1 Usability Analysis n Why Analyze n Types of Usability Analysis n Human Subjects Research n Project 3: Heuristic Evaluation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 10 Ethical Issues in Nursing Research. Perspectives for Assessing Ethical Acceptability Utilitarian Perspective - the good of a project is defined.
Advertisements

Making Sense of the Social World 4th Edition
The Consent Process: It’s More Than Just a Form A “10 Minute Training” Brought to you by Cyndi Long, MS, RD, CCRC CU Sports Medicine.
Ethical Considerations when Developing Human Research Protocols A discipline “born in scandal and reared in protectionism” Carol Levine, 1988.
Research Ethics The American Psychological Association Guidelines
DO NO HARM IRRB Presentation Purposes Responsibilities Processes NLU IRRB Home page.
IRB 101: Introduction to Human Subject Research
©N. Hari Narayanan Computer Science & Software Engineering Auburn University 1 COMP 7620 Evaluation Chapter 9.
Useability.
Usability Inspection n Usability inspection is a generic name for a set of methods based on having evaluators inspect or examine usability-related issues.
Inspection Methods. Inspection methods Heuristic evaluation Guidelines review Consistency inspections Standards inspections Features inspection Cognitive.
Ethical Guidelines for Research with Human Participants
Ethical Treatment of Participants in Studies of Online Behaviors Barbara M. Wildemuth School of Information & Library Science University of North Carolina.
Human Subjects Research Dr. John S. Irvine Chairperson, NMSU Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research
Evaluation: Inspections, Analytics & Models
FOUNDATIONS OF NURSING RESEARCH Sixth Edition CHAPTER Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Foundations of Nursing Research,
Review an existing website Usability in Design. to begin with.. Meeting Organization’s objectives and your Usability goals Meeting User’s Needs Complying.
Research Methods for the Social Sciences: Ethics Ryan J. Martin, Ph.D. Thomas N. Cummings Research Fellow March 9, 2010.
Internal Auditing and Outsourcing
Usability Methods: Cognitive Walkthrough & Heuristic Evaluation Dr. Dania Bilal IS 588 Spring 2008 Dr. D. Bilal.
Heuristic Evaluation “Discount” Usability Testing Adapted from material by Marti Hearst, Loren Terveen.
METHODS IN BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH NINTH EDITION PAUL C. COZBY Copyright © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Educational Research and the VCOM Institutional Review Board
User Interface Evaluation Usability Inquiry Methods
1 BTS330 Vision & Scope. 2 IT Projects What defines project success? On time Within budget Delivers what the clients want The reality Less than 20% of.
DR. BETHANY FLECK: SOTL FACULTY ASSOCIATE MICHAELA CLEMENS: HSPP COORDINATOR USING STUDENTS AS PARTICIPANTS NAVIGATING THE IRB FOR S O TL WORK CENTER FOR.
Topic 4 How organisations promote quality care Codes of Practice
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD HISTORY AND ETHICS. 2 Ethical History : Holocaust : Nuremburg Trials 1964: Declaration of Helsinki :
Multimedia Specification Design and Production 2013 / Semester 1 / week 9 Lecturer: Dr. Nikos Gazepidis
Object-Oriented Software Engineering Practical Software Development using UML and Java Chapter 7: Focusing on Users and Their Tasks.
Usability Evaluation June 8, Why do we need to do usability evaluation?
Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Pearson Addison-Wesley The Resonant Interface HCI Foundations for Interaction Design First Edition.
SEG3120 User Interfaces Design and Implementation
The Institutional Review Board: A Community College Toolkit Dr. Geri J Anderson.
IRB BASICS: Issues in Ethics and Human Subject Protections Prepared by Ed Merrill Department of Psychology November 12, 2009.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) What is our Purpose and Role for Ethical Research.
Writing Software Documentation A Task-Oriented Approach Thomas T. Barker Chapter 5: Analyzing Your Users Summary Cornelius Farrell Emily Werschay February.
Usability Engineering Dr. Dania Bilal IS 582 Spring 2006.
NAVIGATING THE IRB PROCESS University Institutional Review Board California State University, Stanislaus.
Usability Evaluation, part 2. REVIEW: A Test Plan Checklist, 1 Goal of the test? Specific questions you want to answer? Who will be the experimenter?
EVALUATION PROfessional network of Master’s degrees in Informatics as a Second Competence – PROMIS ( TEMPUS FR-TEMPUS-JPCR)
TUN IRB: The Basics February 26, IRB Function Review human-subject research Ensure the rights & welfare of human subjects are adequately protected.
What Institutional Researchers Should Know about the IRB Susan Thompson Senior Research Analyst Office of Institutional Research Presented at the Texas.
Usability Evaluation. Objectives for today Go over upcoming deliverables Learn about usability testing (testing with users) BTW, we haven’t had a quiz.
WELCOME to the TULANE UNIVERSITY HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION OFFICE WORKSHOP for SOCIAL/BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH (March 2, 2010) Tulane University HRPO Uptown.
June 5, 2007Mohamad Eid Usability Testing Chapter 8.
Cultural Competence Considerations [and other alliterations] in International Research IRB 2 Continuing Education March 10, 2015.
Chapter 5 Ethical Concerns in Research. Historical Perspective on Ethics Nazi Experimentation in WWII –“medical experiments” –Nuremberg War Crime Trials.
Usability Engineering Dr. Dania Bilal IS 582 Spring 2007.
Usability Engineering Dr. Dania Bilal IS 587 Fall 2007.
Chapter 2: Ethical Issues in Program Evaluation. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) Federal mandate for IRBs –Concern during 1970s about unethical research.
Design Evaluation Overview Introduction Model for Interface Design Evaluation Types of Evaluation –Conceptual Design –Usability –Learning Outcome.
Research ethics.
Research Ethics Dr Nichola Seare Aston Health Research & Innovation Cluster.
Day 8 Usability testing.
CHAPTER 3 Management Systems. Learning Objectives Describe the basic business activities and tools necessary to implement successful industrial hygiene.
Cognitive Informatics for Biomedicine – Chapter 5
User Interface Evaluation
Chapter 3: Ethical guidelines for psychological research.
IRB BASICS Ethics and Human Subject Protections Summer 2016
SIE 515 Design Evaluation Lecture 7.
The Protection of Human Participants in Research
Usability Evaluation, part 2
SY DE 542 User Testing March 7, 2005 R. Chow
Usability Techniques Lecture 13.
Chapter 26 Inspections of the user interface
Evaluation.
Research, Experimentation, & Clinical Trials
Office of Research Integrity and Protections
Presentation transcript:

