Functionality of Google Chrome OS (1)

8/7/2019 Functionality of Google Chrome OS (1)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/functionality-of-google-chrome-os-1 1/17

The User Experience within Google Chrome

By Darryl Bayliss, John Das, Daniel Lee & Paul Malloy



2

Contents

Abstract .. Page 3

Key Words. Page 3

Introduction. Page 3

Literature Review. Page 4-5

Methodology Page 5-7

Results. Page 7

Conclusion.... Page 7-8

References Page 8

Appendices..Page 9-17



3

Abstract

The aim of this Project is to identify the quality of user experience within Google

Chrome OS Linux and to heighten awareness of the accessibility of the operating

system. The usability of the OS has been tested by conducting a series of tests

that are designed to challenge the usability of the OS. The participants were

mostly technical users. In order to log the raw data, the participants provided amixture of qualitative and quantitative data through the use of questionnaires.

The results show that 90% of participants agree that the GUI (Graphical User

Interface) is user-friendly and easier to use than traditional Operating Systems

(IE, windows & leopard)

Key Words

User Experience, Accessibility, Google Chrome, Windows, Operating System, HCI,

GUI

Introduction

This document researches the usability of Google Operating System, Chrome,

which is available to the public for beta testing purposes. The report identifies

how the usability compares to other corporate operating systems. In order to

show this research, a series of tests and questionnaires were conducted to

challenge the usability of the Operating System. The participants included a

mixture of technical users and non-technical users. The following research

includes a number of different methods and approaches to ascertain the usability

features of the Google operating system. The following document consists of a

literature review, which details the critical aspects of an Operating System, the

features of a high performance Operating System. The methodology section

explains the collection of the primary data and justifies the methods used, andthe results section highlights the benefits and drawbacks of the system.

The aims of this document are listed below: -

Aim Objectives Methods

Identify the quality of user experience withinGOOGLE chrome OS Linux

To identify positive andnegative responses fromusers

Conducting research viatesting and questionnaires

To understand thefunctionality of the OS.

Literature review of Operating Systems



4

Literature review

The Literature review is a breakdown of Operating Systems in general and what

crucial aspects need to be considered during construction to make a functional

piece of operating software. Various journals and Authors will be consulted

during this review to give a more rounded view of the subject; the review will

focus on four main fields.

The first section will focus on what factors make a good operating system; this is

to ensure a fair understanding of the workings of operating systems has been

understood during testing. The second section will look back at the operating

software Google Chrome is based on and where it is today, this is to understand

the main underlying factors Google has decided to build their operating system

on. The third section will take a look at the argument between open source and

commercial software and the benefits to each, this is required because Google

Chrome is based upon open source software and a good understanding of the

benefits of this was deemed necessary by the authors. The fourth section will

discuss the functions of Google Chrome and weigh up arguments for and against the operating systems success, this was required to gather a more balanced,

non-biased opinion regarding the functionality of the operating system.

Learning about what makes a good Operating System was considered key to

understanding why Google Chrome OS will provide a good user experience, Colin

Ritchie (2001, pg 23) begins by describing the barebones of an OS as a provider

and manager of machine resources, John English (2005, pg 17) continues the

description of a OS by saying Operating Systems should be Efficient, The

Purpose of a computer is to perform tasks for you, the user. The more time and

space the operating system uses, the less there is left over for you to use

productively. Reliable, you want to be able to guarantee that the operating

system will not fail unexpectedly In essence, this shows that an operatingsystem needs to be able to provide and manager machine resources in an

efficient, reliable and simple manner.

The authors then moved onto looking behind a brief history of Google Chrome by

looking at its predecessor, Linux. To this end, it was necessary to gain knowledge

of Linuxs history and how it became free source. The works of Authors Jose M.

