.5
laboratories.
Tasks
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1 2 3 4 5 % Professional Student
Clarity of Problem List
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1 2 3 4 5 % Professional Student
Design af brugerflader 5.23
and the majority score 4, indicating well- conducted tests with a couple of problematic characteristics
average of 4.6 on this factor, and 6 out of 8 score the top mark.
experience will tend to raise this factor.
distributed on the five marks of the scale, and their average is 3.2
average of 4.6 where 6 out of 8 laboratories score the top mark
professionals in expressing problems in a way that make them relevant to their customers
discussing the nature of a problem
Test Conduction
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1 2 3 4 5 % Professional Student
Practical Relevance of Problem List
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1 2 3 4 5 % Professional Student
Design af brugerflader 5.24
and identify usability problems
find 7.9 problems. They find between 1 and 19 problems with half of the teams finding between 6 and 10 problems
reasonable
laboratories is 23.0 problems identified
group as a considerable number of student teams – that is between 11 and 15 problems
number of problems that is comparable to the professional laboratories
Number of Problems
10 20 30 40 50 60 1-3 4-7 8-12 13-17 >17 % Professional Student Number of Problems 0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45
%