evaluation techniques goals of evaluation evaluation by experts cisc3650 human-computer interaction spring 2012 lecture # II.1

Similar documents
User Interface Evaluation

HCI and Design SPRING 2016

CS 160: Evaluation. Outline. Outline. Iterative Design. Preparing for a User Test. User Test

CS 160: Evaluation. Professor John Canny Spring /15/2006 1

8.1 Goals of Evaluation 8.2 Analytic Evaluation 8.3 Empirical Evaluation 8.4 Comparing and Choosing Evaluation Techniques

8.1 Goals of Evaluation 8.2 Analytic Evaluation 8.3 Empirical Evaluation 8.4 Comparing and Choosing Evaluation Techniques

Addition about Prototypes

Assignment 5 is posted! Heuristic evaluation and AB testing. Heuristic Evaluation. Thursday: AB Testing

CSE 440: Introduction to HCI User Interface Design, Prototyping, and Evaluation

CSE 440: Introduction to HCI User Interface Design, Prototyping, and Evaluation

Human-Computer Interaction

Chapter 15: Analytical evaluation

Design Heuristics and Evaluation

CO328- Human Computer Interaction Michael Kölling Caroline Li. Heuristic Evaluation

Heuristic Evaluation of Math Out of the Box

CogSysIII Lecture 9: User Modeling with GOMS

iscreen Usability INTRODUCTION

Heuristic Evaluation of [ Quest ]

Interaction Design. Chapter 7 (June 22nd, 2011, 9am-12pm): Evaluation and Testing

Page 1. Ideas to windows. Lecture 7: Prototyping & Evaluation. Levels of prototyping. Progressive refinement

Usability Inspection Methods. Overview. Usability Measures. SMD157 Human-Computer Interaction Fall 2003

Analytical evaluation

CS415 Human Computer Interaction

Heuristic Evaluation

Assistant Professor Computer Science. Introduction to Human-Computer Interaction

Overview of Today s Lecture. Analytical Evaluation / Usability Testing. ex: find a book at Amazon.ca via search

Hyper Mesh Code analyzer

Introducing Evaluation

Übung zur Vorlesung Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion. e5: Heuristic Evaluation

Lose It! Weight Loss App Heuristic Evaluation Report

Heuristic Evaluation of [Slaptitude]

SFU CMPT week 11

Computer Systems & Application

Introducing Evaluation

Heuristic Evaluation. Hall of Fame or Shame? Hall of Fame or Shame? Hall of Fame! Heuristic Evaluation

Jakob Nielsen s Heuristics (

CS415 Human Computer Interaction

USER INTERFACE DESIGN + PROTOTYPING + EVALUATION. Heuristic Evaluation. Prof. James A. Landay University of Washington CSE 440

Heuristic Evaluation of Covalence

Heuristic Evaluation of NUIG Participate Module 1

Due on: May 12, Team Members: Arpan Bhattacharya. Collin Breslin. Thkeya Smith. INFO (Spring 2013): Human-Computer Interaction

Interaction Design. Heuristic Evaluation & Cognitive Walkthrough

cs465 principles of user interface design, implementation and evaluation

Heuristic Evaluation. Jon Kolko Professor, Austin Center for Design

Why? Usability analysis and inspection. Evaluation. Evaluation. Measuring usability. Evaluating usability

Usability analysis and inspection

Heuristic Evaluation! Hall of Fame or Shame?! Hall of Fame or Shame?! Hall of Fame or Shame?! Hall of Fame!!

User Experience Report: Heuristic Evaluation

Engineering Human Computer Interaction

Heuristic Evaluation. Heuristic evaluation evaluates the interface to identify usability problems against recognized usability design heuristics.

MIT GSL week 4 Wednesday. User Interfaces II

Applying Usability to elearning

Analytical &! Empirical Evaluation

CS 147 Autumn 2017: Assignment 9 (Heuristic Evaluation Group Template) Instructor: James Landay. Fix: make web also block the desktop screen.

