usability evaluation of an Enterprise Content Management ......Abstract An Enterprise Content Management system is software primarily designed to manage, capture and store business

Platina examined - usabilityevaluation of an Enterprise

Content Management system

Tobias Norrfors

April 26, 2007Master’s Thesis in Computing Science, 20 credits

Supervisor at CS-UmU: Lars-Erik JanlertExaminer: Per Lindstrom

Umea UniversityDepartment of Computing Science

SE-901 87 UMEASWEDEN

Abstract

An Enterprise Content Management system is software primarily designed to manage,capture and store business related documents and information. Platina, developed byEBI Systems, is one of the leading Enterprise Content Management systems in Swedenof today.

This paper presents a thorough evaluation of Platina. Cognitive work analysis,heuristic evaluation and user testing is utilized in the evaluation process. Three personswere interviewed using a semi-structured interview and almost 80 people answered anonline questionnaire especially implemented for this project.

Usability is highly important to consider when designing new software. The intendeduser should be involved from the beginning of the design process and development shouldbe iterative. A well designed and aesthetic graphical user interface, along with highusability, can be the difference between a popular and an unpopular product.

As an end result from the evaluations and surveys, a suggested redesign of the userinterface is presented along with how such an interface should be structured and whatstandards to use.

ii

Contents

1 Introduction 11.1 Thesis outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Problem statement 32.1 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 Methods and in-depth study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Enterprise Content Management 53.1 What is an Enterprise Content Management? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.2 Evaluating an Enterprise Content Management system . . . . . . . . . . 63.3 Platina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4 User Experience 114.1 Usability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.1.1 What is Usability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114.1.2 Usability engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134.1.3 Why focus on Usability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144.1.4 Why companies avoid Usability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.2 Designing Graphical User Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.2.1 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.2.2 Graphical components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164.2.3 Microsoft Windows Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5 Evaluation techniques 215.1 Cognitive Work Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

5.1.1 Work Domain Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.1.2 Control Task Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.1.3 Strategies Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235.1.4 Social-Organizational Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235.1.5 Worker Competencies Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5.2 Heuristic evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

iii

iv CONTENTS

5.3 User testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265.3.1 Semi-structured interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265.3.2 Online questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

6 Analysis of Platina 316.1 Cognitive Work Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

6.1.1 Work Domain Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316.1.2 Control Task Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316.1.3 Strategies Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326.1.4 Social-Organizational Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326.1.5 Worker Competencies Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

6.2 Heuristic evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336.2.1 Maintain high visibility of system status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346.2.2 Speak the user’s language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346.2.3 Provide user control and freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346.2.4 Be consistent and use standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346.2.5 Provide error prevention and recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356.2.6 Support recognition rather than recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356.2.7 Flexibility and efficiency of use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366.2.8 Use aesthetic and minimalistic design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366.2.9 Provide help and documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

6.3 User testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376.3.1 Semi-structured interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376.3.2 Online questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

7 Design solutions 457.1 Overall appearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457.2 Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457.3 Today area and modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477.4 Tree view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487.5 Document card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507.6 Check out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517.7 Platina revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527.8 Future visions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

8 Conclusions 558.1 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558.2 Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

9 Acknowledgements 57

References 59

CONTENTS v

A Guideline for the semi-structured interview 63

B Online questionnaire statistics 67

vi CONTENTS

List of Figures

3.1 Platina version 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.2 Platina Workflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.3 The Platina Today area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.1 HSV model. H=hue, S=saturation, V=value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5.1 Relation between Work Domain Analysis and Control Task Analysis . . 225.2 Relation between Control Task Analysis and Strategies Analysis . . . . 235.3 Usertesting.se - Initial information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285.4 Usertesting.se - Statements divided into groups of similiar subject . . . 285.5 Usertesting.se - Presentation of new design solutions . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6.1 What do the icons really visualize? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366.2 The old check out dialog box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366.3 Folder icons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

7.1 Old top menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457.2 A new solution for the top menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467.3 A new solution for the top menu with an item pulled down . . . . . . . 467.4 A new solution for a quick search field at the bottom left of Platina . . 477.5 A new solution for Today area modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477.6 A new solution for Today area modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477.7 The Updater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487.8 The old tree view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497.9 A new solution for a folder tree. The folder tree head is circled . . . . . 497.10 A new solution for the folder tree with an item pulled down . . . . . . . 507.11 The old document card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507.12 A new solution to the structure and layout of a document card . . . . . 517.13 The old check out dialog box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517.14 A new solution for a check out dialog box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527.15 The final design suggestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

vii

viii LIST OF FIGURES

List of Tables

B.1 Statistics - Readability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67B.2 Statistics - Coloration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67B.3 Statistics - Icons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67B.4 Statistics - Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68B.5 Statistics - Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68B.6 Statistics - Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68B.7 Statistics - Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68B.8 Statistics - Today area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68B.9 Statistics - Learnability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68B.10 Statistics - Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69B.11 Statistics - Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69B.12 Statistics - New modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69B.13 Statistics - New top menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69B.14 Statistics - New tree view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69B.15 Statistics - New search function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70B.16 Statistics - Updater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

ix

x LIST OF TABLES

Chapter 1

Introduction

Platina is an Enterprise Content Management system developed by EBI Systems. Thebasic idea of Platina is to automate and improve the business process efficiency bysupplying accurate and up to date information to its users.

Usability is an important aspect of such a system since it is utilized by a greatdiversity of people. This thesis explores the current user interface and usability situation,trying to improve both of them.

EBI Systems is one of the leading developers of Enterprise Content Management(ECM) systems in Sweden of today. They are solely a software development companyfocusing on developing and improving Platina and the components surrounding it. Theyhave been using Microsoft’s .Net platform since the launch of it in the beginning of the21th century and have received several awards for their performance.

1.1 Thesis outline

Chapter 2 - Problem statement

The problem statement chapter explains the purpose and background of this Master’sthesis along with the goals and methods.

Chapter 3 - Enterprise Content Management

What is an Enterprise Content Management system? What are the characteristics andwhat should such a system contain? These are the question answered in this chapteralong with a presentation of the Platina system.

Chapter 4 - User experience

A theoretical in-depth study of how a good user experience can be achieved. Usability,graphical user interfaces and standards are the components explained.

Chapter 5 - Evaluation techniques

Usability engineering requires user involvement. This chapter explains in depth, on atheoretical level, how cognitive work analysis and heuristic evaluation can be performed.

1

2 Chapter 1. Introduction

Chapter 6 - Analysis

Almost 80 people participated in the surveys conducted for this thesis. This chapterpresents the findings from these surveys along with the results from the two expertevaluations.

Chapter 7 - Results

Discusses the results gained from all data collection made. Recommendations, examplesand design solutions are presented.

Chapter 8 - Conclusions

The last chapter discusses the findings and results presented in this Master’s thesis.This chapter also presents what the limitations are and what can be done in the future.

Chapter 2

Problem statement

EBI Systems is currently developing the next version of their software Platina, version 4.For this release, they have requested a thorough review of the overall usability and thegraphical user interface design. They want to know how improved usability can affectthe usage of Platina, how it can be implemented and what the benefits could be.

Included in this specification is a wish for some concrete examples of how the newuser interface could look. These examples should include redesign of the document andcase module concerning colors and form design.

2.1 Goals

The goal of this study is to set up a list of design guidelines that can and will improve theuser experience of future releases of the Platina platform. In addition to guidelines, anexample design will be created and to some extent implemented in the existing Platinasoftware. The new design will follow Microsoft Vista User Experience Guidelines [8].

2.2 Purposes

Usability

Usability is an essential part of making software popular and well adopted among cus-tomers. Usability is also a great way of attracting new customers and stand out amongcompetitors.

The purpose of improving the usability in the Platina platform is to make every-day usage as easy and comfortable as possible. Satisfied customers are customers thatprobably will recommend the product to other conceivable customers.

User interface design

A well designed user interface makes the overall user experience greater. Human beingshave got a way of liking things attracting their eyes. Computer software is not anexception.

3

4 Chapter 2. Problem statement

2.3 Methods and in-depth study

Designing a great user experience and high usability requires user involvement. There-fore, one of the most important parts of this thesis is to listen to the user’s point ofview, the thoughts and knowledge of every day users of Platina. Users are vital in asuccessful and efficient software development and should not be set aside.

Another important concern, when designing high usability software, is the imple-mentation of standards. Platina is developed to run on Microsoft operating systems andclients, hence the most logical approach would be utilizing the user experience guidelinesfor Microsoft Windows. The majority of all Platina customers are using Windows XP,which makes the XP guidelines most suitable. However, Microsoft is on their way toroll out their first release of Windows Vista, an operating system that most likely willreplace Windows XP, more or less, completely. Therefore, this study will focus on thedesign aspects available so far for Vista and related software, such as the new version ofMicrosoft Office.

A couple of usability experts around the world have developed their own guidelinesthat are widely adopted today. A heuristic evaluation, using some of these guidelines, isa good way of finding usability problems by just looking at and exploring the software.This study will present the findings of such a walk-through and explain more in depththe purpose and the theory behind heuristic evaluation.

Cognitive Work Analysis is a model of describing the environment where a user anda system are acting. This model will be used to try and find out the user’s needs notdiscovered by the heuristic evaluation.

Chapter 3

Enterprise ContentManagement

Platina is an Enterprise Content Management (ECM) system. This chapter explainswhat an Enterprise Content Management system is and what the benefits of using sucha system could be. This chapter also presents some aspects to consider when evaluatingan ECM system. Finally, a short description of Platina is presented.

3.1 What is an Enterprise Content Management?

The Enterprise Content Management Association, AIIM, defines Enterprise ContentManagement (ECM) as ”the technologies, tools, and methods used to capture, manage,store, preserve and deliver information, content, and documents related to organizationalprocesses” [10]. ECM systems can be described as the tool assisting organizations tomanage unstructured information independent of where that information exists.

The idea of Enterprise Content Management is to enable continuity, collaboration,compliance and reduce costs [10].

Productivity savings Productivity savings is about making the staff more produc-tive. Gartner Group has predicted that the cost of having workers doing non-value-addeddocument-related work will increase substantially in the near future [17]. The savingsof using a content management system will be at least half of the time and money spenton this non-value-added work today according to Gartner Group [15]. Savings can alsobe made on reducing the time spent on customers [17].

Improved customer service An ECM system will reduce the time spent on lookingfor information related to the customer [17]. This will increase the possibilities forcustomers to receive information and service at any time. Authorities in Sweden are, forexample, working on a project called ”the 24/7 authority” (”24-timmarsmyndigheten”in Swedish) [19]. The Platina platform has become an important part of that project.

A very pleasant side effect derived from having satisfied customers usually is increasedrevenues, which hopefully will motivate companies to invest in content managementsystems.[17]

5

6 Chapter 3. Enterprise Content Management

Improved Quality of Content An enterprise content management system will makeit easier to maintain high quality content within the organization. The system will helpdecrease the amount of inaccurate and outdated information and assure quality contentto customers [17]

Improved feedback An enterprise content management system should be used toimprove feedback. This can be made by collecting information on which worker areworking on what content and how. This data can later be used to find ways to improvework strategies and make service enhancements [17]

3.2 Evaluating an Enterprise Content Managementsystem

What should developers implement into an ECM system? What should companies/customersconsider when buying an ECM system? One of the world leaders in content manage-ment, EMC Corporation [6], has put together a list of aspects that an Enterprise ContentManagement should support or incorporate. These findings [5], compiled below, mustbe considered to be some what biased since EMC is a major player on the internationalECM market, but the ideas and guidelines are still sensible and should apply for allECM.

Architecture and scalability The underlying architecture is, according to EMC, themost central aspect a developer of ECM systems should focus on. A well constructedarchitecture will enable the system to grow and support a huge number of users. Anygiven company can be sure to see a growth of enterprise content, according to analysts asmuch as 200% annually, which requires the ECM system to be scalable. The number ofemployees will hopefully increase annually as well, making scalability of users important.Scalability is very difficult to implement later on if the original architecture has flaws.