1 Usability Analysis n Why Analyze n Types of Usability Analysis n Human Subjects Research n Project 3: Heuristic Evaluation

2 Why Perform Usability Analyses n To provide feedback to designer regarding design decisions n To identify and determine solutions to unforeseen problems n To determine the what is required in instruction manuals and/or online help or to test its effectiveness n To determine how well the product meets the design goals

3 Approaches to Usability Testing n Testing Typical users performing typical tasks using the system Results are examined to determine how well the system supports the user n Inspection Experts in usability examine the system interface n Inquiry Evaluators get information from the perspective users to evaluate the system usability Adapted from

4 Testing n Performance Measurement To obtain quantitative data about performance doing tasks Good for testing alternative or against benchmark performance n Retrospective Video data is collected and reviewed with the test user Questions are asked about what was done and why Generally used in conjunction with other methods n Think-Aloud Users asked to share their thoughts about interaction with the system while performing predetermined tasks Helps in understanding the users mental model Adapted from

5 Inspection n Cognitive Walkthrough Group of evaluator evaluate the system by going through a set of tasks Generally used during design phase n Feature Inspection Each feature is analyzed separately to determine its accessibility, learnablity, and other usability characteristics based on various use scenarios Often done near the documentation phase n Heuristic Evaluation Evaluators attempt to determine if the design adheres to general design principles and rules of thumb Generally performed in prototype phase Adapted from

6 Inquiry n Focus Groups Groups of users brought together to discuss issues relating to the system Evaluator plays the role of moderator n Logging Actual Use Computer automatically collect use statistics about the system Details how users perform their work n Questionnaires Used to obtain subjective data from a group of users Adapted from

7 Human Subjects Protections n Began with Nuremberg Code after WWII "the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential" Informed consent is the cornerstone of human subjects research n In US, regulations went into effect May 30, 1974 Respect for the persons –Recognition of personal dignity and autonomy Beneficence –Maximize benefits and minimize risks Justice –Fair Distribution of benefits and burden Adapted from DHHS Guidebook

8 Human Subjects Research n Institutional Review Boards Group of individuals responsible for reviewing proposed research involving human subjects –To protect human subjects –Ensure Compliance with Federal Law n Informed Consent Document Must lay out purpose of research, time commitment, potential risks and benefits amongst other material to ensure participant has sufficient information to provide informed consent n Training and Certification of Investigators Workshops Online Training –

9 Project 3: Heuristic Evaluation n Heuristic = “a guideline or general principle or rule of thumb that can guide a design decision or be used to critique a decision that has already been made” n Requires multiple Evaluators (3-6) but no users n Each individual evaluator inspects the interface alone Adapted from

10 Project 3: Heuristic Evaluation n To aid in discovering usability problems, use of a list of heuristics is used to generate ideas while evaluating the system n Heuristics used are dependent upon the system and interface being evaluated. n After all evaluators have completed their individual inspections, the evaluators are then allowed to communicate and have their findings aggregated. Adapted from

11 Project 3: Requirements n Step 1: Define General Tasks supported n Step 2: Identify Heuristics that address the tasks n Step 3: Evaluate System n Step 4: Become Certified in Human Subjects Research

12 Define General Tasks supported n Based on current design, identify tasks involved in using interface n These will be the tasks that you will be evaluating n Consider the criteria for judging performance and success

13 Identify Heuristics that address the tasks n Review heuristics provided with assignment, the textbook and the link to Tog’s first principles. n Develop a list of heuristics or principles that you feel are best suited to your tasks n Number of applicable heuristics will vary between projects.

14 Evaluate System n Each person in group should apply the heuristics independently n As a group, identify specific design improvements Clearly identifies a specific problem Offers a solution that reflects a design heuristic Identify each suggestion by the design heuristics that motivated it

15 Become Certified in Human Subjects Research n Go through the training n Provide a certificate for each member of your groups