Garrido & Richard Schelesinger (2008, pg 15) were referred to and found

information regarding the history of Linux dating to its parent, Unix. Unix was

originally introduced in 1974 by Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson while

working at AT&T Bell Labs. The operating system was developed on a small

computer and had two design goals: small size of the software system and

portability. By 1980, many of the users were universities and research labs The

Unix family includes Linux, which was primarily designed and first implemented

by Linus Torvals and other collaborators in 1991. Torvals released the source

code on the internet and invited designers and programmers to contribute their

modifications and enhancements

With Google Chrome being based upon a free source operating system, The

authors delved briefly into the argument between commercial/free source



5

programs to gather a understanding of the benefits of each, Steve Qualline,

(1997, pg 3) comments on free software versus commercial software and why

people consider commercial software as good software. Consider Quality.

Commercial Software gives people the impression of quality. After all, if the

software wasnt any good, how could they charge money for it

Moving specifically onto Google Chrome OS, the authors looked at thefunctionality Krishnan Subramanian at cloudave.com (July 7, 2009) highlights

the attributes Google Chrome will provide First let us look at some facts about

this OS and then I will offer my first thoughts Web, Web, Web, Web, Web

(Imagine someone from Google jumping up and down and shouting this similar

to what Steve Ballmer did about developers). Web is their mantra and this OS is

designed with that in mind. It will be open source.

It will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010. Speed, simplicity

and security are the key aspects of this OS. They are redesigning the underlying

security architecture based on the idea that the user experience will be purely on

the web.

Gary Marshall from Techradar.co.uk provides more information about the

functionality of Google Chrome OS (10th December, 2010) There's no underlying

operating system to Chrome: unlike, say, Apple's iOS you don't have a choice

between native applications and web applications. Every Chrome application is a

web application; think browser-based apps rather than desktop ones. As a result,

apps in the Chrome Web Store will run "all [desktop] browsers that support this

technology." One observer has already drawn attention to why Google Chrome

will be a failure. Farhad Manjoo from slate.com (July, 2009) says Linux is hard to

love. Chrome OS will be based on Linux, the open-source operating system that

many techies have long held up as the white knight that will one day slay

Microsoft. Scores of engineers and eager entrepreneurs have tried to turn Linux

into an operating system that appeals not just to server ninjas but to regularpeople. They've had limited success

From the review above, it is suitable to conclude the following:-

y Google Chrome OS is designed for users of the web

y Google Chrome is based upon a open source Operating System that can be

technical to use in some versions

y There is both optimism and scepticism for Google Chrome OS in the

future

Methodology

In order to acquire the information required, methods of data collation were

used to gather the information and layout in a meaningful manner. The authors

considered various means of data collation but decided to use just two,

Laboratory experimentation and Survey research. These two chosen methods

provided the authors with a suitable amount of qualitative and quantitative data



6

to use. Ethical considerations will be taken into account during the collation of

data; this includes the University and BCS (British Computing Society) Ethical

Code, which can be found in the appendices.

Experimental Design

Due to Google Chrome OS being a fairly new operating system, there were veryfew people who would have had exposure to the system . This fact alone made it

clear the authors had to expose people to Google Chrome OS before they could

gather any meaningful data. Laboratory Experiments focus on keeping all

variables the same except the one being measured, the unchanging variables are

known are dependent variables.. In the case of this situation, the changing

(independent) variable will be the individual being exposed to Google Chrome

OS. The individuals were specifically chosen to ensure that there was less chance

of biased during the experiment and to increase the variety of backgrounds that

could be obtained from random screenings.

During the Laboratory Experiment, the individual was asked to perform variousactivities using Google Chrome OS from a sheet of tasks. Their ability to complete

the tasks was recorded and was compiled into graphs to show who could

complete the tasks and who couldnt.

The benefits of this method are that the authors can acquire a small sample of

thoughts and opinions on the functionality of the OS, whic h can be used to gain a

verdict on the functionality of Google Chrome. A copy of the experimental design

can be found in the appendix

Sample Questionnaire

Apart from obtaining data from the individual during testing, it felt necessary toobtain data prior and after testing. This was to gather opinion about Google

Chrome OS before exposing the individual to the OS and allowing them to

perform the tasks set out by the authors. Once the individual has performed

completed/failed the tasks, they will once again be asked questions regarding

the OS now that they have had a chance to use it.

