Evaluation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
©2011 1www.id-book.com Evaluation studies: From controlled to natural settings Chapter 14.
Advertisements

Chapter 15: Analytical evaluation
Chapter 14: Usability testing and field studies
Asking Users and Experts
CS305: HCI in SW Development Continuing Evaluation: Asking Experts Inspections and walkthroughs.
Chapter 14: Usability testing and field studies. 2 FJK User-Centered Design and Development Instructor: Franz J. Kurfess Computer Science Dept.
Evaluation (cont.): Heuristic Evaluation Cognitive Walkthrough CS352.
Chapter 14: Usability testing and field studies. Usability Testing Emphasizes the property of being usable Key Components –User Pre-Test –User Test –User.
Asking users & experts.
Chapter 15: Analytical evaluation. 2 FJK User-Centered Design and Development Instructor: Franz J. Kurfess Computer Science Dept. Cal Poly San.
Asking users & experts. The aims Discuss the role of interviews & questionnaires in evaluation. Teach basic questionnaire design. Describe how do interviews,
1 User-Centered Design and Development Instructor: Franz J. Kurfess Computer Science Dept. Cal Poly San Luis Obispo FJK 2009.
Heuristic Evaluation IS 485, Professor Matt Thatcher.
Heuristic Evaluation Evaluating with experts. Discount Evaluation Techniques  Basis: Observing users can be time- consuming and expensive Try to predict.
Evaluation Through Expert Analysis U U U
Evaluating with experts
Heuristic Evaluation.
Usability 2004 J T Burns1 Usability & Usability Engineering.
Asking users & experts The aims Discuss the role of interviews & questionnaires in evaluation. Teach basic questionnaire design. Describe how do interviews,
Evaluation: Inspections, Analytics & Models
From Controlled to Natural Settings
Design in the World of Business
©2011 1www.id-book.com Analytical evaluation Chapter 15.
Chapter 14: Usability testing and field studies
Usability testing and field studies
1 Asking users & experts and Testing & modeling users Ref: Ch
Predictive Evaluation
Evaluation Framework Prevention vs. Intervention CHONG POH WAN 21 JUNE 2011.
Discount Evaluation Evaluating with experts. Discount Evaluation Techniques Basis: – Observing users can be time-consuming and expensive – Try to predict.
Slides based on those by Paul Cairns, York ( users.cs.york.ac.uk/~pcairns/) + ID3 book slides + slides from: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i213/s08/lectures/i ppthttp://www-
Ch 14. Testing & modeling users
Part 1-Intro; Part 2- Req; Part 3- Design  Chapter 20 Why evaluate the usability of user interface designs?  Chapter 21 Deciding on what you need to.
Formative Evaluation cs3724: HCI. Problem scenarios summative evaluation Information scenarios claims about current practice analysis of stakeholders,
Computer Science Department California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA, U.S.A. Franz J. Kurfess CPE/CSC 484: User-Centered Design and.
©2011 1www.id-book.com Introducing Evaluation Chapter 12 adapted by Wan C. Yoon
Usability Expert Review Anna Diubina. What is usability? The effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users achieve specified goals.
Usability Evaluation June 8, Why do we need to do usability evaluation?
Evaluation approaches Text p Text p
Testing & modeling users. The aims Describe how to do user testing. Discuss the differences between user testing, usability testing and research experiments.
Identifying needs and establishing requirements
Y ASER G HANAM Heuristic Evaluation. Roadmap Introduction How it works Advantages Shortcomings Conclusion Exercise.
CS3205: HCI in SW Development Evaluation (Return to…) We’ve had an introduction to evaluation. Now for more details on…
Chapter 15: Analytical evaluation. Inspections Heuristic evaluation Walkthroughs.
Chapter 15: Analytical evaluation Q1, 2. Inspections Heuristic evaluation Walkthroughs Start Q3 Reviewers tend to use guidelines, heuristics and checklists.
Analytical evaluation Prepared by Dr. Nor Azman Ismail Department of Computer Graphics and Multimedia Faculty of Computer Science & Information System.
Evaluating a UI Design Expert inspection methods Cognitive Walkthrough
Asking users & experts. The aims Discuss the role of interviews & questionnaires in evaluation. Teach basic questionnaire design. Describe how do interviews,
Chapter 15: Analytical evaluation. Aims: Describe inspection methods. Show how heuristic evaluation can be adapted to evaluate different products. Explain.
Oct 211 The next two weeks Oct 21 & 23: Lectures on user interface evaluation Oct 28: Lecture by Dr. Maurice Masliah No office hours (out of town) Oct.
Introduction to Evaluation “Informal” approaches.
Fall 2002CS/PSY Predictive Evaluation (Evaluation Without Users) Gathering data about usability of a design by a specified group of users for a particular.
COGNITIVE WALKTHROUGH Vigneshwar Poojar. The cognitive walkthrough is a formalized way of imagining people’s thoughts and actions when they use an interface.
Asking Users and Experts Li Zhang (Jacey) Yuewei Zhou (Joanna)
SIE 515 Design Evaluation Lecture 7.
Human Computer Interaction Lecture 15 Usability Evaluation
Imran Hussain University of Management and Technology (UMT)
CS3205: HCI in SW Development Evaluation (Return to…)
Evaluation Techniques 1
From Controlled to Natural Settings
PostPC Computing Heuristic Evaluation Prof. Scott Kirkpatrick, HUJI
Chapter 26 Inspections of the user interface
From Controlled to Natural Settings
Formative Evaluation cs3724: HCI.
Testing & modeling users
Miguel Tavares Coimbra
Miguel Tavares Coimbra
Miguel Tavares Coimbra
Evaluation: Inspections, Analytics & Models
Evaluation: Inspections, Analytics, and Models
Presentation transcript:

Evaluation

Experiments Predict the relationship between two or more variables. Independent variable (e.g. which design) is manipulated by the researcher. Dependent variable (e.g. time) depends on the independent variable. Typical experimental designs have one or two independent variable.