Design Principles. Overview. User-Center Design. SMD157 Human-Computer Interaction Fall User-center design Guidelines

CPSC 444 Project Milestone III: Prototyping & Experiment Design Feb 6, 2018

Heuristic Evaluation of igetyou

IPM 10/11 T1.6 Discount Evaluation Methods

1. Select/view stores based on product type/category- 2. Select/view stores based on store name-

Design Principles. Overview. User-Center Design. SMD157 Human-Computer Interaction Fall User-center design Guidelines

Heuristic evaluation is a usability inspection technique developed by Jakob Nielsen. The original set of heuristics was derived empirically from an

Evaluation and Testing. Andreas Butz, LMU Media Informatics slides partially taken from MMI class

1. Problem Mix connects people who are interested in meeting new people over similar interests and activities.

Software Quality. Martin Glinz. Thomas Fritz. Lecture 7 UI Design, Usability & Testing. Many thanks to Meghan Allen and Daniel Greenblatt.

Analytical Evaluation

15/16 CSY2041 Quality and User-Centred Systems

1. The Best Practices Section < >

Usability. Daniela Rosner. Web Architecture, October 9, School of Information UC Berkeley

3 Evaluating Interactive Systems

EVALUATION OF PROTOTYPES USABILITY TESTING

Programmiersprache C++ Winter 2005 Operator overloading (48)

Heuristic Evaluation of Enable Ireland

evision Review Project - Engagement Simon McLean, Head of Web & IT Support Information & Data Services.

Heuristic Evaluation. Ananda Gunawardena. Carnegie Mellon University Computer Science Department Fall 2008

Lecture 14: Heuristic Evaluation. Fall UI Design and Implementation 1

Gleanings Ch 5, 6, 7. Design Naviga3on Organiza3on and layout

3 Prototyping and Iterative Evaluations

Usability. HCI - Human Computer Interaction

Nektarios Kostaras, Mixalis Xenos. Hellenic Open University, School of Sciences & Technology, Patras, Greece

UX DESIGN BY JULIA MITELMAN

User Interface Evaluation

User-centered design in technical communication

Foundation Level Syllabus Usability Tester Sample Exam Answers

Craigslist Heuristic Evaluation

Learnability of software

Chapter 10 Interactive Systems And Usability Organizational Requirements Engineering

Usability Testing Methods An Overview

Usability in Multimedia. By Pınar Koçer Aydın and Özgür Bayram

SWEN 444 Human Centered Requirements and Design Project Breakdown

A Heuristic Evaluation of Ohiosci.org

EVALUATION OF THE USABILITY OF EDUCATIONAL WEB MEDIA: A CASE STUDY OF GROU.PS

Methods: Deciding What To Design

HEURISTIC EVALUATION WHY AND HOW

Sri Vidya College of Engineering & Technology Question bank (unit 2) UNIT 2 TWO MARKS

Introduction to Internet Applications

Usability and User Interface Design

Usability & User Centered Design. SWE 432, Fall 2018 Design and Implementation of Software for the Web

Expert Reviews (1) Lecture 5-2: Usability Methods II. Usability Inspection Methods. Expert Reviews (2)

Additional reading for this lecture: Heuristic Evaluation by Jakob Nielsen. Read the first four bulleted articles, starting with How to conduct a

Expert Evaluations. November 30, 2016

Transcription:

topics: evaluation techniques usability testing references: cisc3650 human-computer interaction spring 2012 lecture # II.1 evaluation techniques Human-Computer Interaction, by Alan Dix, Janet Finlay, Gregory D. Abowd and Russell Beale, ch 9, Evaluation Techniques Web Usability: A user-centered design approach, by Jonathan Lazar, Ch 9, Usability testing evaluation techniques evaluation occurs throughout the software development lifecycle note that we focus here on user interface evaluation however many of the lessons and guidelines can be applied to software system evaluation in general there are two main types of evaluation: evaluation by system designers or experts typically conducted early in the development lifecycle, though may give late feedback on system performance evaluation by end users typically conducted late in the development lifecycle, though may give early feedback on system design cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 1 cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 2 goals of evaluation evaluation by experts there are 3 main goals of user interface evaluation: system functionality does the system meet the user s requirements? is the system clear to operate? does the system help make the user effective at her task? there are 4 types of evaluations conducted by experts or system designers: cognitive walkthrough heuristic evaluation model-based based on prior studies user s experience is the interface usable? is the user satisified? is the user s experience using the interface pleasant? is the user happy/angry/frustrated when using the interface? take into account the user s task, for example, if the interface is for a game, then the user should have fun using the system (playing the game). problem identification does the system produce errors? is the user confused when using the system? cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 3 cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 4