Support of standards An important system such as an enterprise content man-agement system should incorporate and support industry standards. Adopting andintegrating a large ECM system to existing company software could lead to the needof additional implementation. If the system, for example, does not support industrystandard programming languages and open source code, this will be a problem. AnECM system should also support standard file types for the content to be managed.

Usability An enterprise content management system is usually utilized by a varietyof people, with different level of computer skills, age, prerequisites, etc. Therefore,implementing high usability is of great importance.

Security A lot of company related information is classified and sensitive material. Amajor goal for most companies is to prevent unauthorized access of such content. Thisis why an enterprise content management system must implement high security. Thehard part is to make the content both easy to access and secure at the same time.

3.3. Platina 7

Storage and diary service Another fundamental functionality an enterprise con-tent management system should support is storage. As mentioned earlier, a company’samount of content will increase, making efficient storage a vital functionality. An ECMsystem should also support check in/check out functionality, getting content in and outfrom the system.

Business Process Management Automating business processes is a good way ofimproving a company’s competitive footing. An efficient business process managementsystem, BPM in everyday speech, can help increase productivity, reduce costs and makechanging of business conditions easy to adapt.

Support Even though support is not part of the actual software, it is still an essentialpart of an enterprise content management system. Most companies will probably needsupport when installing the ECM system due to the complexity of integrating a systemof such size with already existing software. A good support will make customers satisfiedand improve the overall market status.

3.3 Platina

As mentioned before, Platina (fig 3.1) is an Enterprise Content Management system.EBI Systems, the developer of Platina, released the first version of Platina in 2001. Thelatest version of Platina is the 3.1 version, released summer 2006. The goal is to releaseversion 4.0 this spring (2007), a version that is intended to have a new graphical userinterface and comprehensive functionality upgrades.

An Enterprise Content Management system can be considered as an information andknowledge management system. Platina is designed to automate and improve efficiencyfor business processes by supplying accurate, relevant and up to date information to allconnected users. Platina is developed using Microsoft .Net environment.

Platina consists of a core framework and a couple of modules. The core frameworkis a stand-alone system, a server. This server has got a connection layer that extractsinformation and data from other databases used by the company where Platina is in-stalled.

A module can be considered as an application within the application. These modulesare add-on products that can be individually installed and used by any company that hasgot the Platina core framework installed. Modules can also be custom made or developedby a third party developer, making the Platina system very flexible and scalable.

The most utilized modules are the document manager, the case/diary manager andthe work flow manager.

The document management module manages all the documents processed within anorganization. The module uses revision control, approval procedures, search functionsand more to make sure that all documents are handled correctly and stored on a secureserver at the end.

The case and diary management module is especially designed and customized to beused by authorities. The module is an important tool in the process of accomplishing thegoal of having a ”24/7 authority”, earlier discussed in this chapter. The case and diarymanagement module helps structuring, automate and simplifying the administrativework process related to case management within an organization. The module makessure that all cases and diaries are handled according to current work flows and routines.


Figure 3.1: Platina version 3.1

The work flow module is utilized to automate tasks according to an organization’sbusiness processes. The module makes it easy to create automated tasks just by draggingand dropping items on the screen (fig 3.2).

One of the most important parts of Platina is the today area (fig 3.3). This is whereall the modules are listed and where most data is presented.

3.3. Platina 9

Figure 3.2: Platina Workflow

Figure 3.3: The Platina Today area


Chapter 4

User Experience

”Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothingleft to take away.” -Antoine de Saint-Exupery

User experience is about the general experience and satisfaction a user has and feelswhen using a system. User experience is a combination of several development fields, e.g.human factors, information architecture, usability, interface design, interaction design,etc. This paper will focus on usability and interface design, or more specific, graphicaluser interfaces.

What will a product or a system benefit from incorporating high usability? Or morerelevant, what will the user of such a system gain? Why have not this been done before?What graphical components should developers focus on when designing graphical userinterface? These are some of the questions this chapter will try to answer.

4.1 Usability

Creating a good user experience is more than placing a button at a certain positionor using the right color. Even though these two examples are important also, focusshould be set on designing the functionality and usability as correct as possible fromthe beginning. This section explains what usability is, how it can be achieved, why itshould be used and why many companies somehow have neglected to incorporate it.

4.1.1 What is Usability

Usability can be defined, and has been, in numerous ways. However, one aspect unitesthem all; the focus on the user. The International Organization for Standardizationdefined usability 1998 (ISO 9241-11) as ”The extent to which a product can be used byspecified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction ina specified context of use”[1].

It is essential to incorporate the proposed user from the beginning of the development.User requirements should be dictated before the design process begins and the usershould be advised continuously throughout the process.

Microsoft has compiled a list of factors in an attempt to define usability [7].

11

12 Chapter 4. User Experience

Easiness A system or a product is measured with regard to how easy it is to use, howeasy a user can perform the task handed to him or her.

Utility Utility is a part of the system’s usefulness. Utility measures a system’s, ora product’s, capability to perform a certain task. Utility is about providing the righttype of functionality and thereby enable the user to do what he or she need and wantto do [9]. A product that can perform many tasks has got a high utility. However,a product with a very high number of performable tasks may have very low usability;due to complexity. A product designed with a low number of performable tasks will, onthe other hand, probably have great usability. The problem is that most users prefer asystem or product that can deliver a lot of functionality. The difficult part is to combinehigh utility with high usability.

Likeability People tend to use products they like more than products they do not.This is not rocket science. What many developers and manufacturer do not think aboutis that people who like a product are more likely to recommend it to others. According toMicrosoft, people often like a product due to its styling and appearance. In other words,a well-liked product does not necessary has to incorporate high usability. Combiningattractive styling with high usability would therefore probably result in a very popularsystem among customers, hence a competitive advantage.

Discovery Measures how much time it takes a user to find a wanted functionality orfeature in a system. This amount of time is essential when talking about user experience.People tend to get frustrated when they can not find the feature they are looking for tocomplete their work. They will probably make a couple of wrong choices on their wayto the right one as well.

Learning Learning is the user’s capability to find out how to use a discovered featureto accomplish a certain task.

Efficiency This component is closely connected to learning. Efficiency is measuredwhen the user has become master of a feature, when the user do not need any morelearning to efficiently use the feature. Efficiency is the time it takes such a user to handlea feature to complete a task.

Jakob Nielsen, a guru in the world of usability, has got a couple of more factors inhis definition of usability [24]:

Memorability Measures how easy it is for users to regain efficiency when they havebeen away from the system for a longer period of time.

Errors All users make mistakes at some point. The question to be asked is how manythey make and how serious these errors are. The level of easiness, with which a userrecovers from these errors, is also very important to keep in mind when designing a userinterface.

4.1. Usability 13

4.1.2 Usability engineering

Usability engineering is exactly what the name says, an engineering practice. Accord-ing to Good et al, any engineering process is about ”specifying, quantitatively and inadvance, what characteristics and in what amounts the final product to be engineeredis to have” [14]. The process does however not end there, the product must also beconstructed and proven to incorporate the specified characteristics.

Usability engineering is about building a product or a system that satisfies the user’sneeds [14]. It is important to build a system where the usability can be measured. With-out measurable usability, it is difficult to have or perform usability engineering [14]. Asystem’s usability is preferably measured by how well it corresponds to the cornerstonesof usability, e.g. efficiency, errors, satisfaction, learning, etc.

John D. Gould et al have listed four aspects on what usability engineering shouldinvolve [20].

Early focus on users Software developed for human customers should involve thesecustomers in the design process. The developers need to understand how their customersthink and act, how their work environment looks like and the characteristics of theirjobs. This can be done by participatory design, observations and surveys and so on.

Integrated design The usability engineering process should be integrated in the prod-uct design process and not be a detached activity. Gould says that the usability teamshould be under the same management as the rest of the development team. On theother hand, Richard Sheridan, president of Menlo Innovations, says that the usabilityteam should be placed directly under the product manager for best results. The rest ofthe development team should be placed under the engineering manager which in turnis placed under the product manager. What approach a company chooses depends onhow their organization is built today.

Early and continual user testing As mentioned in the first paragraph, users shouldbe involved throughout the entire design process. This means that users should beobserved and tested continuously. User’s opinions and feedback should be evaluatedcarefully and taken into considerations.

Iterative Design Continuous user testing generates an iterative design process. Find-ings from different user testing sessions must be implemented continuously to improvethe quality of the product. Iterative design is the foundation of the usability designprocess.

Good et al summarizes, or defines, usability engineering in five important principlescompiled below [14]:

1. Usability has to be defined to be able to be measured afterwards.

2. Goals must be setup; what level of usability should the system incorporate?

3. The impact of the design solution must be analyzed

4. Ask users for feedback and responses

5. Finally, iterate until the specified level of usability is reached.


4.1.3 Why focus on Usability

Incorporating a usability expert into a development team costs money and requires theproduct design process to be re-arranged. This may sound like a big step for mostcompanies. Why should they increase their expenses when the opposite sounds morereasonable? Why should they involve a usability expert in the process when it is possibleto make a working and bug-free product anyway?

This is how many companies of today argue. The truth about the effects usability hason product development is however far more interesting. Wixon and Wilson [32] havecompiled three lists of benefits of incorporating usability, applying to upper management,engineering management and developers.

For upper management, the people responsible for profits and losses, usability engi-neering can [32]:

– Provide a good foundation when stating the benefits of a product. Usability datacan be used to convince potential, but skeptical, customers of the advantages ofthe software. The data can also be used to make marketing information betterand show the possibilities for beginners and early adopters of new technology.

– Decrease the cost of development by, for example, making future updates and bugfixes less common.

– Make sure that potential customers are satisfied with the product by conductinguser tests and estimate user responses.

– Provide useful information, quantitative data, on competitive products and theirusability.

The engineering manager is the person responsible for delivery of the company’s softwareon time. For this person, usability engineering can [32]:

– Help reducing the time wasted in re-design due to the fact that developers andcustomers/user do not share goals.

– Objectively sort and prioritize what design problem to focus on in order to makea useful product in the shortest amount of time.

– Help leading a team to produce interfaces in a very early stage.

The people constructing the product, the developers, can also benefit. For them, us-ability engineering can [32]:

– Bring creativity to the design process.

– Provide a framework for work to be more efficient.

4.1.4 Why companies avoid Usability

Software users are stupid. That is a very common perception among software developers[28]. Those developers create great products with amazing new technology that worksperfectly when tested internally by colleagues and other programmers. How come thosestupid users can not understand how to use the software? The solution to this problemusually is to launch training sessions where users can learn how to use the software. Thedownside is that this problem causes another. Training is very expensive and occupies

4.2. Designing Graphical User Interfaces 15

valuable time for employers. A much better solution is to incorporate usability thinkingin the design process. Once again, this will reduce development expenses and reducethe need for customer software exercise. Maybe, after all, users are not stupid?

Gould et al list a couple of reasons to why companies have a difficult time seeing thebenefits of usability [20]:

– Development is goal driven. Goals need to be met and budgets need to be held.Usability is rarely included in these goals.

– Many companies still believe that the effects of incorporating usability can not bemeasured.

– Project management is not used to handling both classic software development andusability work. The problem for many project managers, concerning usability, isthe lack of clear goals and solutions for problem that arises from the usabilitydesign process.

– Conflicts may arise between usability designers and software programmers. Pro-grammers may feel that they have to do extra work to satisfy the usability design-ers, work that requires time that they do not have.

– User interface programming requires a lot of code to look sufficient and usable. Al-most every single application requires its own user interface, making user interfacecode hard to reuse.

The solutions to all these problems are definitely viable. Keeping budgets will be alot easier when the work process is optimized, making software bugs less common andthe requirement for additional work, later on, unnecessary. Unlike what many think,usability is quite easy to measure. The most basic way of doing this is by listeningto the customers. The results may hopefully be visible in the company’s revenues aswell. When Dell Computer increased the usability of its e-commerce, online purchasesrose from $1 million dollar per day to $34 million dollar per day in less than two years.Oracle’s database manager is another example. The usability improvements made onthat software made database administrators perform their tasks 20% faster [3].

