Successfully reported this slideshow.

What you can learn from usability testing

5

Share

Upcoming SlideShare
New Age Of Polling
New Age Of Polling
Loading in …3
×
1 of 26
1 of 26

What you can learn from usability testing

5

Share

Download to read offline

Every study starts with a question. This session at CSUN 2014 started by examining the questions that usability testing can answer. Short case studies illustrate how the right technique will help us know not only what is happening but also why it’s happening. It's an overview of usability testing as a research method, and what you can (and can’t) learn from working with real people as they try to use a web site or other product.

Every study starts with a question. This session at CSUN 2014 started by examining the questions that usability testing can answer. Short case studies illustrate how the right technique will help us know not only what is happening but also why it’s happening. It's an overview of usability testing as a research method, and what you can (and can’t) learn from working with real people as they try to use a web site or other product.

More Related Content

Related Books

Free with a 14 day trial from Scribd

See all

What you can learn from usability testing

  1. 1. Need a little usability? What you can learn from usability testing Whitney Quesenbery Center for Civic Design
  2. 2. 2 What questions do you want to answer with a usability test?
  3. 3. 3 Usability testing answers questions, so we have to understand the question we are asking. If we want to know: Which design helps users complete tasks more effectively? We are asking a question that is Comparative, quantitative (errors, time) (and why they made those mistakes) If we want to know: Do voters understand how to mark their ballot? We are asking a question that is abut Mental models, variability, qualitative insights (and how prevalent each model is)
  4. 4. 4 Helpful models for thinking about usability A’s Ability, aptitude, attitude (what users bring to the interaction) E’s Efficient, effective, engaging, error-tolerant, easy to learn (dimensions of usability) Use Useful, usable (operable), desirable (context of use)
  5. 5. 5 The As help you think about diverse participants Attitude motivation, emotion, risk tolerance, persistence, optimism, tolerance for frustration Aptitude current knowledge, ability to make inferences or innovate solutions, expertise, habits Ability physical and cognitive attributes Source: Dana Chisnell "Character Creator" http://www.slideshare.net/danachisnell/character-creator
  6. 6. 6 Different users – and different contexts of use – can change user needs
  7. 7. 7 5Es help you plan usability tests Usability Goal Types of usability testing needed Evaluate tasks for how accurately they were completed and how often they produce errors Effective Error-tolerant Easy to learn Control how much instruction is given to test participants, or recruit participants with different levels of knowledge Construct task scenarios to create situations with potential problems Engaging User satisfaction surveys to gauge acceptance review logs for „time on site‟ Efficient Time tasks with realistic tasks and working versions of the software
  8. 8. 8 The recipe for planning a usability test Location and context: formal informal Recruiting: defined opportunistic Activities: instructed tasks free tasks Questions: structured unstructured Data collection: observation task/data only Results quantitative qualitative
  9. 9. 9 A few examples of questions and how we answered them These examples all come from work on elections and civic design..but the principles apply to any project.
  10. 10. 10 Comparing two designs Can a design improve user performance? Plain vs. traditional language About this project  45 participants  3 lab setting, 8 days  2 moderators  Instructions for voting  Careful observation  Satisfaction survey We learned about  Voter accuracy  Order effects  Voter preference Results  Statistical analysis  Participant preference
  11. 11. 11 Comparing two designs Can a minor difference have a major impact? Left aligned or right aligned names About this project  100 participants  2 locations, 1 day  4 moderators + 6 others  Instructions for voting  Minimal observation We learned about  Voter preference  Time to vote  Number of errors Results  Statistical analysis of marked ballots
  12. 12. 12 Testing a new design What problems might voters have with a new ballot design? About this project  1 of 5 similar tests  10 participants  1 locations, 1 day  2 moderators + 1 others  Self-defined tasks  Observation  Post-task questionnaire We learned about  Navigation on the ballot  Instructions Results  Found pattern of errors for one interaction  Time on task