Experimental designs Different participants - single group of participants is allocated randomly to the experimental conditions. Same participants - all participants appear in both conditions. Matched participants - participants are matched in pairs, e.g., based on expertise, gender, etc.

Different, same, matched participant design

The Need to Balance Why do we balance Latin square study design For learning effects and fatigue For interactions among conditions For unexpected features of tasks Latin square study design Used to balance conditions and ordering effects Consider balancing use of two systems for two tasks for a same-participant study

Review of Experimental Statistics For normal distributions T test: for identifying differences between two populations Paired T test: for identifying differences between the same population or a well-matched pair of populations ANOVA: for identifying differences between more than two populations For predicted distributions Chi square: to determine if difference from predicted is meaningful

Field Studies Field studies are done in natural settings. The aim is to understand what users do naturally and how technology impacts them. Field studies can be used in product design to: - identify opportunities for new technology; - determine design requirements; - decide how best to introduce new technology; - evaluate technology in use.

Data collection & analysis Observation & interviews Notes, pictures, recordings Video Logging Analyses Categorized Categories can be provided by theory Grounded theory Activity theory

Analytical Evaluation Overview Describe inspection methods. Show how heuristic evaluation can be adapted to evaluate different products. Explain how to do doing heuristic evaluation and walkthroughs. Describe how to perform GOMS and Fitts’ Law, and when to use them. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of analytical evaluation.

Inspections Several kinds. Experts use their knowledge of users & technology to review software usability. Expert critiques (crits) can be formal or informal reports. Heuristic evaluation is a review guided by a set of heuristics. Walkthroughs involve stepping through a pre-planned scenario noting potential problems.

Heuristic evaluation Developed Jacob Nielsen in the early 1990s. Based on heuristics distilled from an empirical analysis of 249 usability problems. These heuristics have been revised for current technology. Heuristics being developed for mobile devices, wearables, virtual worlds, etc. Design guidelines form a basis for developing heuristics.

Nielsen’s heuristics Visibility of system status. Match between system and real world. User control and freedom. Consistency and standards. Error prevention. Recognition rather than recall. Flexibility and efficiency of use. Aesthetic and minimalist design. Help users recognize, diagnose, recover from errors. Help and documentation.

Discount evaluation Heuristic evaluation is referred to as discount evaluation when 5 evaluators are used. Empirical evidence suggests that on average 5 evaluators identify 75-80% of usability problems.

No. of evaluators & problems

3 stages for doing heuristic evaluation Briefing session to tell experts what to do. Evaluation period of 1-2 hours in which: Each expert works separately; Take one pass to get a feel for the product; Take a second pass to focus on specific features. Debriefing session in which experts work together to prioritize problems.

Advantages and problems Few ethical & practical issues to consider because users not involved Can be difficult & expensive to find experts Best experts have knowledge of application domain & users Biggest problems: Important problems may get missed Many trivial problems are often identified Experts have biases

Cognitive walkthroughs Focus on ease of learning Designer presents an aspect of the design & usage scenarios. Expert is told the assumptions about user population, context of use, task details. One of more experts walk through the design prototype with the scenario. Experts are guided by 3 questions.

The 3 questions Will the correct action be sufficiently evident to the user? Will the user notice that the correct action is available? Will the user associate and interpret the response from the action correctly? Note the connection to Norman’s gulf of execution and gulf of evaluation. As the experts work through the scenario they note problems.

Pluralistic walkthrough Variation on the cognitive walkthrough theme. Performed by a carefully managed team. The panel of experts begins by working separately. Then there is managed discussion that leads to agreed decisions. The approach lends itself well to participatory design.

Predictive Models Provide a way of evaluating products or designs without directly involving users. Less expensive than user testing. Usefulness limited to systems with predictable tasks - e.g., telephone answering systems, mobiles, cell phones, etc. Based on expert error-free behavior.

GOMS Goals - the state the user wants to achieve e.g., find a website. Operators - the cognitive processes & physical actions needed to attain the goals, e.g., decide which search engine to use. Methods - the procedures for accomplishing the goals, e.g., drag mouse over field, type in keywords, press the go button. Selection rules - decide which method to select when there is more than one. Use at NYNEX and NASA

Keystroke level model GOMS has also been developed to provide a quantitative model - the keystroke level model. The keystroke model allows predictions to be made about how long it takes an expert user to perform a task.

Response times for keystroke level operators (Card et al., 1983)

Fitts’ Law (Fitts, 1954) Fitts’ Law predicts that the time to point at an object using a device is a function of the distance from the target object & the object’s size. The further away & the smaller the object, the longer the time to locate it and point to it. Fitts’ Law is useful for evaluating systems for which the time to locate an object is important, e.g., a cell phone, a handheld devices.

Characteristics of approaches Usability testing Field studies Analytical Users do task natural not involved Location controlled anywhere When prototype early Data quantitative qualitative problems Feed back measures & errors descriptions Type applied naturalistic expert

Evaluation approaches and methods Usability testing Field studies Analytical Observing x Asking users Asking experts Testing Modeling