4.2 Designing Graphical User Interfaces

The graphical user interface is what a user faces when using most software. It is animportant part of the user experience, a part that easily can ruin a user’s opinionabout a certain product. The graphical user interface can not make the user experiencecomplete on its own, but any software developing company should make sure to assignresources for this cause.

This section discusses what to think about concerning structure, graphical compo-nents and the use of Microsoft Windows standard.

4.2.1 Structure

The overall organization and structure of an application is the part that probably makesthe greatest impact on how a user perceives it.


The first step is to organize the content, the information to be displayed, in a suitablefashion. Once that has been done the visual structure need to be handled.

Mullet and Sano defines four important techniques that can be implemented to makethe user interface appropriate. These are symmetry, alignment, optical adjustment andwhite space [23].

Symmetry is used to guarantee balance. This technique can be used to make sat-isfactory balance in almost every design. The two most common types of symmetry,implemented in user interfaces, are vertical axial symmetry and diagonal axial symme-try [4]. The first one is symmetry long side a vertical line. The tool palette in AdobePhotoshop is a great example for this; all tools are organized in symmetry, mostly inpairs, along a vertical toolbar. The other symmetry is commonly used in dialog boxes.It is symmetry along a diagonal line, for example going from the top left to the bottomright of a dialog box. One way to test for symmetry is to apply the mirror test. If bothsides of the imaginary mirror, in these cases placed along the lines, looks the same thedesign incorporates symmetry [4].

Alignment is used to establish visual relationships. When objects are aligned cor-rectly they will appear as a group, objects belonging together. Labels attached tocontrols should be aligned with each other, most preferably using left-justification sincethis is easier for the users to perceive. Grid layout should be used to arrange controlsin a clear and effective arrangement [4].

White space or negative space, is used to shape the display. White spaces are not awaste of spaces; on the contrary, they are used to direct the user’s attention to regionsof important information. They work perfectly as a way to integrate foreground andbackground elements. Cooper and Reimann compares using white spaces with how abook is structured [4]. Without margins and spacing between paragraphs a book wouldbe very frustrating to read. Cooper and Reimann also talks about spatial harmony. Byusing the Golden Section ratio, harmony can be achieved in the user interface [4].

Optical adjustment is used to avoid optical illusions.

4.2.2 Graphical components

Once the structure has been handled, the focus should be on enhancing the visualgraphics, making the graphical user interface attractive to watch. Listed below aresome components to consider.

Color and contrast

Using color is an excellent approach to enhance a user interface. Using the wrong coloris also one of the easiest ways of making a user interface more or less unusable.

Alvy Ray [31], a pioneer in computer graphics, created a model in 1978 called HSV(fig 4.1), the hue, saturation and value model [22].

– Hue is what in every day speech is called color. If you change the hue, you willchange the color as people see it. It can for example be green, yellow, pink etc.


Figure 4.1: HSV model. H=hue, S=saturation, V=value

– Saturation is about purity. By mixing grey into any color, hue, the result will bea less pure color. Lower amount of saturation will result in a less pure color.

– Value is what normally is referred to as brightness. The more white mixed with acolor, the brighter it will be and reflect more light.

When colors are used correctly the benefits are many [4]:

– Color attracts the eye and draws attention which makes it perfect to highlightimportant information on the screen.

– Colors make navigation easier and faster by using them as consistent signposts inthe user interface.

– Objects with the same color are interpreted as related. This makes color an easyway to group and organize related elements and objects.

Misuse of color will on the other hand cause severe usability problems. Some of themost common ways of misuse are [4]:

– The use of complementary colors and chromostereopsis. Complementary colors arecolors located on the opposite side of each other on the color circle, for examplered and green, yellow and purple. These colors are difficult to perceive when theyare put next to each other. Chromostereopsis is when colors of the extreme end ofthe color spectrum are put together. For example, if blue and red are put togetherthe result will be a feeling of vibration.

– The use of too many colors at the same time at the same area. Too many colorsincreases the time it takes to locate the requested function or object.

Contrast is also very important to consider. Colored objects need to differ from thebackground color in more than hue. A difference in saturation and value will make thecontrast between the objects easy to perceive. This is especially important with text.The best way to achieve good contrast with text, hence good readability, is to avoidcolored text on colored background.


Text

Text can be divided into two categories: content and labels. Content is the text thatcarries valuable information and is meant to be read. Labels can usually be describedas headlines, meant to be recognized, not necessarily read.

Legibility, ”the ease with which type characters can be read” [16], is vital. Goodlegibility will make the user interface easy to use.

The most basic step of making text legible is to use an appropriate font. The fontitself is made up of three elements: typeface, point size and attributes. The typeface isthe style, the look of the font, what is normally thought of when talking about fonts.Some well known typefaces are Verdana, New Times Roman, Arial, etc. The point sizeis the size of the font, from the top of the ascenders to the bottom of the descendersexcluding the internal spacing [8]. The fonts should be sans-serif, that is without thenon-structural details on the ends of some of the letter strokes. Seriffed fonts are perfectfor body-text on paper, but they are difficult to read on computer screens due to theresolution and should therefore, at most, be used as labels [2]. Body-text should bewritten with regular formatting, not using bold or italic characters. The letters shouldbe of mixed cases and not all upper or lower case [2].

Icons

The benefits of using icons are many. Eric Schaffer and John Sorflaten have compiled alist of benefits [30]:

– Icons save time. Users do not need to spend time on reading labels and descrip-tions.

– Icons save space. What normally would require several words describing can beachieved with a 16 x 16 pixel small icon.

– Icons are somewhat cross cultural. Pictures can be understood by most people,no matter what native language they speak.

– Icons are usable by illiterates. People do not need the capability to read to be ableto understand an icon.

Icons implemented in a user interface should be designed to share similar attributes.The user should recognize one icon as a member of a family of icons. This is calledvisual coherence [30].

The easiest icons to understand are those doing the work of nouns. It is much harderto visualize actions, or verb forms [30]. For example, an icon of a letter is easier to drawthan an icon vizualizing sending a letter. What should the second icon display? Aletter on its way into a mailbox? Or a letter handed over to a postman? Actions arepersonally independent while a letter, more or less, only can have one design. A goodway of symbolizing action is to use arrows, showing what direction objects are movingand what is happening.

It is also important to remember that symbols can have different meanings in differentcultures. This contradicts what was listed above saying that icons are cross cultural, butcultures are so much more than languages. For example, a typical American mailboxdoes not look like a Swedish mailbox, which makes it hard to decide what icon to usefor a mail receiving function in a Swedish computer application. The best solution tothis problem is to do user testing and stick to standard icons [30].


The best of icons would not require any time to memorize, but in reality most icons doin fact call for user memorization. Eric Schaffer and John Sorflaten say that the designermust ”accept that most icons are not instantly recognizable” [30]. Their solution, tomake it more recognizable, is to attach a label to the icon. This will require a couple ofhundred milliseconds extra to perceive, but will reduce the memory load substantially.A second solution would be using tool tips. They will help reducing the memory load,but will instead consume a lot of time, especially if the user needs to investigate severalicons. Schaffer and Sorflaten estimates that it takes two-third of a second for a tooltipto appear and be perceived. This means that six icons would require about four secondsto be investigated, which is a lot. However, when there is no room for labels, the tooltipsare better to use than nothing at all [30].

4.2.3 Microsoft Windows Standard

When designing applications for a Microsoft Windows operating system, a good idea isto follow the Microsoft User Experience Guidelines. By doing so, the software will beeasy to recognize for any given Windows user and the user do not have to figure outhow to operate the most basic functionality.

The most recent version of Windows, Microsoft Windows Vista, is being shipped asthis paper is written. Therefore, all the recommendations and guidelines presented hereare inspired and derived from the Microsoft Vista User Experience Guidelines [8].

There are no good reasons to why this paper should make a big list of all the graphicalVista components and what they look like. The guideline is far too comprehensive andsuch a list would occupy tens of pages. The interested reader is advised to read thecomplete document of the Vista Experience Guidelines [8].

This paper focuses on some of the most relevant and general components utilizedin Platina, listed above, along with a couple of general design recommendations fromMicrosoft, listed below.

General recommendations

Microsoft says that ”the ideal Windows Vista-based application is both powerful andsimple” [8]. This might sound like utopia, but it is possible to achieve through carefuldesign and development.

A system is powerful when it is capable of performing a huge number of tasks.However, as mentioned before in this paper, such a system is rarely usable. Accordingto Microsoft, a powerful application incorporates the following characteristics, amongother features.” [8]:

Enabling Let a user perform tasks never possible before.

Efficient Assist a user to be more productive than ever possible before.

Versatile Enables a wide variety of task to be performed effectively.

Direct Let the use achieve goals quickly and direct, without unnecessary steps.


Flexible Assure the user to be in control of what is happening.

Microsoft says that ”the ultimate measure of power is productivity, not the numberof features.” [8]. The most important part of making a system powerful is to understandthe user’s goals and supply them the tools to productively reach those goals.

Microsoft defines simplicity as ”the reduction or elimination of an attribute of adesign that target users are aware of and consider unessential” [8]. When developingsimplicity, the focus should be on what a user is likely to do. Unlikely actions shouldbe reduced or hidden, impossible actions completely erased.

To make software both powerful and simple to use, a developer should make surethat features that belong together are placed together [8]. This enables a user to workefficiently and perform related tasks at one place. However, not everything is suitable tocombine. Tasks that do not belong together should have clearly marked boundaries [8].The most important features should be placed at a central and obvious position. Lessimportant functionality should be well separated or even hidden. All elements shouldfollow a logical order [8]. The most important information should be clearly visible.Less important information and instructions can be reach by for example clicking on alink or an icon. Tool tips are the next step, and rarely used information, such as thehelp functionality, should be placed in a separated window.

Graphical components

Should not all windows applications follow the Microsoft Windows design guidelines?That is a question the author of this master’s thesis recently got. The answer is, froma usability perspective, yes they should. However, that is not the way it is today.

One of the major benefits of following these guidelines is that almost all Windowsusers are familiar with how such an application function. Many of them know where tolook for menus, they now what functionality the ”save” icon offers, etc.

As mentioned in the beginning of this section, this master’s thesis will not displayall suitable graphical components since they would consume too much space. Platinashould incorporate Microsoft Windows application standards, and the best way of doingso is by reading and following the Microsoft Vista Experience Guidelines [8] along withthis paper.

Chapter 5

Evaluation techniques

This chapter presents the evaluation techniques utilized for the evaluation of Platina.User testing is the most essential part of making a system usable; therefore, the mainfocus has been set on asking what the users of Platina have to say. However, there areother aspects to consider as well. A user operates in an environment, an environmentthat has to be analyzed to see how it affects the work process. This is made by usingCognitive Work Analysis. A user may not always know how a best possible solutioncould look and feel like. That is the reason to why guidelines, or heuristics, have beenused to measure the usability of Platina.

5.1 Cognitive Work Analysis

Cognitive Work Analysis (CWA) is a framework designed to facilitate analysis of human-information interaction [27]. It is divided into five subgroups of analysis:

– Work Domain Analysis (WDA)

– Control Task Analysis (CTA)

– Strategies Analysis (SA)

– Social-Organizational Analysis (SOA)

– Worker Competencies Analysis (WCA)

Cognitive Work Analysis was developed at the department of System Analysis at RisøNational Library in Denmark in the 1970’s. The fundamental goal of the developmentwas to find a model for analysis that could assist in the human-centered design oftechnologies that people use in their work [12]. The benefit of using the CWA frameworkis that it offers a mechanism to directly transform analysis information into designrequirements [12].

An ecological approach should always be the foundation of a work analysis accordingto John Flach [11]. He declares that an environmental study, identifying environmentalconstraints, should precede the study of cognitive constraints. Vicente gives an exampleof the importance of environmental studies when designing a user interface. It doesnot matter if the user interface is compatible with the mental model of a worker if theenvironment does not behave the same way as the model [21]. In other words, it is a

21

22 Chapter 5. Evaluation techniques

waste of both time and money to develop something that does not correspond to thebehavior of the environment.

