Website usability evaluation on two karaoke player
Website Usability Evaluation of the two free online karaoke:KaraFun and Cantanding
• To evaluateObjective: online KaraFun and cantanding • Time constraintsLimitations: • Study consist of five respondents
Methods Used:• Think-aloud Method - (Think aloud protocols involve participants thinking aloud as they are performing a set of specified tasks. Users are asked to say whatever they are looking at, thinking, doing, and feeling, as they go about their task.)• Checklist and Interview
• Is a free online website that lets you turn your computer into a karaoke machine. • Offers a built-in solution for creating and KaraFun playing songs into karaoke mode. • is the free Online Karaoke that allows users to listen to music online without downloading and watch the lyrics in real time. Singingcantanding Karaoke with lyrics has never been so easy !
Features:KaraFun Supports for more thanone monitor, tv, projector. cantandingManages files using its 100% Compatibleplaylists (KPL,M3U) with Android Devices,Track information at the iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch,beginning of the song PC, Mac, Linux, Playstation 3 and Smart 13,000 Karaoke songs TV.available Hundreds of ThousandsPractical mode for easy of Karaoke Songsreading available. English,Compatible with Spanish, French, Italian,Apple,Android Japanese. The voicerecording,realtime pitchand tempo change
Statement of the Problem:Which of the two website free online karaoke arethe users more satisfied in terms of Accessibility,Identify, Navigation, Content ?Which of the two website free online karaoke canthe users quickly perform the tasks to be done?Which of the two website free online karaoke ismore preferred by the users?
MethodologyThe test took place in University of San Jose-Recoletos. Using one hp Pavilion g4 laptop and asmart broadband . A think a loud method wasused in which the users described their thoughtsafter they did the task.After completing the tasks, a formulated checklistwas answered and actual observation in the workarea was conducted personally to gather theneeded information.
Research Respondents The checklist was answered by five (5)selected respondents who are neverexperience using the two free onlinekaraoke: KaraFun and cantanding.Since these people are new users ofthe website free online karaoke theyare qualified to be the respondents ofthe study.
Respondents Name Gender Age OccupationChristy Guinitaran Female 22 StudentIrene Hamelarin Female 22 Student Japhet Palacio Male 21 StudentHazel Gail Rosal Female 19 StudentJoseph Godinez Male 23 Student
Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data
Task1. Explore the website2. Search a song (My Valentine by Paul McCartney)3. Play the song
Weights Range Scale Description 5 4.21 – 5.00 Very Satisfied (VS) If the free online karaoke website contribute totally to the user’s satisfaction 4 3.41 – 4.20 Satisfied (S) If the free online karaoke website contribute to a large extent to the user’s satisfaction 3 2.61 – 3.40 No Opinion (NO) If the free online karaoke website contribute to a moderate extent to the user’s satisfaction 2 1.81 – 2.60 Unsatisfied (U) If the free online karaoke website contribute to a less extent to the user’s satisfaction 1 1.00 – 1.80 Very Unsatisfied (VU) If the free online karaoke website do not contribute at all to the user’s satisfaction
Results for Accessibility CRITERIA KaraFun cantanding Interpretation Interpretation Ratings Ratings1.Site load-time 4.2 Very satisfied 4.23 Very satisfied2. Adequate text to background 5.0 Very satisfied 5.0 Very satisfiedcontrast3. Font size/spacing is easy to read 4.1 satisfied 5.0 Very satisfied4.Flash & add-ons are used 2.61 No opinion 2.60 No opinionsparingly5.Images have appropriate ALT 4.90 Very satisfied 1.30 Very unsatisfiedtags AVERAGE 4.16 Satisfied 3.63 satisfied
543 4.16 Weight Range Scale2 s 3.63 s s 5 4.21 – 5.00 Very Satisfied (VS)1 4 3.41 – 4.20 Satisfied (S)0 3 2.61 – 3.40 No Opinion (NO) karafun cantanding 2 1.81 – 2.60 Unsatisfied (U) 1 1.00 – 1.80 Very Unsatisfied (VU) Results for Accessibility
Results for Identify CRITERIA KaraFun cantanding Interpretation Interpretation Ratings Ratings1.Company/website logo is 5.0 Very satisfied 5.0 Very satisfiedprominently placed2. Tagline makes company’s 2.52 unsatisfied 5.0 Very satisfiedpurpose clear3. Home-page is digestible in 5 4.31 Very satisfied 1.21 unsatisfiedseconds4.Clear path to company 4.93 Very satisfied 1.98 unsatisfiedinformation5. Clear path to contact 4.87 Very satisfied 1.32 Very unsatisfiedinformation AVERAGE 4.33 Very satisfied 2.90 No opinion
543 Weight Range Scale 4.33 s2 vs 5 4.21 – 5.00 Very Satisfied (VS) 2.901 no 4 3.41 – 4.20 Satisfied (S)0 3 2.61 – 3.40 No Opinion (NO) karafun 2 1.81 – 2.60 Unsatisfied (U) cantanding 1 1.00 – 1.80 Very Unsatisfied (VU) Results for Identify
