Prof. James A. Landay University of Washington Autumn 2006 User Testing November 30, 2006.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Task-Centered User Interface Design who are the users? what are the tasks? plagiarize! iterative design –rough descriptions, mock-ups, prototypes test.
Advertisements

Study What’s that? Why? How?. School does not “do stuff” to you You do stuff to school – it is active You do stuff to school – it is active This is about.
March 19, 2002 Internet Librarian International Darlene Fichter Data Coordinator, University of Saskatchewan Libraries
6.811 / PPAT: Principles and Practice of Assistive Technology Wednesday, 16 October 2013 Prof. Rob Miller Today: User Testing.
Web E’s goal is for you to understand how to create an initial interaction design and how to evaluate that design by studying a sample. Web F’s goal is.
HCI 특론 (2007 Fall) User Testing. 2 Hall of Fame or Hall of Shame? frys.com.
Deciding How to Measure Usability How to conduct successful user requirements activity?
Prof. James A. Landay University of Washington Spring 2012 Introduction & Course Overview CSE 441 – Advanced HCI March 27, 2012.
Darlene Fichter Data Coordinator, University of Saskatchewan Libraries February 20, 2002 Usability Testing on a Shoestring.
Chapter 14: Usability testing and field studies. 2 FJK User-Centered Design and Development Instructor: Franz J. Kurfess Computer Science Dept.
CyLab Usable Privacy and Security Laboratory 1 C yLab U sable P rivacy and S ecurity Laboratory Designing.
CS160 Discussion Section Matthew Kam Apr 14, 2003.
1 User Testing. 2 Hall of Fame or Hall of Shame? frys.com.
Stanford hci group / cs147 u 15 November 2007 Closing the Loop: From Analysis to Design Scott Klemmer tas: Marcello Bastea-Forte,
User Interface Testing. Hall of Fame or Hall of Shame?  java.sun.com.
Evaluation Methodologies
Heuristic Evaluation IS 485, Professor Matt Thatcher.
CS160 Discussion Section Matthew Kam Feb 24, 2003.
Usable Privacy and Security Carnegie Mellon University Spring 2008 Lorrie Cranor 1 Designing user studies February.
User Testing CSE 510 Richard Anderson Ken Fishkin.
James Tam Evaluating Interfaces With Users Why evaluation is crucial to interface design General approaches and tradeoffs in evaluation The role of ethics.
Damian Gordon.  Summary and Relevance of topic paper  Definition of Usability Testing ◦ Formal vs. Informal methods of testing  Testing Basics ◦ Five.
Prof. James A. Landay Computer Science Department Stanford University Autumn 2014 HCI+D: USER INTERFACE DESIGN + PROTOTYPING + EVALUATION Usability Testing.
Planning & Writing Laboratory Reports A Brief Review of the Scientific Method.
Put it to the Test: Usability Testing of Library Web Sites Nicole Campbell, Washington State University.
Online, Remote Usability Testing  Use web to carry out usability evaluations  Two main approaches agent-based evaluation (e.g., WebCritera)  model automatically.
Involving Users in Interface Evaluation Marti Hearst (UCB SIMS) SIMS 213, UI Design & Development April 8, 1999.
User Study Evaluation Human-Computer Interaction.
Object-Oriented Software Engineering Practical Software Development using UML and Java Chapter 7: Focusing on Users and Their Tasks.
Prof. James A. Landay University of Washington Autumn 2008 Rapid Prototyping November 10, 2008.
What is Usability? Usability Is a measure of how easy it is to use something: –How easy will the use of the software be for a typical user to understand,
©2010 John Wiley and Sons Chapter 6 Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction Chapter 6- Diaries.
Dana Nau: CMSC 722, AI Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
Usability Testing Chapter 6. Reliability Can you repeat the test?
Reflection helps you articulate and think about your processes for communication. Reflection gives you an opportunity to consider your use of rhetorical.
User Testing 101. Recruiting Users Find people with the same experience level as the typical user Don’t get people who are familiar with the product or.
User Interface Design & Usability for the Web Card Sorting You should now have a basic idea as to content requirements, functional requirements and user.
Task Analysis Methods IST 331. March 16 th
Lesson Overview Lesson Overview What Is Science? Lesson Overview 1.1 What Is Science?
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)
Prof. James A. Landay University of Washington Autumn 2004 User Testing December 2, 2004.
The Information School of the University of Washington Information System Design Info-440 Autumn 2002 Session #15.
Usability Evaluation. Objectives for today Go over upcoming deliverables Learn about usability testing (testing with users) BTW, we haven’t had a quiz.
By Godwin Alemoh. What is usability testing Usability testing: is the process of carrying out experiments to find out specific information about a design.
Lesson Overview Lesson Overview What Is Science? Lesson Overview 1.1 What Is Science?
Introduction to Evaluation without Users. Where are you at with readings? Should have read –TCUID, Chapter 4 For Next Week –Two Papers on Heuristics from.
User Testing. CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation2 Hall of Fame or Hall of Shame? frys.com.
Today Discussion Follow-Up Interview Techniques Next time Interview Techniques: Examples Work Modeling CD Ch.s 5, 6, & 7 CS 321 Human-Computer Interaction.
Usability Evaluation or, “I can’t figure this out...do I still get the donuts?”
Steps in Planning a Usability Test Determine Who We Want To Test Determine What We Want to Test Determine Our Test Metrics Write or Choose our Scenario.
Usability Engineering Dr. Dania Bilal IS 582 Spring 2007.
Usability Engineering Dr. Dania Bilal IS 587 Fall 2007.
UCI Library Website Chris Lee Archana Vaidyanathan Duncan Tsai Karen Quan.
11/10/981 User Testing CS 160, Fall ‘98 Professor James Landay November 10, 1998.
Prof. James A. Landay University of Washington Winter 2007 Video Prototyping January 22, 2007.
School of Engineering and Information and Communication Technology KIT305/607 Mobile Application Development Week 7: Usability (think-alouds) Dr. Rainer.
The Information School of the University of Washington Information System Design Info-440 Autumn 2002 Session #20.
Usability Testing November 15, 2016
Usability Evaluation, part 2
Professor John Canny Spring 2003
Usability Testing November 13, 2017
based on notes by James Landay
User Testing November 27, 2007.
Usability Testing November 12, 2018
Professor John Canny Spring 2004
SE365 Human Computer Interaction
Professor John Canny Fall 2004
Empirical Evaluation Data Collection: Techniques, methods, tricks Objective data IRB Clarification All research done outside the class (i.e., with non-class.
Presentation transcript:

Prof. James A. Landay University of Washington Autumn 2006 User Testing November 30, 2006

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation2 Hall of Fame or Hall of Shame? frys.com

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation3 Hall of Shame Does not follow OBVIOUS LINKS (K10) pattern Navigation separate from content –no links on right Why is this about Fry’s ISP? –I’m looking for a store!

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation4 Hall of Fame or Hall of Shame? HFS Husky Card Account Page

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation5 Hall of Fame or Hall of Shame? HFS Husky Card Account Page

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation6 Hall of Shame HFS Husky Card Account Page –violates PREVENTING ERRORS (K12)

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation7 Hall of Fame or Shame? The page you get if you get it wrong

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation8 Hall of Shame The page you get if you get it wrong –what is Blackboard Academic Suite? –where am I? –is this really the UW site? –violates SITE BRANDING (E1) –what is the error? –violates MEANINGFUL ERROR MESSAGES (K13)

Prof. James A. Landay University of Washington Autumn 2006 User Testing November 30, 2006

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation10 Outline Review Why do user testing? Choosing participants Designing the test Collecting data Administrivia Analyzing the data Course survey

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation11 Rapid Prototyping Review Informal prototyping tools bridge the gap between paper & high-fi tools High-fi UI tools good for testing more developed UI ideas Two styles of tools –“Prototyping” vs. UI builders –what is the difference? Both types generally ignore the “insides” of application  this is research

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation12 Why do User Testing? Can’t tell how good UI is until? –people use it! Other methods are based on evaluators who –may know too much –may not know enough (about tasks, etc.) Hard to predict what real users will do

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation13 Choosing Participants Representative of target users –job-specific vocab / knowledge –tasks Approximate if needed –system intended for doctors ? get medical students –system intended for engineers ? get engineering students Use incentives to get participants

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation14 Ethical Considerations Sometimes tests can be distressing –users have left in tears You have a responsibility to alleviate –make voluntary with informed consent –avoid pressure to participate –let them know they can stop at any time –stress that you are testing the system, not them –make collected data as anonymous as possible Often must get human subjects approval

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation15 User Test Proposal A report that contains –objective –description of system being testing –task environment & materials –participants –methodology –tasks –test measures Get approved & then reuse for final report Seems tedious, but writing this will help “debug” your test

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation16 Selecting Tasks Should reflect what real tasks will be like Tasks from analysis & design can be used –may need to shorten if they take too long require background that test user won’t have Try not to train unless that will happen in real deployment Avoid bending tasks in direction of what your design best supports Don’t choose tasks that are too fragmented –e.g., phone-in bank test

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation17 Deciding on Data to Collect Two types of data –process data observations of what users are doing & thinking –bottom-line data summary of what happened (time, errors, success) i.e., the dependent variables

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation18 Which Type of Data to Collect? Focus on process data first –gives good overview of where problems are Bottom-line doesn’t tell you where to fix –just says: “too slow”, “too many errors”, etc. Hard to get reliable bottom-line results –need many users for statistical significance