However, the cognitive constraints should definitely not be left out. After the en-vironmental constraints have been recognized, the focus should shift to identify humancharacteristics. Once the human characteristics, the cognitive constraints, have beenidentified the design can be completed [21].

The five steps of cognitive work analysis try to identify and answer questions through-out the entire process of work. First the field of activity is analyzed (work domain) toidentify how the system itself is constructed. The next step is to find out what needsto be done (control tasks) independent of who is doing what. The analysis then tries todetect how these tasks can be carried out, what strategies can be used. The fourth stepidentifies how the first three steps are distributed across human workers and machines(social organizational). It furthermore identifies how the actors communicate and co-operate. The last step focuses on the competencies workers need to posses to performeffectively in their designated role (worker competencies).

5.1.1 Work Domain Analysis

This first step of Cognitive Work Analysis focuses on the system itself. It analyzesthe functional structure and not the activities of workers acting in the system. Thecomposition of the work domain, the system, will confine the goals and tasks possible[21].

5.1.2 Control Task Analysis

The second step of CWA identifies what needs to be done; the control tasks that needsto be carried out. The work domain and the control tasks are closely bounded to eachother (fig 5.1). Information about the state of the work domain is needed to performcontrol tasks. On the opposite side, control tasks require action on the work domain[21].

Figure 5.1: Relation between Work Domain Analysis and Control Task Analysis

The control task analysis does not take into consideration exactly how these tasksare carried out. The analysis can however display a number of possibilities [21].

5.1. Cognitive Work Analysis 23

5.1.3 Strategies Analysis

This third step of the analysis focuses on how the previously identified control tasks arecarried out, what strategies which are adopted. The definition of a strategy in this caseis ”a category of cognitive tasks that transforms an initial state of knowledge into a finalstate of knowledge” [21]. A more common description of a strategy is ”a specific andcharacteristic pattern of activity” [13].

Figure 5.2: Relation between Control Task Analysis and Strategies Analysis

Figure 5.2 shows that when control task analysis focuses on the input, output andconstraints of a process, the strategies analysis breaks down the process into severalpossible strategies. In other words, strategies analysis explains how the ”what” in controltask analysis can be done.

5.1.4 Social-Organizational Analysis

The fourth step of CWA focuses on the distribution of work and responsibility betweenhuman workers and machines. It also identifies how these actors could communicateand cooperate [21].

The distribution of work can be implemented on the abstraction-decomposition spaceidentified in the work domain analysis. This is an effective way of dividing up responsi-bilities across actors in the current situation. Vicente has illustrated that complex workenvironments and open systems are complicated to pre-plan [21]. Social organizationanalysis can be used to identify flexible and distributed organizational structures.

5.1.5 Worker Competencies Analysis

The fifth, and last step of Cognitive Work Analysis, is the only one when the worker isin focus. The analysis can be performed on two types of situations. The first type ofsituation concern situations where there already exist a system and workers are needed.This kind of analysis identifies what competencies workers need to have to fully functionin a designated role [21].

It is also possible to go the other way around, that is, designing a device for workersthat already exist. Then the analysis begins by identify the worker’s capacity to be ableto design a device for them.

The worker competencies analysis can be divided into three different kinds of cog-nitive control; knowledge-based behavior, rule-based behavior and skill-based behavior.


This taxonomy is called Skills-Rules-Knowledge taxonomy and was stated by Rasmussenin 1983 [18].

Knowledge-based behavior

Knowledge-based behavior is the slowest model of action. Compared to the other twobehaviors, knowledge-based behavior requires conscious and focal attention which makesit slow and effortful [21].

Rule-based behavior

As the name hints, the ruled-based behavior governed by rules. These rules are derivedfrom procedures, experience, instructions or previous problem-solving activities [21]. Adifference compared to knowledge-based behavior is that goals are considered implicitly,not explicitly [21].

Skill-based behavior

Skill based behavior is action taking place without conscious control for human beings[21]. The action is automated and smooth. One excellent example of skill based behavioris walking. Even though walking in theory is a very intricate action involving variablessuch as gravity, speed and numerous muscles, it is highly automated to the majority ofthe population. Once you have learned to walk, you will probably never analyze theaction performed.

Anticipatory action is an important part of skill-based behavior. Vicente describesskill-based behavior as action based on feedforward, not feedback [21]. In other words,the individual is expected to act, not react.

5.2 Heuristic evaluation

A heuristic evaluation is performed by studying and looking at an interface. It is aninformal evaluation method where a number of experts try to find and list both positiveand negative aspects of the interface [25]. The most common way to conduct suchan evaluation is by following certain guidelines, rules of thumbs of how a perfect userinterface should function and look like [25]. Jakob Nielsen has got a number of heuristicswhich have been used for this paper [26]. A heuristic evaluation should be performed bya couple of experts, around 4-5 for optimal results, but one expert is better than none.Nielsen recommends that the evaluation should be done repeatedly [25], following theseheuristics:

1. Maintain high visibility of system status

Maintaining high visibility is about providing feedback to the user. The system, via theuser interface, should at all time keep the user up to date about what is going on. Thiscan be performed through text, sounds, images or other appropriate forms of indication.The user will be more relaxed toward the system if he or she is well informed and ableto manipulate the system.

5.2. Heuristic evaluation 25

2. Speak the user’s language

The system should reflect the real world. Using a language that is familiar to the userwill improve the user’s orientation and understanding of the system. Familiar words,phrases and concepts should be used instead of technical and system-oriented terms.How the system behaves should also reflect the real world. The system should followconventions and rules existing in the real world, for instance, making information appearin a natural and logical order. If the gap between what the users expect and what thesystem display is small, the knowledge required to use the system will be minimized.

3. Provide user control and freedom

People make mistakes. It is important to provide the user a clearly marked and ”bulletproof” emergency exit that can be used when a mistake is made. Users often click onthe wrong button or choose a system function by mistake. The most logical option insituations like that is to provide an undo function, leading the user back to the previousstate. Providing solutions to mistakes made by the user will give the user control overthe system.

4. Be consistent and use standards

An icon used at two or more places in a user interface should always have the samemeaning. This is called consistency and should be implemented throughout the entiresystem. A user should never have to feel insecure whether different words and actionsmean the same thing, sometimes referred to as uniformity. One of the easiest ways toimplement consistency is by using well known standards. If a system is design to rununder a Microsoft Windows operating system, the system should use Microsoft standardcomponents.

5. Provide error prevention and recovery

Computer systems make mistakes. When an error occurs, the system should provideefficient and easy-to-understand error messages. The user should be informed of whatproblem that has occurred, due to what mistake and how to fix it. If the user can notfix it himself, the error message should supply information of whom to contact. An evenbetter solution is to design and implement systems so that error and problem does notoccur in the first place.

6. Support recognition rather than recall

A computer system should support recognition rather than recollection. A user shouldnot have to exactly remember the functionality and configuration from one usage oc-casion to another. Instead, the user should be able to recognize the meaning of thesefunctions by making them visible and easy to understand. One simple way of reducingthe user’s memory load is to display active information on the screen as long as it isuseful and used. Instructions on how to use the system should be easily retrievable andvisible whenever appropriate.


7. Flexibility and efficiency of use

The user should be able to customize frequently used actions to speed up the work andbecome more efficient. Shortcuts are one solution to this problem. By providing thesepossibilities the system can evolve along with the user, making the system very flexible.

8. Use aesthetic and minimalistic design

The user interface design should be clean and minimalistic. The basic idea is that thedialogues should not contain more information than what is necessary and relevant.If irrelevant units are added they will simply draw attention away from the relevantinformation. Too much information displayed will force the user to scan for relevantdata, which will reduce efficiency considerably.

9. Provide help and documentation

The perfect user interface would not need the help or documentation option, but untilthat day occurs it is often necessary to provide an easy-to-use documentation and helpfunctionality. The help function should be easy to access and focus on the user’s task.The help instructions displayed to the user should list a decent number of concrete stepsto be carried out and provide uncomplicated search functionality.

5.3 User testing

A usability engineering process is more or less a waste of time if real users are notinvolved. For this reason, two types of user testing methods were exercised: a semi-structured interview and a web-based questionnaire.

5.3.1 Semi-structured interviews

A semi-structured interview is a combination of a structured and unstructured interview[9]. This implies that a semi-structured interview implements both open and closedquestions. The idea is to start asking the subject a preplanned question, out of many,and then, similar to a dialog, see where it leads. Follow-up questions will be more orless made up as the interview develops [9]. A couple of possible ”follow-up” questionshould however be thought of in advanced to avoid unwanted abruptions and all thepreplanned questions must be answered in the end.

5.3.2 Online questionnaires

Even though interviews will generate a lot of high-quality data and feedback, they havegot two major drawbacks: interviews consume a lot of time and an interviewer mustattending at all time. As often in the corporate world, time is money. The solution is toincorporate a less time-demanding user test, for example an online-based questionnaire.

The greatest benefit of doing online questionnaires is that they are very efficientwhen it comes to time consumption, distribution and ease of handling [9]. An onlinequestionnaire will only consume time twice for the conductor; when he or she is makingthe questionnaire and when summarizing the collected data. The questionnaire can bespread to hundreds or thousands of users without having to leave the office, hence savingpostage costs compared to a paper based questionnaire.

5.3. User testing 27

There are two basic types of online questionnaires; e-mail and web based. E-mailbased questionnaires are usually less extensive since most of them are limited to textonly. A web based questionnaire can consist of check boxes, pull-down menus, helpoptions, etc making it more flexible and easy to adapt to the prevailing situation.

Usertesting.se

For this thesis, a web testing platform has been implemented. The decision to do thiscame after having looked at, and quickly evaluated, some of the existing commercialweb questionnaires. They were either not good enough or too expensive to use.

The basic goals of the new web questionnaire were to:

– incorporate high usability (one should not throw stones in a glass house)

– enable a variety of questions

– enable users to leave further comments

– enable testing of new design solutions

– store all information in a database

– enable easy access to collected information

– preserve total anonymity

– offer users a chance to receive a reward but still stay anonymous

The outcome is a questionnaire divided into two sections. The first section evaluatesthe existing software, the existing solution and looks. The second section presents acouple of new design solutions for the user to evaluate.

Before the user begins answering questions, an introduction text is presented (fig5.3). This text explains how the test is designed and what the questions will looklike. Almost all questions are presented as statements, where the user shall decide howmuch he or she agrees. The scale is a set of ”smileys”, grading in five steps from ”I doabsolutely not agree” to ”I most definitely agree”.

The first set of questions to be answered concern age, sex and overall informationabout the period of time they have been using Platina.

All the following statements in the first section are divided into groups of similarsubject (fig 5.4). An introduction text is presented to each and every group, explainingthe idea of the following statements.

The second section of the questionnaire consists of a couple of new design solutions(fig 5.5). The user is first presented with a screenshot of how the original design lookslike. Then, a couple of screenshots from the new design solution is displayed a longwith comments on the ideas behind them. When the user has studied these screenshotsenough, he or she is asked to answer a couple of questions. These questions are onceagain presented as statements.

The development of usertesting.se was an iterative design process. Both users andexperts were advised several times throughout the process in an attempt to make thequestionnaire as good as possible. The experts advised were students from the Interac-tion and Design program at Umea University.

The purpose of implementing Usertesting.se was most of all to develop a question-naire for this master’s thesis. However, the questionnaire can fairly easy be transformedinto supporting evaluation of other software or products.


Figure 5.3: Usertesting.se - Initial information

Figure 5.4: Usertesting.se - Statements divided into groups of similiar subject


Figure 5.5: Usertesting.se - Presentation of new design solutions


Chapter 6

Analysis of Platina

This chapter presents the information collected from the performed evaluations. Asmentioned in chapter 5, focus has been set on asking for the user’s opinions. A webquestionnaire was designed and utilized, along with a couple of semi-structured inter-views. The first evaluation presented below, the Cognitive Work Analysis, was usedin an attempt to understand the environments and the organizations in which Platinaoperates. Secondly, an heuristic evaluation was performed, using Nielsens heuristics, inan attempt to find usability flaws.