The questions designed allows the individual to give both qualitative and

quantitative data (open ended/closed ended answers), the qualitative data will

be looked through for key phrases which will be matched upto codes decided

upon by the authors that are considered key to the functionality of the operating

system. The quantitative questions will be arranged into graphs to show how

the individuals exposed to the OS perceive the system; this ties in with what

Catherine Dawson says in her book (2009, pg 31)

Many researchers tend to use a combination of both open and closed questions.

That way, it is possible to find out how m any people use a service and what they

think about that services on the same form.



7

The benefits of this method is that the authors can acquire data about those who

have not used Google Chrome OS and compare the data they gave against the

data the individual gave after they had used Google Chrome. This allows the

authors to compare opinions and to gauge how easy people think it is to pick up

using Google Chrome OS.

Rejected Methods

Although two methods were used, others methods were discussed although not

used. These were: -

y Case Studies

y Focus Groups

Case Studies required sufficient information about a situation which could be

studied, unfortunately Google Chrome has only been about for the last few

months which means there is not enough information to build a case study

about Google Chrome.

Focus Groups are used to gather information quickly from samples of people

chosen by yourself, these groups are asked questions about the topic studied and

their opinion on it. Once again due to Google Chrome be ing new, it was deemed

not worth using a focus group, as the likelihood of gaining useful information

from it was low. Catherine Dawson also backs up the decision within her book

(pg 30)

Disadvantages of Focus Groups include Other people may contaminate an

individuals views.. Difficult to extract individual views during the analysis.

Results

The results gained from the questionnaires show that the majority of people that

took part in the study were highly optimistic about the operating system before

having a chance to use it, the main reasons were they believed Google had

established its reputation as a trustable company to produce such software and

that it was believed they had the resources to do so.

The majority of people classed themselves as technical users, the literature

review showed that non-technical people may struggle using Google Chrome OS,

unfortunately the results could not confirm this but they do show that technical

users do not have a problem with using Google Chrome.

The general consensus regarding performance and functionality was that Google

Chrome booted from startup quicker than their preferred operating system, one

individual estimating as much as a thirty second gap. None of the participants

reports having any issues with using the OS.



8

Lastly, the majority of people actually considered using Google Chrome OS when

it is publically released, which the authors believe is a major contribution to the

conclusion of this project.

Conclusion

The authors of this project set out to achieve the following: -

y Identify the quality of user experience within Google Chrome OS Linux

y To heighten awareness of the accessibility of the operating system.

Following the data collection and analysis conducted, the authors of this project

believe they have succeeded in both points and can now say that the quality of

user experience within Google Chrome, even within its early stages of

development is very high. The majority of participants believed Google Chrome

easy to use and quicker in performance than their preferred OS.

The majority of participants also said they would consider using the OS in the

future, this means that the authors second point to heighten awareness has

succeeded and hope it will flourish in the future. After coding the collected data,

the majority of words gathered from the open-ended questions suggested a

positive and high-quality experience before and after using Google Chrome.

These codes included

y Loaded Quickly

y None (In response to any problems encountered)

y Yes due to trust put in company/ Amount of resources company has (In

response to faith in Google being able to construct a OS)

The adherence to the project plan that was constructed at the beginning of the

study was extremely good; the authors believe that it was the adherence to this

plan that allowed them to gather the information promptly. The plan can be

found in the appendices below.

References

Colin, R.,2001. Operating Systems: Incorporating UNIX and Windows, 4 th Edition.

Thomson Learning

English, J., 2004. Introduction to Operating Systems. Palgrave Macmillian

Garrido,J.M, Schlesinger, R., 2007. Principles of Modern Operating Systems. Jones

& Bartlett Publishers

Qualline, S., 1997.Discover Linux. Wiley Publishing

Dawson, C., 2009. Introduction to Research Methods 4th Edition. How To Books

Ltd



9

Google Chrome Information, 2009 [Online] Available at:

http://www.cloudave.com/1893/google-chrome-os-why-why-why/ [Accessed

5th March 2011]

Google Chrome Information , 2010 [Online] Available at:

http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/google-chrome-os-what-you-need-to-know-914070 [Accessed 5th March 2011]