walkthrough means a sequence of steps experts: cognitive walkthrough e.g., code walkthrough is when a programmer shows her source code to others and explains, line by line, how the code works cognitive walkthrough is when a user explains how she is using an interface, talking as she performs each action and explaining as she goes then, experts analyze the user s process for each step: is the effect of the user s action the same as the user s goal? will the user see that the necessary action is available (in the interface)? will the user know which widget in the interface enables the desired action? after the action is performed (e.g., clicking on a button), will the user receive understandable feedback? in order to conduct a cognitive walkthrough, experts need: system specifications or system prototype cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 5 description of users task(s) list of user actions to accomplish the task(s) profile(s) of target user(s) (i.e., expected background, experience, etc.) cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 6 experts: heuristic evaluation typically performed on a design specification, but can be performed on a prototype or full system there are 10 heuristics that are frequently assessed each is assessed on a scale of 0 to 4, as follows: 0 = not a problem 1 = cosmetic problem; fix if time 2 = minor usability problem; low priority fix 3 = major usability problem; important to fix 4 = catastrophic usability problem; must be fixed before system/interface is released the 10 heuristics are: 1. visibility of system status (i.e., inform users with feedback) 2. match between system and real world (i.e., speak user s language; is system understandable by the user?) 3. user control and freedom (i.e., can user undo and redo actions?) 4. consistency and standards (does system follow standard conventions for symbols, menu items, etc?) 5. error prevention (does system make it hard for the user to make mistakes?) 6. recognition rather than recall (does system make it easy for the user to remember what to do? are there no or few commands to memorize?) 7. flexibility and efficiency of use (does the system let users tailor the interface to accommodate frequent actions or sequences of actions, e.g., macros?) 8. aesthetic and minimalist design (e.g., dialogues shouldn t contain extra information; interface shouldn t be cluttered) 9. help users recognize, diagnose and recover from errors (are error messages in clear language?) 10.help and documentation (does the system have any documentation and/or a help facility?) cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 7 cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 8

experts: model-based experts: based on prior studies high-level models (such as GOMS) are used to predict user s performance low-level models (such as Fitts law keystroke, dialogue timing) are used to assess limits of user s performance empirical models evolved from previous studies give indicators of generic interface elements for example, menu types, command name recall, color schemes, button labels, icon designs, etc. see lecture notes from feb 6 (2nd lecture) for a discussion of types of user interface design models, such as GOMS cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 9 cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 10 evaluation by users users: styles of evaluation can be done at different stages of development system developers can simulate missing (undeveloped) pieces of interface using techniques like Wizard of Oz where a human takes the part of the pieces that will later be automated elements of user evaluation: styles of evaluation experimental evaluation design observational techniques query techniques evaluation through physiological responses laboratory studies conducted in controlled settings advantages: no distractions disadvantages: but no context field studies conducted in situ, i.e., in situated settings advantages: context disadvantages: but can add distractions cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 11 cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 12