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation19 The “Thinking Aloud” Method Need to know what users are thinking, not just what they are doing Ask users to talk while performing tasks –tell us what they are thinking –tell us what they are trying to do –tell us questions that arise as they work –tell us things they read Make a recording or take good notes –make sure you can tell what they were doing

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation20 Thinking Aloud (cont.) Prompt the user to keep talking –“tell me what you are thinking” Only help on things you have pre-decided –keep track of anything you do give help on Recording –use a digital watch/clock –take notes, plus if possible record audio & video (or even event logs)

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation21 Video of a Test Session

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation22 Using the Test Results Summarize the data –make a list of all critical incidents (CI) positive & negative –include references back to original data –try to judge why each difficulty occurred What does data tell you? –UI work the way you thought it would? users take approaches you expected? –something missing?

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation23 Using the Results (cont.) Update task analysis & rethink design –rate severity & ease of fixing CIs –fix both severe problems & make the easy fixes Will thinking aloud give the right answers? –not always –if you ask a question, people will always give an answer, even it is has nothing to do with facts panty hose example –try to avoid specific questions

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation24 Measuring Bottom-Line Usability Situations in which numbers are useful –time requirements for task completion –successful task completion –compare two designs on speed or # of errors Ease of measurement –time is easy to record –error or successful completion is harder define in advance what these mean Do not combine with thinking-aloud. Why? –talking can affect speed & accuracy

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation25 Administrivia Assignment #6 due Fri in at 5PM – MUST also be on your web site – needed by others in the class Heuristic Evaluation assignment due at start of class on Tue (meet in the lab again) Posters due next Wed at 3 PM Final presentations next Thursday Class presentations will be attended by industry reps –I’m catering lunch afterwards if you can stay

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation26 Analyzing the Numbers Example: trying to get task time <=30 min. –test gives: 20, 15, 40, 90, 10, 5 –mean (average) = 30 –median (middle) = 17.5 –looks good! Wrong answer, not certain of anything! Factors contributing to our uncertainty ? –small number of test users (n = 6) –results are very variable (standard deviation = 32) std. dev. measures dispersal from the mean

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation27 Analyzing the Numbers (cont.) This is what statistics is for Crank through the procedures and you find –95% certain that typical value is between 5 & 55

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation28 Analyzing the Numbers (cont.)

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation29 Analyzing the Numbers (cont.) This is what statistics is for Crank through the procedures and you find –95% certain that typical value is between 5 & 55 Usability test data is quite variable –need lots to get good estimates of typical values –4 times as many tests will only narrow range by 2x breadth of range depends on sqrt of # of test users –this is when online methods become useful easy to test w/ large numbers of users

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation30 Measuring User Preference How much users like or dislike the system –can ask them to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 –or have them choose among statements “best UI I’ve ever…”, “better than average”… –hard to be sure what data will mean novelty of UI, feelings, not realistic setting … If many give you low ratings -> trouble Can get some useful data by asking –what they liked, disliked, where they had trouble, best part, worst part, etc. (redundant questions are OK)

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation31 Comparing Two Alternatives Between groups experiment –two groups of test users –each group uses only 1 of the systems Within groups experiment –one group of test users each person uses both systems can’t use the same tasks or order (learning) –best for low-level interaction techniques Between groups requires many more participants than within groups See if differences are statistically significant –assumes normal distribution & same std. dev. B A

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation32 Experimental Details Order of tasks –choose one simple order (simple -> complex) unless doing within groups experiment Training –depends on how real system will be used What if someone doesn’t finish –assign very large time & large # of errors or remove & note Pilot study –helps you fix problems with the study –do 2, first with colleagues, then with real users

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation33 Instructions to Participants Describe the purpose of the evaluation –“I’m testing the product; I’m not testing you” Tell them they can quit at any time Demonstrate the equipment Explain how to think aloud Explain that you will not provide help Describe the task –give written instructions, one task at a time

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation34 Details (cont.) Keeping variability down –recruit test users with similar background –brief users to bring them to common level –perform the test the same way every time don’t help some more than others (plan in advance) –make instructions clear Debriefing test users –often don’t remember, so demonstrate or show video segments –ask for comments on specific features show them screen (online or on paper)

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation35 Reporting the Results Report what you did & what happened Images & graphs help people get it! Video clips can be quite convincing

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation36 Summary User testing is important, but takes time/effort Early testing can be done on mock-ups (low-fi) Use ????? tasks & ????? participants –real tasks & representative participants Be ethical & treat your participants well Want to know what people are doing & why, so? –collect process data Using bottom line data requires ???? to get statistically reliable results –more participants Difference between between & within groups? –between groups: everyone participates in one condition –within groups: everyone participates in multiple conditions

CSE490f - Autumn 2006User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation37 Next Time In lab group heuristic evaluation summary