6.1 Cognitive Work Analysis

The Cognitive Work Analysis is based on data collected from the interviews at VLLand general observations of the functionality in Platina. Especially the work domainanalysis is a result of the VLL interviews, but all the other sub analysis are stronglyinfluenced by the answers given at VLL.

6.1.1 Work Domain Analysis

The environment in which Platina operates is a typical office space. The people inter-viewed for this project all had their own offices where disturbing sounds, noises andlight were more or less absent. One important aspect that all interviewed participantsmentioned was that the computer hardware had a significant role in the performanceof Platina. The network and computer performance have to be high to offer a seamlessworking process in Platina. The screen size and resolution also affects the level of effi-ciency. Many users are at an age when their low eye capacity makes it difficult to readtext implementing small font sizes. Their solution to the problem has become to runPlatina on a low resolution setting, mostly 1024x768 pixels, which most definitely affectthe structure and overview.

6.1.2 Control Task Analysis

The purpose of using Platina differs from customer to customer. One characteristicmost of them have in common is the transition from paper work to a digital version.The development of such a system requires a lot of knowledge on how these manually

31

32 Chapter 6. Analysis of Platina

work processes is carried out today. Unfortunately, Platina does not completely followcommon work processes from the real world according to many users.

Any given user of Platina needs to make sure he or she stays up-to-date with thework flows and cases presented to him or her. Almost all Platina users are part of awork process that incorporates one or more co-workers. If one of these co-workers doesnot perform his or her part of the process, the process will break down.

A Platina user also needs to make sure that his or her public documents are checkedin to the system when his or her work on a given document is completed. Otherwise,the rest of the organization will not be able to continue to work on the document.

6.1.3 Strategies Analysis

Platina is built so that the customers can adjust and configure the applications settingsthemselves. However, the main functionality is almost the same independent of who thecustomer is.

The task described in the control task analysis section, keeping up-to-date with workflows, should be an easy task for any user. However, that is not always the case. Thebiggest problem is that some users disregard the need to login to Platina. If they donot login, they will not be able to see that their effort is needed in a work flow. Thesolution for this problem today is to phone or email this co-worker and ask him or herto login and do his or her part of the process.

A public document that has been checked out will remain outside the system untilthe responsible user decides to check it in again. It is not possible for other ordinaryusers to affect this situation via Platina. If a person needs to get his or her hands onthe co-worker’s document, he or she must contact the co-worker by phone or email. Theonly other solution possible is for an admin to undo the check out process.

6.1.4 Social-Organizational Analysis

Platina has contributed to a slight shift of power within the organizations the systemhas been adapted to. Before the adaption of Platina, when all work was done manuallyor by many separate systems, it was custom that only a few persons had an overview ofthe organization’s work process. With Platina, almost every user can follow this processwithout having to leave the room. This might lead to an increased feeling of reallybelonging to the group, or the organization in this case, but also make some people feelless important.

6.1.5 Worker Competencies Analysis

Every new user of Platina attends an education before they begin using the product.The original outline for such an education was based on a full day of teaching, coveringa large part of Platina. However, some customers have begun to separate this educationinto smaller parts. The benefit is that people more likely will pay attention the entiretime; a full day of education involves too much new information. Another benefit is thatthe instructor can hand out ”homework” which the participants can practice on untilthe next gathering. One problem that still exists is that some people do not experimentand explore the software on their own, which leads to a loss of knowledge. In otherwords, they forget how the system works between the education sessions conducted.

A user will be introduced to a lot of new information and work processes when he orshe begins working with Platina. It is an advantage if the user has knowledge of how the


organization is constructed and operates. Some users have requested a built-in wizardor dictionary of some kind, where users can learn the meaning of different unfamiliarconcepts and words.

Skill-based-behavior

Many routine tasks in Platina become more or less automated skills for the user aftersome time of usage. This aspect is important to consider when designing systems likePlatina. The system should help and inform the user in the beginning, but allow theuser to evolve as time goes by. The user should never have to feel restrained by thesystem, for example be forced to read and follow instructions when he or she could dofine without them. This makes wizards or guides suitable for Platina. They can help auser when he or she needs to, but stay hidden when the user has begun to understandthe system. Another more basic solution is to implement shortcuts.

Rule-based-behavior

Some functionality is based on pre-decided rules and instructions. One example of thisin Platina is when a user handles a work flow. The user is then obligated to follow acertain flow and do his or her part of the flow.

When a field, checkbox, etc in Platina is mandatory, the component in question ismarked with a red frame. This means that a user has to type in a value or make a choiceto be able to continue. Input fields that can not be edited are locked, which may createirritation. A better solution would be to make these locked input fields appear as labelsinstead.

Knowledge-based-behavior

To be able to work with functions like a diary or a case it is essential that the user knowswhat these concepts means. This is more or less up to the user to find out as Platinafunctions today. As for the skill-based-behavior, a wizard or guide would solve thisproblem also. Another solution is to simply incorporate more ”non-technical” relatedinformation in the help functionality, for example explaining for the user what a diaryis.

6.2 Heuristic evaluation

The heuristic evaluation was performed by the author of this master’s thesis. Theanalysis was performed both directly, before ever having used Platina, and after sometime of usage and education. It is easy to become biased after having used a systemfor a while. This became obvious after having done the interviews, people adapt tothe circumstances, which was the reason why an analysis was made very early in theevaluation process.

The analysis was made by using Jakob Nielsen’s heuristics for usability, explained inchapter 5.2. Some additional expert comments were made by other usability engineers,but those comments can hardly be considered as a complete heuristic analysis.


6.2.1 Maintain high visibility of system status

The feedback in Platina is not non-existing, but a lot can be done to improve it. Someof the issues are:

– The user does not always know what object he or she is working on for the moment.

– The user does not always receive a warning before deleting content

– The user does not always receive notice if an action has been performed or not

– The user does not always know if the system will update automatically or if theuser must perform a manual update

6.2.2 Speak the user’s language

The use of language in Platina is overall good, but some adjustment can, and should,be done. Today, users can choose between using Swedish or English as the defaultlanguage. Support for additional languages is built into the system. One big problem,when developing computer software interfaces, is to find words suitable for the purpose,words that perfectly describes the object or the action intended. It is wise to dedicatetime for this purpose in the beginning of the development. The risk of not doing sois that users will become familiar with words and concepts not suitable in the longrun, which will cause conflicts when developers are forced to change them in up-comingversions of the system. Another important aspect is to stick to one language. Mixing twoor more languages will also cause conflicts for the user. The Swedish ”street language”is filled with words influenced by English, but those words should stay on the street,notbe introduced to computer interfaces. Especially older users, and people not used tousing computers, will have trouble understanding these words. It is also important toset the language difficulty at a decent level. Using technical terms, unfamiliar to theuser, should be avoided if there exist an easier word to use.

6.2.3 Provide user control and freedom

Platina does not support any clearly marked undo functionalities. This may soundshocking, and it is, but a lot has to do with system performance. This lack of securitycan cause problems for the user. It is fairly easy to make mistakes, such as deleting thewrong member from a member list, but no easy way of undoing them.

People make mistakes. It is important to provide the user with a clearly marked and”bullet proof” emergency exit that can be used when a mistake is made. Users oftenclick on the wrong button or choose a system function by mistake. The most logicaloption in situations like that is to provide an undo function, leading the user back tothe previous state.

6.2.4 Be consistent and use standards

Platina needs to be more consistent and focus more on using standards. The consistencyof the system today is mediocre. Here are some examples:

– The system sometimes updates automatically, sometimes not.

– Double clicks with the mouse are used both to add and remove objects.


– Icons are sometimes used as menus, sometimes as a direct option.

– When double clicking on an object on the today area, sometimes the object opens,sometimes the properties for it appears.

– An object deleted from the today area does not disappear until the area is updated.

– Sometimes the button ”update” is used instead of a save button. Sometimes thereis no save button at all.

The user interface in Platina does not utilize accepted standards more than somebasic functionality, like right click menus, drop down menus, tree views, etc. However,the looks of these functions do not follow accepted and well known Microsoft Windowsstandards.

Most of the icons are produced and designed by developers at EBI System. Thismakes some of them difficult to perceive and understand, due to the lack of standard-ization.

Components like text fields, buttons, tabs, fonts, etc does not follow windows stan-dard looks and recommended size.

6.2.5 Provide error prevention and recovery

Error messages do exist in Platina. However, they could, and should, be more widelyspread and better designed to fully assist the user. One conflict for the user, as thesystem works today, is that error messages do not always appear when the systemcrashes or some operation goes wrong. This lack of information is difficult for the userto interpret and will probably cause him or her to call support for help. The solutionto this problem is to offer detailed messages every time an error occurs. These detailedmessages should contain information on what has happened, due to what cause and howthe user can fix it. If the problem is too complicated or serious for the user to correct,contact information for the appropriate support should be displayed.

Microsoft has for many years asked the user to send a failure report every time theirsystem crashes by clicking on a button and wait for a few seconds. This is a great ideaand helps the developers to avoid making similar bugs in future releases. The downsideis that the user might feel monitored, but an information text explaining the situationcould avoid this.

6.2.6 Support recognition rather than recall

There are some trivial examples of how recognition can be enforced.Use standard icons. Most Microsoft Windows icons are easily recognizable, which

makes them effective to use. The user should not have to memorize icons to be able towork productively. Platina needs to change from EBI System designed icons to MicrosoftWindows standard (fig 6.1).

Design the software to suggest to the user the right action to perform. Platina doessupport tool tips to some extent, but far from all objects have got tool tips assigned tothem.

Make sure objects, options and actions are visible. The user should not have tosearch for them.

Do not display unimportant information longer than necessary. This will only confusethe user. On the contrary, do not eliminate important information from the screen until


Figure 6.1: What do the icons really visualize?

the user is done using it. The average human can only hold 5-9 chunks in the memory,which should be considered when designing multiple dialog interfaces. For example,Platina does not show what document that has been double clicked on and are subjectto a check out, view, etc (fig 6.2). The user has to keep this in mind.

Figure 6.2: The old check out dialog box

6.2.7 Flexibility and efficiency of use

Platina should support user evolvement more than it does today. Shortcuts are used,but could be utilized more and be more visible for the user.

6.2.8 Use aesthetic and minimalistic design

The user interface in Platina is rather clean and minimalistic. White fields are used toseparate fields from each other and confusing and unnecessary graphical elements arealmost absent. On the other hand, some areas are very muddled and difficult to easilynavigate and perceive. The use of colors to improve the structure is almost non-existing.

The basic idea is that the dialogues should not contain more information than what isnecessary and relevant. If more irrelevant units are added they will simply draw attentionaway from the relevant information, making it more difficult to work efficiently.

The different menus on the Today area are similar and a bit confusing to use. Theyoccupy more area than necessary and could be clustered together to improve the overallvisibility. Colors could also be used more to improve both visibility and readability.


6.2.9 Provide help and documentation

The perfect user interface would not need the help or documentation option, but untilthat day occurs it is often necessary to provide an easy-to-use documentation and helpfunctionality. Platina should incorporate more help that is work related, e.g. what adiary is, and the existing technical help should be improved.

The help function should be easy to access and focus on the user’s task. The helpinstructions displayed to the user should list a decent number of concrete steps to becarried out and provide uncomplicated search functionality.

6.3 User testing

Two types of user testing were conducted; a semi-structured interview and a web ques-tionnaire. The semi-structured interview generated a lot of qualitative data, while theweb questionnaire produced a lot of quantitative information. However, people wereexceptionally good at writing additional comments when filling out the questionnaire,which lead to a lot of useful data there as well.

A number of usability and interface aspects are presented twice, but this is onlya result of them existing in both evaluation strategies. By separating them, analysiscan be made in the future too see which data that maybe can be collected from webquestionnaires only, or vice versa. The data is compiled in long lists of findings in anattempt to make it easier for the reader to quickly identify the usability problems.