users: experimental evaluation design for conducting controlled experiments where the goal is to support a claim or a hypothesis participants: choose carefully, to simulate actual end users sample size (number of users): usability studies recommend 3-5 users, also called subjects ; controlled experiments recommend at least twice this number; even more when statistical significance is sought from results variables: manipulated to create different conditions for experimental comparison independent versus dependent independent: variable that changes; that is manipulated (e.g., menu composition in an interface) dependent: variable that doesn t change; that is measured (e.g., speed of selecting items on the menu) cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 13 a valid experiment is one in which the dependent variable is effected by the changed value(s) of the independent variable hypothesis: prediction of outcome framed in terms of independent and dependent variables null hypothesis the experimental results are random; not caused by the value(s) of the independent variable alternate hypothesis the experimental results are not random, but are caused by the changes to the independent variable (i.e., what we are testing) experimental design: choose the hypothesis choose the experimental method between subjects each participant is assigned a different experimental condition (i.e., one value of the independent variable) all participants are divided into groups, so that each group tries one experimental condition then the results for each group are averaged; and the averages are compared cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 14 within subjects each participant is assigned all experimental conditions all particpants try all conditions, though typically the order in which they try the different conditions should be varied to control for the transfer learning effect which results when users run the same experiment multiple times, with conditions (i.e., independent variable) varied slightly decide how to analyze results (see below) hypothesis testing asks questions like: is there a difference? (between outcomes, experimental results, with different values of the independent variable) if yes, how big is the difference? is the estimate (results) accurate? if yes, how accurate is the estimate? statistical measures big subject! variables are either discrete or continuous if dependent variable is continuous, then variations in the value of this variable are called its distribution cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 15 if the distribution is regular, then it is parametric; e.g., normal distribution = the classic bell curve some data can be transformed to a normal distribution non-parametric data can be ranked (ordered) contingency data can be clustered (grouped according to feature values) statistics is a big subject, and we won t have time to go into detail in this class suffice it to say that the design of an experiment and collecting the experimental data are not the only important aspects; determining how to analyze the data is also very important cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 16

protocols: users: observational techniques think aloud user talks through what she is doing, uninterrupted by evaluator cooperative evaluation user talks through what she is doing, but evaluator can interrupt and ask questions (like why did you do that?, what if...? ) protocol analysis: evaluator takes notes during the experimental session (e.g., using paper and pencil ) evaluator records session using video and/or audio but this presents a transcription problem, where someone has to transcribe the experimental session from audio/video media to text (like a script) computer logs user data but this presents a data filtering problem, where typically a program has to be written that will filter out unwanted actions so that analysis can focus on the actions that are being assessed in the experiment user logs their activity but this can present a problem of incompleteness if user forgets to record everything automatic protocol analysis tools there are some tools that allow evaluators to annotate video/audio, by watching the video/audio in one window and making notes that are recorded and tagged to positions in the video/audio stream can be used to synchronize data from multiple recording sources post-task walkthrough evaluator interviews users after they have completed the experimental interaction with the system, and shows them a (video) recording of their session and asks them to narrate what they did and why cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 17 cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 18 users: query techniques users: evaluation through physiological responses evaluator asks user directly about the interface methods: interview questionaire types of questions in a typical questionaire: general (e.g., user background information, demographics) open-ended scalar (e.g., rate this on a scale of 1 to 5... ) multiple choice ranked (e.g., pick the best of... ) use medical devices to record user s physiological responses while using interface types of bodily functions tracked: eye tracking record the number of fixations (times when the user s gaze is fixed on the same location for a minimum period of time) record the length of each fixation record the user s scan path (the trajectory across the interface where the user s gaze moves) heart rate, pulse breathing skin secretions (sweat) muscle activity brain activity (e.g., EEG) cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 19 cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 20

choosing evaluation techniques there are 8 factors to take into consideration when choosing the appropriate evaluation technique: 1. stage in development cycle design (early) versus implementation (late) stage early stage should be quick and cheap 2. style of evaluation i.e., laboratory versus field study 3. level of subjectivity or objectivity how much will results rely on the (subjective) interpretation of the evaluator? versus quantitatave measures, like time to complete a task 4. types of measures quantitative versus qualitative versus mixed methods 5. information provided is high-level information about the interface sought e.g., is it usable? which would require interviews, questionaires, etc. cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 21 is low-level information sought e.g., which font looks better? 6. immediacy of responses needed are evaluation results needed immediately, at the time of the experiments? then use something like a walkthrough or interview are results needed later? then use techniques that require analysis, such as computer logs or user logs 7. level of interference how intrusive is the evaluation process? the evaluation should NOT impact how the user uses the interface... 8. resources required how much time, money, personnel is required to conduct the evaluation? cisc3650-spring2012-sklar-lecii.1 22