Five Reasons Why Google Chrome is a Bad Idea, 2009 [Online] Availablt at:

http://www.slate.com/id/2222564/ [Accessed 5th March 2011]

Appendices

Ethical Code of Conduct

The following work will adhere to all ethical practices that are part of Edge Hill

University and the BCS (British Computing Society)

Links to the ethical Code of Conduct of the BCS can be found below: -

http://www.bcs.org/category/6030

The following Edge Hill Ethical considerations will be particularly taken into

account: -

1 The primary responsibility for the conduct of ethical research lies with theresearcher. It is a fundamental principle that students engaged in researchadopt a continuing personal commitment to act ethically, to encourage ethicalbehaviour in those with whom they collaborate, and to consult whereappropriate concerning ethical issues.

2 General Responsibilities

2.1 Towards research participants: Researchers have a responsibilityto ensure as far as possible that the physical, social and psychologicalwell-being of their research participants is not detrimentally affected bythe research. Research relationships should be characterised,whenever possible, by mutual respect and trust.

3 Informed Consent



10

3.1 Research should be based, as far as possible and practicable, onthe freely given first person consent of those under study.

3.2 It is the responsibility of the researcher to explain as fully as isreasonable and appropriate, and in terms meaningful to theparticipants: the aims and nature of the research, who is undertaking it,

who is funding it, its likely duration, why it is being undertaken, thepossible consequences of the research, and how the results are to bedisseminated.

3.4 The researcher should explain how far research participants will beafforded anonymity and confidentiality and participants should have theoption of rejecting the use of data-gathering devices such as tape-recorders and video cameras

4 Confidentiality and Anonymity

4.1 The anonymity and privacy of research participants should be

respected and personal information relating to participants should bekept confidential and secure. Researchers must comply with theprovisions of the Data Protection Act.

4.2 Where possible, threats to the confidentiality and anonymity of research data should be anticipated by researchers and normally theidentities and research records of participants should be keptconfidential, whether or not an explicit pledge of confidentiality hasbeen given.

5 Procedures for Approval .

Course Leaders in undergraduate programmes are responsible for ensuring that all undergraduate students are aware of, and agree toabide by, the principles expressed in this Code of Conduct, throughtheir respective Course Handbooks. All students are required to signaltheir adherence to the principles expressed in this Code of Conduct byfilling in the appropriate form and includ ing it with their assignmentcover sheet.



11

Questi i es

Coll t Q tionnai

Questi i e 1



12

Questionnaire 2



13



14

ed P ses/ ll ted s

Before esti g

Question wo

Do you feel s epti l of the fact that Google can successf ully design an Operating

Syst em similar t o other corporat e operating syst ems such as Microsof t ? If so,

why do you think this?

Quest i

¡ Three

3

2

1

2

Quest i 2

Yes/Trusted Co pa

Yes/Has Resources

No/Most l WebBased

No



15

Would you describe yourself as a t echnical or non-t echnical comput er user? (For

inst ance, are you knowledgeable with things such as comput er programming?

Af ter Test i ¢

£

Quest i ¤ ¢ Seven

You should have observed how well the Operating syst em st art ed up. Did it

successf ully load? If so, did it load quickly or slowly? (If th e OS doesnt load the

f irst time, t ry again.)

Quest i ¤ n Ei£

ht

On a scale of 1 t o 5 (1 being ery Diff icult and 5 being ery Simple), how

easily could you navigat e the user int erface?

7

2

Quest i n 3

Technical

Non-Technical

1

8

Quest i n 7

Loaded

Loaded/ uickly



16

Quest i ¥ n Ten

Google Chrome OS is current ly in its bet a t esting phase, and not scheduled for

release until mid-2011. Despit e this, and af t er t esting it for yourself, could you

see Google Chrome OS being successf ul when off icially released t o the general

public?

1

1

16

Quest i n 8

1 Lowest

2

3

4

5 Best

6

3

Quest i n 10

Yes

No



17

Pr ¦ ject Pl§

n

Documents

Functionality of Google Chrome OS (1)