Monthly Archives: June 2013
Isomursu, M., Kuutti, K. and Vainamo, S. (2004) Experience clip: Method for user participation and evaluation of mobile concepts. In Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design: Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices (PDC 04), Vol. 1, pp. 83-92.
DOI=10.1145/1011870.1011881 In Experience Clip, a pair of users from the passers by is invited to participate in the evaluation of a mobile application in the use of which moving around is central. They gave the evaluated application to the other … Continue reading
Foelstad, A. and Hornbaek, K. (2010) Work-domain knowledge in usability evaluation: Experiences with Cooperative Usability Testing. The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 83, No. 11, pp. 2019-2030.
DOI= 10.1016/j.jss.2010.02.026 Foelstad and Hornbaek studied the use of Cooperative Usability Testing in the development of two work-domain specific systems. As modifications to the original method, they included an interpretation phase after each task, and used task-scenario walkthroughs instead of … Continue reading
Froekjaer, E. and Hornbaek, K. (2005) Cooperative usability testing: complementing usability tests with user-supported interpretation sessions. In CHI ’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’05), pp. 1383-1386.
DOI=10.1145/1056808.1056922 Froekjaer and Hornbaek present a usability testing method called Cooperative Usability Testing. It consists of two parts: The first part is an interaction session in which user interacts with the system as in contextual inquiry or in thinking aloud … Continue reading
Woolrych, A., Hornbaek, K., Froekjaer, E., and Cockton, G. (2011). Ingredients and meals rather than recipes: A proposal for research that does not treat usability evaluation methods as indivisible wholes. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 27, No. 10, pp. 940-970.
DOI= 10.1080/10447318.2011.555314 Woolrych et al. nicely analyse the state of research and comparisons on usability evaluation methods. Too often, these methods are considered as precisely presented step-by-step procedures that almost automatically produce a list of usability problems regardless of the … Continue reading
Lindgaard, G. and Chattratichart, J. (2007) Usability testing: what have we overlooked?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1415-1424.
DOI= 10.1145/1240624.1240839 The studies by Lindgaard and Chattratichart indicate a need to shift the focus from the number of test users to the number of test tasks in usability testing. Lindgaard and Chattratichart analysed the results of several usability teams … Continue reading
Holleran, P.A. (1991) A methodological note on pitfalls in usability testing. Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 345-357.
DOI:10.1080/01449299108924295 Good usability testing is similar to good empirical research: the use of improper procedures will result in invalid data, and thereby poor validity and reliability. Holleran categorises pitfalls in usability testing into three groups: sampling problems mainly in planning … Continue reading
Orne, M.T. (1962) On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist. Vol. 17, No. 11, pp. 776-783.
Accession Number= 00000487-196211000-00005 Finally I found an article presenting notes on social psychology studies regarding the behavior of people as test participants. Although usability tests are not generally treated as scientific or psychological experiments, many similar phenomenon as in Orne’s … Continue reading