6.3.1 Semi-structured interviews

The interviews took place at Vasterbottens Lans Landsting (VLL) in Umea. Threepeople were interviewed. One person can be considered expert and has been one of thepersons installing Platina at VLL. The other two persons were something in betweenexperts and ordinary users, one of them also involved to some extent in the process ofinstalling Platina. An ordinary user is, in this case, someone who possesses knowledgeto utilize Platina on a daily basis.

The questions asked (Appendix A) focused on both the current system, i.e. currentversion of Platina, and on some new ideas for future releases of Platina. The interviewswere made as explained in chapter 5.3, starting with a given question and then furtherdiscussed until no more information was available. The questions asked can be found inAppendix A. Listed below are some of the more interesting and major issues discussed.

Graphics, text and colors

– Font typeface and size have become better with the latest version of Platina, butmany people still think the size is too small. Many users still run Platina witha low screen resolution (1024x768 on a 19” screen) due to the small font size.Especially elder people have got problem reading the small font size.

– It can be tricky to know ”where you are” in the system for the moment. Moregraphical elements and colors could be used to separate areas and indicate wherethe user is located.

– It is difficult to use the flow module. It is difficult to understand and see whereobjects arrive from. What is a task? What happens when the user pushes the


green arrow? Since the flow process is very important, is at the centre of a workprocess, it is of great importance that all users can understand it. Every otheruser of today is getting frustrated and yells ”I had enough, what should I do?”.

– Icons used for documents are easy to understand since they use Microsoft Windowsstandard icons. Icons used for case and deed are more difficult to recognize. Onereason for this is probably related to the fact that there is no standard icon touse. The most likely reason, however, is probably that the ordinary user does notunderstand the concepts of cases and deeds. They need more knowledge on thetheoretical level first. Still, the icons used for cases and deeds should be moreexplanatory and separated in their design.

– Icons used for displaying attributes are also complicated to understand and per-ceive. The level of usage of these icons differs from institution to institution, inmany cases the variety of icons is too huge. One idea is to enable an administratorto select what icons to use for the current purpose.

– It is not possible to change the width of the columns designated to each and everymodule. This creates a lot of irritation given that it is possible in most MicrosoftWindows applications.

– The icons located above the tree structure on the far left side of Platina (fig 6.3)are rarely used. For instance, many users fail to notice the icon for ”new folder”.Instead they try to click ”New” (”Ny”) in the menu above when they want tocreate a new folder, without any result. The ”Properties” (”Egenskaper”) icon,also located above the tree structure, is almost never used.

Figure 6.3: Folder icons

– Some users think that shallow menus, consisting of 1-3 options, are hard to perceiveas being menus.

– Some users find it strange that a couple of icons actually are menus.


Consistency

– The consistency in Platina needs to be improved. Clicking on an object is one ex-ample. Sometimes the object is opened for editing, sometimes the object propertycard is opened. The user often fails to understand which one of the two optionsthat will occur.

– It is often uncertain if the system has saved the actions performed by the user ornot.

– The system sometimes updates automatically, sometimes require the user to doit. This is especially irritating when deleting objects from the today area. Theseobjects will not disappear from the list until the today area is updated.

– Inadequate consistency will make the user feel insecure of what will happen whenperforming different actions.

Languages

– Especially people with high language skills find the language in Platina to besomewhat sloppy and ”svenglish”.

– Some names should have been better planned and researched before they wereapplied. The reason for this is that they may collide with similar objects andnames in future features.

– Even though it can be precarious to fix problems such as bad names and iconsafter a new version is released, it is still a better option than letting the problemcontinue to exist.

Structure

– The overall impression is good. Focus should lie on making it easier to separatefields/areas and knowing where in the system the user is situated at the moment.

– Some users believe the range of visible functionality is too wide.

– It can be tricky for a new user to see the difference between an empty folder andan empty today-area.

– It is somewhat difficult to see the difference between what is Platina and what isthe web browser.

Basic functionality (Copy, paste, print, etc)

– Most of these functions are used and are located at a convenient position accordingto the users.

– One major disadvantage is the lack of feedback. The user does not receive anyfeedback at all when she or he, for example, clicks the copy or cut button.

– One might also wonder how important it is to have a print functionality that onlyprints the current list of objects, not the objects themselves.


– The search function divides the users into two groups. Some users think thereare too many alternatives to choose from. Others think the search functionalityis great; they can use all the search options to get exactly the object they werelooking for.

– Better feedback is requested.

– The ”refine” functionality is quite difficult to understand without further instruc-tions.

– Some users think the layout and looks of the search function is too similar to anygiven object card.

Feedback

– Messages telling the user what is happening at all time are not required, but theuser should be in control of what is happening. What the user expects is goinghappen must also happen.

– Critical actions should generate a warning where the user actively needs to makea choice.

– The use of double clicks to remove items can be unsafe, especially for less frequentusers. Some kind of feedback or a ”remove” button would be safer. Users some-times try to investigate a member of a group by double clicking it, which insteadwill result in a deletion of the member.

– Why have not all tabs, in an object card, got save and close buttons? What objectdoes the currently open card belong to?

Error handling

– The user should always receive an error message upon system crashes. Today theuser receives warnings occasionally.

– The admin should be able to add her or his own error messages.

– Error messages should better inform the user how to solve the problem.

Learning

– Education by introduction courses is the most common way of learning Platinafor new users.

– It has been custom to conduct a full day teaching session. The problem of doingso is that most people are having a hard time staying focused the entire time.The solution has been to reduce the session to half a day, divided on two separateoccasions. Between these sessions a manual has been available for self studies.

– It would probably be even better to have even more, but shorter, sessions andforcing the ”students” to conduct homework in between. By doing so, the risk ofhaving people disregarding learning and using Platina would decrease.


– Platina incorporates a lot of concepts and words not familiar to any given person.This is not a problem for the people used to handle these concepts, the problemsoccur for the rest of the work force. Platina opens up the process of work to, inmany cases, the entire organization, making it necessary for many people to learna lot of new concepts. It would be good to provide some kind of help or guides forthese people.

– Many users are afraid to explore Platina on their own. It is confusing for someusers that things can be performed in many different ways.

Today area and modules

– It is impossible to see all modules and there is too much information on each andevery module. The scroll list becomes too deep.

– Many users can only see one module at a time due to the low resolution they areusing.

– Many users do not understand what all the attributes stand for. Some of theattributes could probably be deleted or customized for some users.

– What does active and inactive means? Many users believe they have sent the casewhen they click inactivate.

– A flow is terminated, not sent as the activity is called today.

6.3.2 Online questionnaire

The online questionnaire was performed by around 80 people from all over Sweden andfrom a variety of companies and institutions, all using Platina. The average age of theseusers were 43 years, spreading from around 25 to 65, and 52% of them were women,48% men.

The average total usage time of Platina, i.e the total time spent working with Platina,for these users was 16 months. The average daily usage time was almost four hours andit took about seven weeks to get to know Platina, according to the users.

The statistics of the survey can be found in Appendix B. The comments regardingPlatina is compiled and listed below.

Readability

– The text size is too small.

– Any user should be able to change the column size in the modules.

– Some text fields are too close to each other, they almost appear as one.

Coloring

– More colors should be used to separate areas and increase readability.

– Some users believe the background colors, especially in text fields and drop-downmenus, are too strong.


Icons

– Almost all users argue for the use of Microsoft Windows standard icons.

– The icons of today are too small and difficult to perceive.

Consistency

– Platina has got problems with consistency.

– One problem is the large number of developers working on Platina and the insuf-ficient supply of standards and guidelines.

Language

– The use of ”swenglish” words should be replaced with formal and correct Swedishones.

– Altough most of them are corrected already, the use of ”write in two words” mustbe avoided. To ”write in two words” is to separate words that should be writtentogether, for example ”utskrifts kontroll” instead of the correct, ”utskriftskontroll”.

– Some concepts and words are difficult to understand and should be better ex-plained.

Structure

– Some users think the structure in Platina deviates from the Microsoft Windowsstandard.

– Difficult to navigate.

– Too much information on the screen at the same time.

– The layout should be re-designed in a more modern and up-to-date fashion.

Search functionality

– Not flexible enough

– Warnings and feedback should be used more often.

– It should be possible to search by pressing the enter key.

Today area

– The today area is crowded.

– The User settings dialog is not good and muddled.

– It should be possible to have more control over what information is visible in themodules.


Learning

– The help functionality is acceptable, but not impressive, according to some users.Other users say it has obvious faults.

– Some users believe Platina is too difficult to learn due to the differences comparedto the work process in the real world.

– The lack of crib sheets makes learning hard.

– ”I have never had this much trouble learning new software before, as I have hadlearning Platina” one user said.

Error handling

– Error messages are more or less impossible to understand for a non-technician.

– Most errors have occurred after an update has been performed.

– Some users find it frustrating that they can not fix even the most basic problem.

Feedback

– Overall, more feedback is requested. Users want to know that actions they havetaken really did take effect. They also want to be sure that their data is saved andthat they can not erase content by mistake.


Chapter 7

Design solutions

This chapter presents solutions to some of the most considerable problems found in theevaluation of Platina.

7.1 Overall appearance

The layout and structure feels a little bit old and ”boring” in the latest version ofPlatina. The software has had almost the same design since the first launch in 2001, soit is time for a general and thorough redesign.

The fundamental structure - having menus at the top, a tree structure on the leftand the main working area in the middle and to the right - is however functional andclose to Microsoft Windows standard. Instead, this proposed redesign of Platina hasbeen focused on making these three areas more usable and aesthetic.

The colors that have been used in Platina so far have been of various shades of blue.These blue colors have become associated with Platina and should remain, somehow, inthe new design.

As mentioned in the User experience chapter, the contrast needs to be high to im-prove readability. Contrast measurements have been performed on the existing userinterface as well as on the new design solution, using software called ”Colour ContrastAnalyser 1.1” [29].

7.2 Menu

There are a couple of design aspects to reflect on concerning the current top menu (fig7.1). First of all, the menu is almost hidden in the software layout. A menu shouldbe easily perceived and accessed; a user should not have to actively look for it andmaneuver the mouse pointer with high precision to use a menu option.

Figure 7.1: Old top menu

45

46 Chapter 7. Design solutions

The solution is to position the menu at a spot where it is easily reached. The mostused position for menus in software of today is at the top left. This has been the Appleand Microsoft standard for more than two decades.

The problem of doing so in Platina is that Platina is executed in an Internet Explorerwindow. This means that the menu will interfere with the buttons and address fields ofInternet Explorer. A solution, for this problem, would be to hide all buttons, menus andfields displayed in the Internet Explorer browser. Another solution would be to executePlatina in an external window, incorporating the Internet Explorer engine.

Until one of these ideas is implemented, the most logical solution still is to usea top-positioned menu since all users are familiar with it. However, actions can betaken to improve visibility and avoid interference with browser-related components.The design solution presented (fig 7.2 and 7.3) incorporates a rather large empty area,a blue ”white space” (chapter 4.2.1), below the menu to lead the users attention tosurrounding elements.

Figure 7.2: A new solution for the top menu

Figure 7.3: A new solution for the top menu with an item pulled down

The second aspect is the naming of the menu topics. When designing a menu, mucheffort needs to be put into making sure the best words/concepts are used. This canbe difficult to do when designing a completely new system, due to the non-existingknowledge of future needs and additions. A word suitable for the moment may becomeunsuitable after a year or two.

The menu topics in Platina serve their purposes. One idea presented in the webquestionnaire was to cancel the ”search” topic from the top menu and put it elsewhereon the screen (fig 7.4). The comments received concerning this idea was of variedoptimism. A lot of user preferred keeping the ”search” topic in the top menu, whilesome thought it was a good idea to have it separated. The final solution presented inthis thesis incorporates a mix of both solutions.

