CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS FOR USABILITY TESTING WITH CHILDREN

M A L E N E H J O R T B O E A N D E R S E N , M D . S A I F U D D I N K H A L I D , A N D E VA I R E N E B R O O K S

D E PA R T M E N T A N D L E A R N I N G A N D P H I L O S O P H Y, FA C U LT Y O F H U M A N I T I E S , A A L B O R G U N I V E R S I T Y

1st EAI International Conference on Design, Learning & InnovationMAY 2–3, 2016 | ESBJERG, DENMARK

Outline

• Scope and Goal• Methods

• Data Collection• Data Analysis and Synthesis

• Findings• Discussion and Conclusion

Scope and Goals

• Scope• User-centered design approach including methods are designed for

adults and are not necessarily appropriate to investigations including children.

• The needs, skills, terminologies, and desires of children are essentially different from those of adults.

• Goals: A systematic literature review to synthesize:• (1) the motivation for conducting usability tests with children• (2) the methodological, practical, and ethical considerations when

involving children in usability studies (taking point of departure from Read, 2015).

Methods

• Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and PRISMA flow diagram

• Databases - Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Scopus • Keywords usability testing, usability evaluation, children, interaction design,

methods, and guidelines • exclusion criteria

• if (1) the article is not about children aged 5-17 years of age, or • (2) the primary focus of the article is on usability tests of a specific

product, and not on the methods or considerations focusing on the involvement of children in the testing process.

• Analysis and Synthesis. constant comparative method (Glaser, 1965).

Methods cont.

Fig. 1. PRISMA flow diagram

9 articles, published between 1997 and 2015.

Qualitative Analysis and Synthesis

• Categories• 1) the motivation for involving children as test persons in design processes, • 2) definitions of usability, • 3) Considerations/concerns (Read, 2015):

• 3.1 Practical considerations around arranging studies and recruiting children,

• 3.2 Methodological concerns in terms of ensuring that children can contribute in meaningful ways,

• 3.3 Ethical considerations around the meaning of the children\s participation.

• ”In practical terms, the classic workaround is to carry out evaluations in schools or in afterschool clubs.” (p.64)

Usability Testing with Children: Methods & Theories

According to Khanum and Trivedi’s (2013) review:

• The theory of behaviour settings (Roger Garlock Barker in late 1940s): states that ”there are specific, identifiable units of the environment, the physical and social elements, which are combined into one unit, which have very powerful influences on human behaviour”

Inspection Methods(without end users)

Test Methods(with end users)

Heuristic Evaluation or Expert evaluations

Think Aloud

Cognitive Walkthrough Field observation

Action Analysis Questionnaire

The Motivation to Involve Children as Participants in Design Processes

• Roles:• User• Tester• Informant• Design partner

• Underlying dimensions:

• relationship to adults (indirect, including feedback, dialogue, and elaboration)

• relationship to technology (ideas, prototypes and products)

• goals for the inquiry (questioning impact of technology, and improved usability/design)

• (Druin, 2002; Guha et al., 2004)

Practical Considerations

• Guidelines for usability testing with children (Hanna, 1997)• Usability engineers• Laboratories• How to set up child-friendly test environments• Age groups• “Children under 12 years of age are not able to think aloud”

• Children, interactive technology change (Markopoulos & Bekker, 2003; Read et al., 2008) • Mobile technologies• Time span• Additional guidelines needed

Methodological Considerations

• Think aloud test is mostly used• Think aloud• Constructive interaction• Selection of participants

• Evaluations beyond the restrictions of locations and time• Transformation of power, confidence, motivation and feeling of comfort

• (Read et al., 2008)

Ethical considerations

Meaningful participation

In the IDC [Interaction Design and Children] literature very few researchers have documented how they have concerned themselves with the rights and feelings of children within the context of research using participatory design.

(Read et al., 2014)

Discussion and conclusion

• Not many studies include younger children as a participant group

• Cooperative Inquiry • Bags of Stuff technique • Mixing Ideas technique (e.g. Guha et al., 2004; Borum et al., 2015)

Aalborg University: PhD course on CCI addressing methodologies, methods and techniques for younger children