Results for Navigation CRITERIA KaraFun cantanding Interpretation Interpretation Ratings Ratings1.Main navigation is easily 3.44 satisfied 1.91 unsatisfiedidentifiable2. Navigation labels are clear & 3.55 satisfied 1.90 unsatisfiedconcise3. Number of buttons/links is 2.65 No opinion 2.60 No opinionreasonable4.Company logo is linked to home- 5.0 Very satisfied 1.81 unsatisfiedpage5. Links are consistent & easy to 4.21 Very satisfied 4.11 satisfiedidentify6. Site search is easy to access 4.92 Very satisfied 4.92 Very satisfied AVERAGE 4.75 Very satisfied 3.45 satisfied
543 Weight Range Scale 4.75 s vs 5 4.21 – 5.00 Very Satisfied (VS)2 3.45 s 4 3.41 – 4.20 Satisfied (S)1 3 2.61 – 3.40 No Opinion (NO)0 2 1.81 – 2.60 Unsatisfied (U) karafun cantanding 1 1.00 – 1.80 Very Unsatisfied (VU) Results for Navigation
Results for Content CRITERIA KaraFun cantanding Interpretation Interpretation Ratings Ratings1.Major headings are clear & 3.42 satisfied 2.52 unsatisfieddescriptive2. Critical content is above the 3.40 No opinion 1.79 Very unsatisfied“fold”3. Styles & colors are consistent 5.0 Very satisfied 1.80 Very unsatisfied4.Emphasis (bold,etc.) is used 4.8 Very satisfied 3.40 No opinionsparingly5. Ads & pop-ups are unobtrusive 1.0 Very unsatisfied 1.0 Very unsatisfied6. Main copy is concise & 4.67 Very satisfied 1.84 unsatisfiedexplanatory7.URL’s are meaningful & user- 5.0 Very satisfied 3.41 satisfiedfriendly8. HTML page titles are explanatory 4.85 Very satisfied 1.96 unsatisfied AVERAGE 3.56 satisfied 2.22 unsatisfied
543 Weight Range Scale2 3.56 s s 5 4.21 – 5.00 Very Satisfied (VS)1 2.22 us 4 3.41 – 4.20 Satisfied (S)0 3 2.61 – 3.40 No Opinion (NO) karafun 2 1.81 – 2.60 Unsatisfied (U) cantanding 1 1.00 – 1.80 Very Unsatisfied (VU) Results for Content
5 Weight Range Scale4 s 5 4.21 – 5.00 Excellent (E)3 4 3.41 – 4.20 Good (G) 4.212 E 3 2.61 – 3.40 Satisfying (S) 3.05 S 2 1.81 – 2.60 Poor (P)1 1 1.00 – 1.80 Unusable (U)0 KaraFun catanding Overall Performance
THINK A LOUD METHOD AND INTERVIEW RESULTSQuestions User 1 User 2 User 3 User 4 User 51. Which free online karaokewas the easiest to use? Why? KaraFun because KaraFun because Cantanding Cantanding KaraFun because it is easy to use for me it is easy to because when I because easy to easy to search a use open the website find a song song you wanted it is easy to search to play. a song2. Which free online karaoke KaraFun because KaraFun because Cantanding Cantanding KaraFun becausewould you rate the best? the different I like the features because of the because of the of the differentwhy? features is offered features; features; features. compatible with availability of my phone different languages is offered3. Which features of karaFun The background The pitch; the The pitch; there is Have a signal sign Have a signal ordid you like? when I play the features; the a signal sign when the you play sign when the song and a signal background; the song. song started to to start the song. there is a signal play. The tempo Many songs when the song and pitch available started to play change.4. Which features of karaFun There’s no icon on Don’t have a icon None Do not have a No icon ondid you dislike? searching a song which is to search icon to search a searching a song song5. Which features of It is easy to search Easy but I don’t A friendly to use; None It is an easy to use.cantanding did you like? a song. like the website6. Which features of The design of the none The website None The design of thecantanding did you dislike? website . design. website. No adjustable tempo and pitch.
Which of the twowebsite free onlinekaraoke are the usersmore satisfied in termsof Accessibility, Which of the twoIdentify, Navigation, website free onlineContent and task karaoke can the Which of the twocompletion? users quickly website free online Based on the perform the tasks to karaoke is more results found in be done? preferred by the tables 1 , the users? Based on the users were more results found in Based on the satisfied with the table 5, three out results in tables two free online five users 4 and 6, the karaoke. Table 2 , consumed lesser users prefer to the users were time in using the very satisfied on use the KaraFun the KaraFun. compared to the KaraFun than Table 3 , the cantanding the cantanding users were very satisfied on the KaraFun. Table 4, the users were satisfied on the FINDINGS KaraFun.
CONCLUSIONSBased on the results presented, the studyshows that KaraFun is more usable thancantanding. KaraFun satisfies the usersmore, easy to use and provides betterperformance than cantanding, as ratedby the users.
RECOMMENDATIONSKarafun cantanding Put a website information to identify Add icon which is to “search” to access easy Add icons to access easy Add main navigation to easily identifiable Navigation labels should be clear and concise Add a signal/sign start to singing