Alan Woolrych

1
Alan Woolrych

• Alan.woolrych_at_sunderland.ac.uk

2
My Background

• Research Assistant to Professor Cockton
• MPhil on Assessment of Usability Inspection
  Methods
• co-author, International Handbook on HCI, UIM
  Chapter
• publications in international conferences and
  journals
• HEFCE capital project management
• usability lab
• Multimedia Lab
• Forthcoming Digital media centre of Excellence

3
This Week
Evaluation Methods
My Research
Evaluation Exercise
4
A bit of Fun

• Cannot delete tmp150_3.tmp There is not enough
  free disk space. Delete one or more files to free
  disk space, and then try again.
• Error Keyboard not found. Press F1 to continue.
• Error 0000 No errors found, restarting computer.
• Windows has found an unknown device and is
  installing a driver for it.

5
Approaches to Evaluation

• Analytical
• deduction, inference, constructing arguments
  based on inspection of web-sites
• Empirical
• factual, evidence gathered from real usage by
  real people

6
Inspection Methods

• Heuristic Evaluation
• Cognitive Walkthrough
• Novice users, learning the site for the first
  time
• 4 questions

7
Cognitive Walkthrough

• Will the user be trying to achieve the right
  effect?
• Will the user notice that the correct action is
  available?
• Will the user associate the correct action with
  the desired effect?
• If the correct action is performed, will the user
  see that progress is being made?

8
Heuristic Evaluation 1

• Visibility of system status (Nielsen)
• The system should always keep users informed
• about what is going on, through appropriate
• feedback within reasonable time.

9
(No Transcript)
10
Heuristic Evaluation 2

• Match between system and the real world
• The system should speak the users' language, with
• words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user,
  rather
• than system-oriented terms. Follow real-world
• conventions, making information appear in a
  natural and
• logical order.

11
Heuristic Evaluation 3

• User control and freedom
• Users often choose system functions by mistake
  and
• need a clearly marked "emergency exit" to leave
• unwanted states without having to go through an
• extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.

12
Heuristic Evaluation 4

• Consistency and standards
• Users must not wonder whether different words,
• situations, or actions mean the same thing.
  Follow
• platform conventions.

13
Heuristic Evaluation 5

• Error prevention
• Even better than good error messages is a careful
• design which prevents a problem from occurring in
  the
• first place.

14
Heuristic Evaluation 6

• Recognition rather than recall
• Make objects, actions, and options visible.
• The user should not have to remember information
  from
• one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions
  for use
• of the system should be visible or easily
  retrievable
• whenever appropriate.

15
Heuristic Evaluation 7

• Flexibility and efficiency of use
• Accelerators - unseen by novices - may speed up
• interaction for experts so that systems can cater
  to both
• inexperienced and experienced users.
• Let users tailor frequent actions.

16
Heuristic Evaluation 8

• Aesthetic and minimalist design
• Dialogues should not contain information that is
• irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of
  information
• in a dialogue competes with relevant units of
  information
• and diminishes relative visibility.

17
Heuristic Evaluation 9

• Help users recognise, diagnose, and recover
• from errors
• Express error messages in plain language (no
  codes),
• precisely indicate the problem, and
  constructively suggest
• a solution.

18
Heuristic Evaluation 10

• Help and documentation
• Even though systems are best used without
• documentation, it may be necessary to provide
  help.
• This should not be too large, be easy to search,
  focused on
• user tasks, listing concrete steps to be carried
  out.

19
Empirical Testing

• Paper prototype testing
• Lab Testing
• Field Testing
• Remote observation and instrumentation
• Site Feedback

20
Paper Prototyping
21
Paper Prototyping
22

• Main content selections for this page
• Page title
• Person responsible for this page
• Intranet-wide navigation (e.g., intranet home,
  search)
• Last updated date
• Intranet identifier/logo
• Site navigation (e.g, major sections of this
  section of the intranet)
• Confidentiality/security (e.g, Public,
  Confidential, etc.)
• Site news items

23
Answers to 1
24
Answers to 3
25
Interesting Results?
-3 to 3

• Correctly Identified Page Elements
  Subjective Appeal
• Template 1 52 1.3
• Template 3 67 0.9

26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
My Research
To Accurately Assess UIMs in particular Heuristi
c Evaluation
29
My Research
Heuristic Evaluations
Predicted Problems
Task Sets
User Testing
Actual Problems
Compare
Assess Quality
30
My Research
31
Your Work

• To be usability experts

• Inspect a web site

• Produce a problem Report

32
Problem Reporting 1

• Section 1 - Problem Description
• Brief Description
• Specific Likely/Actual Causes
• Specific Context
• Assumed Causes

33
Problem Reporting 2

• Section 2 - Discovery Method
• Individual/Group Testing
• Problem Confirmation
• Adopted Method
• Scanning
• Searching
• Goal Playing
• Method Following
• Method Task Description

34
Problem Reporting 3

• Section 3 - Heuristic Application
• Heuristic Breached
• Evidence of non-conformance

35
Problem Reporting 4

• Section 4 - Exclusion Rationale
• Elimination Discussion

36
URL for Exercise
http//www.tyneandwearmetro.co.uk/