Handson 1 (5/6)

Hands-on experiences with usability/sociability design

www.insemtives.eu 1

Roberta Cuel, University of Trento, IT; Markus Rohde, University of Siegen, DE and

Germán Toro del Valle, Telefonica I+D, ESISWC 2010

Overview

04/11/2023 www.insemtives.eu 2

• Presentation of methods– Usability/Sociability Testing– Evaluation methodology

• Evaluation SEEKDA case study– Old system– Evaluation– Revision/Prototype– Online PD workshop

• Exploration/User walkthrough

PRESENTATION OF METHODS

Presentation of methodsEvaluation SEEKDA case studyExploration/User walkthrough


Usability/sociability testing


Usability/sociability Testing (2)


Eye tracking - calibration

Lab test design

Eye tracks - results

Usability-design methods

12

Effectivity

Efficiency

Satisfaction

Suitability for the task

Efforts to fulfill the task

Positive attitute towards using the

application Interview

Usability Tests

Post InterviewUsability-Potential =Relation between what a certain application can and what the application should can (user expectation)

SUMI Questionnaire =Software Usability Measurement Inventory


Usability means that certain users in a certain context and a certain amount of time can fulfill certain tasks effectively, efficently, and satisfying (ISO 9241-11)

Standardized method (DATech)

13

Usability tests with thinking aloud and participant observation; eye tracking & biometric

measurements

Identification of critical incidents)

Normative Evaluation with ISO 9241-10

Design Recommendations

Validation of relevant usage scenarios; target group(s)

Evaluation of Usability-Potential by Interviews


Usability report: screenshot


Expectation Conformity

Self Descriptiveness

Expectation Conformity

Usability report: video


Keyboard on a copy station Touchable display

Usability report: PGP


Usability report: PGP (2)



Critical Incident Normative Evaluation ISO 9241-10 Design Recommendation

User looks at the result list of a service search. Below the service title and a provider information there can be found a short description with the grey addition “Community Description”. User clicks on this grey addition and nothing happens. User had expected that he would click on an active link and that he would get additional descriptions/information as a result.

Expectation ConformityAll dialogue elements should be designed complient and consistent to support the users‘ expectations.

DR 1: The grey annotation “Community Description” is associated with the users’ expectation of active links to click on. A different design of this information could help to avoid this conflict with user expectations.

User clicks on the “Comments” button and finds something looking like a discussion thread (tree structure).

Self DescriptivenessAll dialogue elements should be designed in a self-descriptive way.

DR 2: The interaction opportunities for end users should be introduced and described somewhere.

Usability report: CI and DR

Usability report: Statistics


1% Errors22% Self Descriptiveness

45% Expectation Conformity

6% Error Tolerance

5% Controllability

21% Suitability for the task




Usability evaluation SEEKDA


Usability evaluation SEEKDA (2)


> REPORT <

Requirements Specification:

Prototype


Online Participatory Design


Online Participatory Design (2)


Online PD Dashboard


Online PD Dashboard (2)





Technology

Handson 1 (5/6)