  13. 13. 13 Exploring new ideas Can we extend a design to new audiences? http://anywhereballot.org http://civicdesigning.org/featured-story/rapid-responsive-radical-the-anywhere-ballot-is-born/ About this project  Research project  Paper prototyping  Low literacy  We learned about  What they understsand  Navigation  Instructions  Interactions  Results  Simplified everything for a clear, universal design
  14. 14. 14 Answers quickly and inexpensively Can we find participants "where they are?" http://anywhereballot.org http://civicdesigning.org/featured-story/rapid-responsive-radical-the-anywhere-ballot-is-born/ About this project  13 participants  Observed and interviewed as they filled in a new voter registration form  We learned about  How people filled in the form  Results  Improved voter registration forms This project and poster were done by Jenny Greeve, the Design Fellow at the Washington Department of Elections
  15. 15. 15 Learning about comprehension Can voters explain and act on that understanding? About this project  20 participants  4 locations, 1 day  8 moderators  Self-defined tasks  Minimal observation We learned about  Navigation on the ballot  Instructions  Mental models of counting  Whether there‟s a problem Results  Qualitative insights
  16. 16. 16 Gauging opinion Which accessible voting system do voters prefer? About this project  496 surveys; multi-disabilit  11 systems  Multiday “voting fair” They learned about  Voter assessment of usability  Voter comments about accessibility  Differences by disability Results  Statistical analysis survey results  Qualitative analysis of comments This was a project of the Oregon Department of Elections
  17. 17. 17 Planning a usability program
  18. 18. 18 Look for a balance of methods by approach and context of use
  19. 19. 19 Early in Project Many Users Few Users Comparative benchmarking Summative testing Card sorting Satisfaction surveys Market research Iterative evaluation of prototypes Evaluation of Designs Ethnography Use the right tool at the right time Stakeholder interviews User observation Walkthroughs Expert Reviews A-B Testing
  20. 20. 20 Look for the 'cadence' of what kind of usability work you do at different times Seeing the Elephant: Defragmenting User Research by Lou Rosenfeld http://alistapart.com/article/seeing-the-elephant-defragmenting-user-research
  21. 21. 21 Things to watch out for when planning a usability test
  22. 22. 22 Recruiting for diversity Gender Race/ethnicity Income/education Disability
  23. 23. 23 Treating participants with respect Language and cultural issues Managing context Participant protections and informed consent
  24. 24. 24 Avoiding bias Leading questions Closed vs. open questions Sampling bias Moderator influence Observer (or moderator reactions)
  25. 25. 25 Whitney Quesenbery whitneyq@wqusability.com www.wqusability.com @whitneyq Center for Civic Design whitneyq@centerforcivicdesign centerforcivicdesign.org @ChadButterfly
  26. 26. 26 Storytelling for User Experience with Kevin Brooks Global UX with Daniel Szuc A Web for Everyone with Sarah Horton http://rosenfeldmedia.com/books/a-web-for-everyone/

Editor's Notes

  • A tool to help you focus on the attributes that matterAccount for what the user brings to the tableIdentify both center and outliers
  • The 'Anywhere Ballot'Designed through iterative testing with low literacy participants
  • On April 4th, 2005, citizens with disabilities from all over the state tested voting systems and completed surveys documenting their reactions to each system. A total of 496 surveys were completed.The survey results on the following page will be one of several factors used to help the Oregon Secretary of State decide which voting system or systems to purchase to give citizens with disabilities the opportunity to vote privately and independently. Survey was a modified SUS – 12 questionsI would like to use this voting system in an election. There were too many steps in using this voting system.I thought this voting system was easy to use. The instructions for this voting system were difficult to understand. The buttons or touch screen were easy to use. It was hard to move around the ballot with this system. I think that most people could learn to use this voting system very quickly.I found this voting system awkward or difficult to use. I felt very confident that my vote was cast correctly with this voting system. I would need help each time I used this voting system. The ballot text was easy to read or hear. Casting my vote was easy.
  • ×