7.3. Today area and modules 47

Figure 7.4: A new solution for a quick search field at the bottom left of Platina

7.3 Today area and modules

The today area is one of the most important features of Platina. This is where data mostfrequently is displayed. Some of the findings from the evaluations showed that manypeople find the today area muddled and the need for scrolling up and down frustrating.

The today area is occupied by the modules (fig 7.5) a user has chosen to use. Thesemodules are all a bit muddled too. One major reason for this is that they consist ofseveral fields with different colors and unnecessary angles.

Figure 7.5: A new solution for Today area modules

The menus, on any given module, also contribute to the feeling of a muddled interface.First of all, the topics are not the best possible ones. Secondly, since the menus are fairlyshallow, a submenu structure could be implemented to make the interface cleaner.

Figure 7.6: A new solution for Today area modules

The interviews showed that some people have complaints about the module fieldswhere all data is listed. Every second row is colored blue, the rest light blue, which forsome people are a bit confusing. Does a row marked light blue mean anything else thana blue colored one? The answer is no, these different colorations are only there to makethe perception of rows easier. A maximized row is quite wide which makes it tricky toread if there is no separation between them. However, the color of choice should be acolor that enhance contrast, hence perception. For this reason a light yellow color and


white has been chosen for the interface presented in this paper. The contrast ratio forthe old solution was for blue 1:15,83 and for light blue 1:17,34 on a 0-21 graded scale,where 1:21,00 is the best possible contrast ratio. The new solution (fig 7.6) incorporatesa contrast ratio of 1:19,16 for light yellow and 1:21,00 for the white one, in other words,a much better contrast and perception.

One huge problem for many users is the need for scrolling up and down the todayarea. This is a result of users having massive amount of data listed in their modules.Some users can have up to 100 objects listed in several modules, making the scroll listdeep. Two solutions for this problem are presented below.

Figure 7.7: The Updater

The first solution is a new status field called Updater (fig 7.7). The status field ispositioned at the top of the today area and consists of a wide row of columns. In thesecolumns, information is listed about the modules in use and their contents. Every timeany module is updated with new content, the Updater alerts the user of this change.The user then has the option of clicking on the current news flash to be transported tothe module in question. The result is an environment that requires a lot less scrolling.

The second solution is a tabbed interface. Every module is placed under a tab orcombined with other modules in a customized tab. The tabs have more or less gotthe same functionality as the Updater. When any module is updated, an alert will bepresented at the top of the tab, making it easy to stay up to date. The downside ofusing tabs is the lack of overview, especially if the user chooses to have one module pertab. However, this is almost impossible as the system looks today as well. The usercould, if he or she wants, put several modules under one tab making the interface lookalmost the same as today.

7.4 Tree view

The tree view, to the left in the Platina interface (fig 7.8), has got similar functionalityas the tree view in Windows Explorer. In other words, it organizes a user’s folders andobjects. It may also be referred to as a folder tree.

One mistake many users make is that they believe the ”New” selection in the topmenu is connected to the tree view. For example, when they want to add a new folderto the tree, they press ”New” in the top menu instead of pressing the somewhat unclear”New folder” icon.

Above the tree view is a set of four folder-related icons. The functions are ”New”(”Ny”), ”Delete” (”Ta bort”), ”Properties” (”Egenskaper”) and ”Refresh folder tree”(”Uppdatera tradvyn”). According to the interviews conducted, these icons are rarelyused, except for maybe the ”new” folder icon.

The suggested solution is to remove all these icons and instead incorporate the func-tionality in a menu located in a new folder-tree head (fig 7.9). The folder tree headitself has got a more visible and prominent design than before. The name of the useris clearly displayed with fairly big letters on a yellow/orange background. The yel-low/orange background is not definite; it is more an example of how colors should beused to clearly highlight an important area of the user interface.

7.4. Tree view 49

Figure 7.8: The old tree view

Figure 7.9: A new solution for a folder tree. The folder tree head is circled

The menus mentioned above are situated just below the user’s name. The two topicsare ”New” (”Nytt”) and ”Options” (”Alternativ”). The ”Nytt” (”New”) menu containsthe options (fig 7.10) previously found under the ”New” (”Ny”) folder icon. The majordifference now is that the user directly can make his or her choice concerning what typeof folder he or she wants to create. In the latest version of Platina the user first had toopen the ”Create new folder” card before he or she could choose what type of folder heor she wanted.

The ”Options” (”Alternativ”) menu contains options like ”Properties” (”Egenskaper”)and ”Erase” (”Radera”). These functions should also be found when right-clicking ona folder.


Figure 7.10: A new solution for the folder tree with an item pulled down

7.5 Document card

The design aspects discussed in this section concern both the document and the casecard, but to keep it simple, only the document card will be mentioned.

The document card (fig 7.11) has got some obvious usability problems, as presentedin chapter 5. It is not consistent, does not show what object the user is working on andgives little feedback concerning whether the material is saved or not.

Figure 7.11: The old document card

The question of whether or not the work has been saved can be solved using twoeasy solutions. The first is to supply a ”Save” and ”Cancel” button on every tab. Thesecond solution incorporates a status field at the bottom of every document card, wherethe user clearly can see if she or he has saved the work or not (fig 7.12).

More or less all input fields have got a blue background. Chapter 4 explained thatusing colors is a good method of highlighting important information, areas, etc. How-ever, any color used for text background other than white will lower the contrast, hencemake it harder to read. The suggestion is therefore to make the blue color lighter or,even better, use white.

Input fields that can not be altered by the user should be displayed as labels instead.As mentioned in chapter 4, all fields should be positioned on a grid with suitable

7.6. Check out 51

spacing. Labels should clearly explain the functionality of the fields, buttons, etc theyare attached to.

A colorblind person will have problems identifying obligatory fields in the currentsolution. A red frame surrounds these obligatory fields, but for a color blind personthis frame will appear as grey or almost black. The red frame solution is however veryeffective for non-colorblind persons. The suggestion is to keep the frame but also addthe traditional red asterisk symbol.

Figure 7.12: A new solution to the structure and layout of a document card

7.6 Check out

When a user double clicks on a document, listed in a module on the today area, a pop-updialog will appear displaying a couple of options for the user. In the latest version ofPlatina (fig 7.13), this pop-up dialog is very short on information. It is also very greyand boring to look at.

Figure 7.13: The old check out dialog box

According to the guidelines for Windows Vista, mentioned in chapter 4, the ”checkout” dialog box should display what document the dialog concerns, an icon representing


the type of document, clearly stated information and suitable choices (fig 7.14).

Figure 7.14: A new solution for a check out dialog box

7.7 Platina revisited

Presented below (fig 7.15) is a complete screen shot from the suggested new designof Platina. It is essential to remember that this is only a suggestion. Colors, fonts,etc could easily be replaced; the important aspect to consider is the structure and thefunctionalities of the new design.

Figure 7.15: The final design suggestion

7.8. Future visions 53

7.8 Future visions

A couple of ideas that have been considered during the design process have not beendeveloped further. Some of them are:

Platina Light Some users requested a ”light” version of Platina. By light they meana simpler version, not incorporating as much components and functionalities as Platinadoes today.

Instant messenger It is more or less impossible to communicate with other Platinausers, via the software, today. The only possible solution is by attaching reminders andsmall notes to documents and cases. Some kind of instant messenger would thereforebe nice to have when a user whishes to communicate to another user, without havingto use the phone or email.

Wizard or intelligent agent A lot of people are having trouble learning Platina. Awizard or an intelligent agent could improve learning and enable for user exploration ofthe system. An intelligent agent will be a 24/7 tutor, making everyday learning easierthan before.

Dictionary Since Platina opens up the organization to a lot more users, it is onlynatural that many of the users will run into concepts they never have considered before.This lack of knowledge may inhibit the work process efficiency, but could easily be fixedby using an add-on dictionary.


Chapter 8

Conclusions

The purpose of doing this master’s thesis was to evaluate Platina concerning usabilityand the graphical user interface.

Platina has grown to become a very extensive package of software, making it suitablefor a large number of businesses and organizations. This growth of functionalities hasalso lead to a loss of quality when it comes to usability.

This paper found that especially consistency, feedback, readability and error preven-tion need to be enhanced in upcoming versions of Platina, most preferably already inversion 4.0. A user should be able to feel secure with what is going to happen whenoperating the software as well as receive notion of what really happened.

To avoid future mistakes, regarding usability, a lot of information on how to performusability engineering and developing usable software has been presented and discussed.It is advisable to conduct an iterative design process, involving customers/end users fromthe beginning of the development. The benefits of doing so will be a better product,less money spent on upgrades and bug fixes and more satisfied customers.

This report also presents examples of how the graphical user interface could beredesigned. The focus should not necessarily be on designing Platina exactly as thispaper suggests, rather on the solutions presented with the new design. That is, thecolors and graphics is not the important part, the structure and functionality is. Thefirst task of redesigning Platina should be to incorporate Microsoft Windows standardthroughout the entire software. A lot will be gained, concerning both appearance andusability, by doing that.

Platina is a popular and well spread software already. By fixing the problems andimplementing the solutions presented in this paper, Platina can become an even biggersuccess in the near future.

8.1 Limitations

The design proposal has not been fully implemented due to insufficient time and lack ofinsight in the Platina system. Platina is an extremely large system, with a big span ofadd-on products. However, the implementation done so far along with screen shots andMacromedia Flash animations will provide enough information for the developer to doa thorough implementation if requested.

55

56 Chapter 8. Conclusions

8.2 Future work

Future work will consist of completely implementing the proposed design suggestionspresented in this paper. A careful study of the Microsoft Vista Experience Guidelines[8] should also be conducted. A reconstruction of the development process should alsobe considered, focusing more on the actual users of Platina.

Chapter 9

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank EBI System for the opportunity to do this Master’s Thesis. Themanagement and especially the staff have been helpful throughout the entire project.I am also most grateful for the belief in me, and my work, and for giving me theopportunity to continue to work for the company.

I would also like to thank Prof. Lars-Erik Janlert, my supervisor at the Depart-ment of Computing Science at Umea University. Especially your comments and guidingshave been of greatest importance during the final time of writing this report.

I would like to thank my fellow classmates, especially Dilip Kota, for discussingideas and inspiring me for countless of hours.

Finally I would like to thank my girlfriend, Erika Ross, for all the support andbelief in me.

57

58 Chapter 9. Acknowledgements

References

[1] TC 159. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display termi-nals. Technical report, International Organization for Standardization, 1998.http://www.iso.org/.

[2] Truchard A. Ten guidelines for user-centered web design. Usability Interface, 5(1),july 1998. http://www.stcsig.org/usability/newsletter/9807-webguide.html.

[3] Jane Black. Usability is next to profitability. Businessweek.com, dec 2002.

[4] Reimann R. Cooper A. About Face 2.0 - The essentials of interaction design. WileyPublishing, Inc, 10475 Crosspoint Boulevard, 2 edition, 2003. ISBN 0-7645-26413.

[5] EMC Corporation. A guide to evaluating enterprise content management software.Tech guide, EMC Corporation, EMC Corporation, 176 South Street, Hopkinton,MA 01748, april 2006.

[6] EMC Corporation. Emc - where information lives. EMC Corporation, jan 2007.http://www.emc.com/.

[7] Microsoft Corporation. Usability in software design. Windows userinterface technical articles, Microsoft Developer Network, oct 2000.http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997577.aspx.

[8] Microsoft Corporation. Windows vista - user experience guidelines. Technicalreport, Microsoft Developer Network, 2005-2006.

[9] User derived impact analysis as a tool for usability engineering. Interaction design:beyond human computer interaction. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 2002.

[10] Bryant Duhon. What is ecm? AIIM - The ECM Association, 2005.http://www.aiim.org/about-ecm.asp.

[11] Caird J. Flach J., Hancock P. and Vicente K.J. Global perspectives on the ecologyof human-machine systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995.

[12] Center for Human-Information Interaction. Facts about cognitivework analysis. Center for Human-Information Interaction, 2004.http://projects.ischool.washington.edu/chii/portal/.

