These are the slides from our STC2011 presentation on using Microsoft's product reaction cards in our usability testing sessions. We are making a shorter version of this talk at UPA in June.

1. Users play cards
We keep score
Magic results!
Carol Barnum and Laura Palmer
The Usability Center @ Southern Polytechnic
www.usability.spsu.edu

2. Microsoft plays their hand
• Microsoft introduces the cards in 2002
– varies their use in 2004
• A few others report in
• We get on board in 2006
• We've been crazy about them ever since
• We share what we have learned
• We give you the tools to do it yourself
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 2

3. Your presenters
Carol Barnum Laura Palmer
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 3

4. We’re here to talk about desirability
ISO defines the key elements in usability
U testing gives great results for 2 out of 3
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 4

5. Can’t get no…
SATISFACTION
But, we’ve tried….and we’ve tried….
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 5

6. Microsoft tackles the problem
1. Faces Questionnaire
6 Faces
2. Product Reaction Cards
118 Cards
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 6

7. After Microsoft?
A small oasis of reports shows variations on the theme
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 7

8. We decided to give the cards a try
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 8

9. How we deal
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 Slide 9

10. Putting the “meta” in analysis
2006…..ongoing
Studies from a variety of industries and interfaces
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 10

11. Teaching the teachers
18 cards…..17 positive, 1 negative
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 11

12. Got reservations?
PRC = 93% positive + 7% negative
SUS = 82
Themes: ease‐of‐use, comprehensibility, familiarity, speed
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 12

13. Calling the cable company
IVR
Repeated Positives
January Predictable = 3
41% + Friendly = 2
Usable = 2
21% Negative Neutral Positive
38%‐ Annoying
Boring
Expected
Familiar
Accessible
Business‐like
Difficult Sterile Comprehensive
Distracting Convenient
Frustrating Desirable
Impersonal Easy‐to‐use
Inconsistent Helpful
Not valuable Straight‐forward
Poor Quality
Too technical
Uncontrollable
Neutral’s good in our industry!
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 13

14. Six weeks later: the cable company
IVR A
POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE
85% +
11%
IVR B
POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE
4% ‐
48% +
12%
40% ‐
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 14

15. Changing planes
IVR
SUS = 87
79%+ PRC
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 15

16. Clear for takeoff
21% - PRC
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 16

17. It’s not easy being green
International “green” initiative
March 2010 =
SUS = 52
42% PRC positive
October 2010 = ☺
SUS = 73
82% PRC positive
March 2011 = ☺ ☺
SUS = 96
100% PRC positive
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 17

18. Movin’ on up
1.0 2.0 2.1
Positives: 24 50 43
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 18

19. Negative choices decline to zero
0
1.0 2.0 2.1
Negatives: 33 11 0
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 19

20. Weather or not
3 TV weather sites
40
30
20
10
0
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Station A Negative
Station B
Station C
26/13 39/5 24/17
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 20

21. “B”cause we like you
Repeats within and
between
Blanks are
just as telling
as choices
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 21

22. “C” you later
What Station B isn’t!
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 22

23. C’mon…give it a try
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 Slide 23

24. Our concluding thoughts
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 24

25. Compare, Contrast and Combine
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 Slide 25

26. Questions? Now or later?
Carol Barnum Laura Palmer
cbarnum@spsu.edu lpalmer2@spsu.edu
usability.spsu.edu STC Summit 2011 26