[13] White B.Y Frederiksen J.R. An approach to training based upon principled taskdecomposition. Acta psychologica, 71(1-3):89–146, 1989.

59

60 REFERENCES

[14] Whiteside J. Good M., Spine T.M. and P. George. User derived impact analysis asa tool for usability engineering.

[15] Gartner Group. Enterprise applications: Adoption of e-business and documenttechnologies. AIIM International, 2001.

[16] Tim Harrower. The newspaper designer’s handbook, 5/e.McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2002. http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072407611/student view0/glossary.html.

[17] Cynthia Hodgso. Planning for an enterprise content management system. Technicalreport, AIIM International, AIIM International, 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA, 2004.

[18] Rasmussen J. Skills, rules and knowledge: Signals, signs and symbols and otherdistinctions in human perfomance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Manand Cybernetics, SMC-13:257–266, 1983.

[19] Lena Jonsson. Vagledningen 24-timmarswebben. Technical report, Ver-ket for forvaltningsutveckling, Verva, Box 214, 101 24 Stockholm, 2006.http://www.verva.se.

[20] Clayton Lewis John D. Gould, Stephen J. Boies. Making usable, useful,productivity-enhancing computer applications. Communications of the ACM,34(1):74–85, jan 1991.

[21] Vicente K.J. Cognitive Work Analysis - Toward safe, productive and healthycompter-based work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1999.

[22] John C. Beatty Michael W. Schwarz, William B. Cowan. An experimental com-parison of rgb, yiq, lab, hsv, and opponent color models. ACM Transactions onGraphics, 6(2):123–158, april 1987.

[23] Sano D. Mullet K. Designing Visual Interfaces: Communication Oriented Tech-niques. Sunsoft Press, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995. ISBN 0-13-303389-9.

[24] Jakob Nielsen. Usability 101: Introduction to usability. Useit.com, aug 2003.http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html.

[25] Jakob Nielsen. How to conduct a heuristic evaluation. www.useit.com, may 2005.

[26] Jakob Nielsen and Robert L. Mack. Usability inspection methods. John Wiley andSons Inc, 1994.

[27] Fidel R. and Pejtersen A.M. From information behaviour research to the design ofinformation systems: the cognitive work analysis framework. Information Research,10(1), 1994.

[28] Sheridan R. Seven keys to building great software products. Technical report,Menlo Innovations, Menlo Innovations, 212 N. Fourth Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48104,2004.

[29] Faulkner S. and Jun. Color contrast analyser 1.1. WAT-C, Web AccessibilityConsortium, 2006.

REFERENCES 61

[30] Sorflaten J. Schaffer E. Icons:much ado about something. The X Journal, jan 1996.

[31] Alvy Ray Smith. Alvy ray smith’s homepage, jan 2007. http://www.alvyray.com/.

[32] Wilson C. Wixon D. The usability engineering framework for product design andevaluation. Handbook of human-computer interaction, pages 653–689, 1997. ISBN0-444-81862-6.

62 REFERENCES

Appendix A

Guideline for thesemi-structured interview

Allmanna fragor

– Kon

– Alder

– Vilket foretag jobbar du pa?

– Vad arbetar du som?

– Hur lange har du jobbat som det?

– Vad har du for arbetsuppgift(er)?

– Hur lange har du jobbat med PLATINA? (veckor)

– Hur stor del av din arbetsdag anvander du PLATINA i genomsnitt? (timmar)

– Har du jobbat med andra liknande programvaror forut?

Om ”JA” pa foregaende fraga:

– Vilka?

– Vad anser du om PLATINA jamfort med tidigare anvanda program?

– Vilka ar de storsta fordelarna med PLATINA jamfort med tidigare program?

– Vilka ar de storsta nackdelarna med PLATINA jamfort med tidigare program?

Farger/grafik

– Hur uppfattas generellt texter mot bakgrunden i PLATINA?

– Vad tycker du om fargsattningen i PLATINA?

– Overensstammer fargsattningen med vad du forvantar dig av ett datorprogram?

– Vad tycker du om markeringen av obligatoriska falt?

– Hur upplever du att ikonerna symboliserar sina funktioner?

63

64 Chapter A. Guideline for the semi-structured interview

Konsekvent

– Ar programmet konsekvent?

– Hur upplever du uppdateringen av det som hander pa skarmen?

Sprak

– Kanns spraket korrekt?

– Ar spraket konsekvent?

– Kanns spraket och texterna relevanta?

– Framgar det vilket objekt du for tillfallet arbetar med?

Upplagg/struktur

– Hur upplever du programmets upplagg/struktur?

– Hur upplever du svarighetsgradern att hitta ratt funktion?

– Hur upplever du mangden information pa skarmen?

– Hur upplever du att vissa fonster har fasta dimensioner?

Funktioner (kopiera, klistra, radera, osv)

– Finns alla de funktioner du behover?

– Hur upplever du svarighetsgraden att hitta ratt funktion?

– Hur gor du nar du letar efter en funktion du inte tidigare anvant?

– Hur upplever du sokfunktionerna?

Moduler

– Finns de moduler du behover for att utfora ditt arbete fullt ut?

– Hur upplever du svarighetsgraden att anvanda modulerna?

Dokumenthantering

– Hur upplever du dokumenthanteringen?

– Vad tycker du om in-/utcheckningsfunktionen?

Arendehantering

– Hur upplever du arendehanteringen?

– Erbjuder arendehanteringen allt du behover?

Feedback

– Vad tycker du om programmets formaga att ge feedback?

65

Felhantering

– Hur ofta uppstar ovantade fel?

– Ar det latt att forsta vad som ar orsaken nar fel uppstar?

– Hur upplever du svarighetsgraden att ratta till fel?

Upplarning/inlarning

– Hur lang tid tog det att satta sig in i programmet?

– Kanns funktionaliteten igen fran den ”verkliga varlden”?

Idag-arean

– Vad ar din allmanna uppfattning om Idag-arean?

– Hur upplever du strukturen pa Idag-arean?

– Hur tycker du att utplaceringen av modulerna pa Idag-arean fungerar?

Helhetsintryck

– Hur ar din allmanna installning till PLATINA?

– Hur har PLATINA paverkat din arbetssituation och dina arbetsuppgifter?

66 Chapter A. Guideline for the semi-structured interview

Appendix B

Online questionnaire statistics

Presented in this appendix are the statistics collected from the online questionnaire atusertesting.se.

The scale utilized in the questionnaire, ranging from ”absolutely do not agree” to”absolutely agree” has been transformed to a numeric scale, where ”absolutely do notagree” corresponds to 1 and ”absolutely agree” to 5. An average result, based onapproximately 80 test persons, has been calculated to each and every statement.

The result is presented in Swedish.

LasbarhetLasbarheten ar overlag god 3.25Det ar bra kontrast mellan text och bakgrund 3.20Typsnitten ar tydliga 3.44Det ar bra storlek pa typsnitten 3.07Det vore bra att sjalv kunna valja storlek pa typsnitten 4.16

Table B.1: Statistics - Readability

FargsattningFargerna ar bekvama for ogonen att titta pa 3.75Fargerna ger en tydlig avskiljning mellan olika falt 3.30Fargerna bidrar till att oka lasbarheten 3.46

Table B.2: Statistics - Coloration

IkonerIkonerna ar tydliga och beskrivande 2.84Ikonerna har bra storlek 3.27Ikonerna ar tydligt grupperade efter de funktioner de representerar 2.99

Table B.3: Statistics - Icons

67

68 Chapter B. Online questionnaire statistics

KonsekventPlatina ar konsekvent i sin uppbyggnad 2.61Knappar och textfalt ar konsekventa i sin utplacering 2.77Knappar med samma text har altid samma funktion 3.06

Table B.4: Statistics - Consistency

SprakSpraket i Platina ar korrekt och valformulerat 3.18Spraket ger en bra forklaring till funktionerna 2.99Spraket ar konsekvent 3.01Spraket ligger pa en bra niva svarighetsmassigt 3.31

Table B.5: Statistics - Language

StrukturPlatina kanns logiskt uppbyggt 2.99Menyer, arbetsfalt, filer osv finns dar du forvantar dig 2.94Programmet ger bra hjalp till att lokalisera efterfragad funktion 2.81Det ar lagom mycket information som generellt visas pa skarmen 3.32

Table B.6: Statistics - Structure

FunktionerAlla funktioner man behover finns i Platina 2.73Det ar latt att hitta ratt funktion 2.81Det ar latt att forsta sig pa sokfunktionerna i allmanhet 2.97Det framgar tydligt vad som ar skillnaden mellan sok och delsok 2.41

Table B.7: Statistics - Functionality

Idag-areanIdag-arean visar tydligt vilka moduler som ar i bruk 3.62Det ar enkelt att lagga till nya moduler pa Idag-arean 3.78Det ar enkelt att byta plats pa modulerna pa Idag-arean 3.80Det ar latt att navigera till Idag-arean, oberoende pa var i programmet du befinner dig 4.14

Table B.8: Statistics - Today area

Upplarning/inlarningDet var latt att lara sig anvanda Platina 2.84Den inbyggda hjalpfunktionen i Platina ar latt att hitta 3.19Den inbyggda hjalpfunktionen i Platina ar latt att anvanda 2.88Platina efterliknar arbetsprocessen i den verkliga varlden val 2.67

Table B.9: Statistics - Learnability

69

FelhanteringDet uppstar ofta ovantade fel i Platina 2.88Det ar latt att forsta orsaken till de fel som uppstar 2.12Felmeddelanden erbjuder losningar till problemen 1.99Det ar latt att atgarda felen som uppstar 2.01

Table B.10: Statistics - Error handling

FeedbackPlatina ger bra information om vad du for tillfallet gor 2.94Platina meddelar alltid nar nagonting du gor/gjort ar slutfort 2.69Platina varnar alltid dig nar du haller pa att gora val som ar kritiska 3.04

Table B.11: Statistics - Feedback

Losningsforslag: ModulerAtt kunna flytta/ordna modulerna pa Idag-arean genom direktmanipulation ar bra 4.22Det ar bra att samla alla installningsmojligheter under ett menyval 4.39Att kunna ta bort en modul fran Idag-arean med ett musklick ar en bra ide 3.86Den nya designen kanns battre an den tidigare 4.41

Table B.12: Statistics - New modules

Losningsforslag: ToppmenyAtt placera menyvalen langst upp i programmet ar en bra ide 4.24Det ar bra att menyerna inte tacker over annan information nar de ar utfallda 4.25Det ar enkelt att forsta hur menyerna fungerar trots att valen ligger badebredvid och ovanfor varandra 3.87Den nya designen kanns battre an den tidigare 4.21

Table B.13: Statistics - New top menu

Losningsforslag: TradvyDen nya och mer fargstarka utformningen kanns tydligare ochenklare att identifiera pa skarmen 4.09Det ar bra att alternativen ligger under den toppmeny dar manvill att handlingen ska ske 4.14Anvandningen av standardiserade windowsikoner ar bra 4.48Den nya designen kanns battre an den tidigare 4.29

Table B.14: Statistics - New tree view

70 Chapter B. Online questionnaire statistics

Losningsforslag: SokfunktionAtt lagga sokfunktionen som ett eget falt ar en bra ide 4.18Att kunna gora en snabb generell fritextsokning(av t ex ett dokument) ar en bra ide 4.36Placeringen av sokboxen i PLATINA-strukturen ar bra 3.79Den nya designen kanns battre an den tidigare 4.06

Table B.15: Statistics - New search function

Losningsforslag: UpdaterAtt samla all information om nya inkomna objekt pa ett stalle ar en bra ide 4.58Att bli forflyttad till ratt modul pa idag-arean nar man klickarpa t ex ”3 nya handlingar” ar en bra losning 4.58Den har informationen kommer spara tid at mig 4.19Den nya designen kanns battre an den tidigare 4.58

Table B.16: Statistics - Updater

Documents

usability evaluation of an Enterprise Content Management ......Abstract An Enterprise Content Management system is software primarily designed to manage, capture and store business