Usability Testing and Heuristic Evaluation - Website Interface Design - Literature review Example

Literature Review: Usability Testing and Heuristic Evaluation Name of University Submitted by Names: Tutor: Date Literature Review: Usability Testing and Heuristic Evaluation Usability testing and heuristic evaluation are two techniques that an organization may use to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of its system user interface (Lecture 6 2013). To be particular, designers are more concerned with user interface and overall system usability (Frankilne and Coustan 2013). User interface in this case, is the machine’s industrial design that is supposed to facilitate quick interaction between humans and itself. The goal of this interaction is to enhance effective control and operation of the machine and end users. Additionally, the interface is supposed to ensure quick feedback from the end users to its operators to make quick operational decisions (Frankilne and Coustan 2013; Lecture 6 2013). In computer/ computerized system, for instance, user interfaces include both software and hardware components, and may exist in various systems as provided by means of inputs which allows users to manipulate the system, while output to indicate effects of the user manipulating it (Frankilne and Coustan 2013). Usability Testing According Peacock, M,(2010).this is a technique of system evaluation, which is used in user centered interaction design where the quality of any given quantity of a product is tested by evaluating it on its users. This is normally not the same as usability inspection, which employs experts to evaluate user interfaces without involving actual users Usability testing of interface will always focus on customers when trying to measure the products’ intended capacity to meet the company’s purpose. Examples of products that will employ this testing approach are web applications or websites and computer interfaces. Reasons for Conducting Usability Testing Laja (2013) and Herrnson et al. (2013), put it that the fact that users think differently, calls for the usability testing at reasonable intervals. Similarly, as the designers and makers of the system may see through their own eyes and get satisfied, that should not be equated to customers’ satisfactions. The usability test when done on different users will reveal to the designers how customers think/ feel about it. The information one will get, will form a pure gold that will help the company survive. As Laja (2013) quotes Steve Blank, a serial technology entrepreneur, there is no plan that will survive without designers contacting customers first. For instance during the launch of a website, it may be fatally flawed while the designers are not aware, but when they do a usability test, and incorporate its finding into the next development phase, similar flaws will be avoided in future (Laja 2013; Lecture 6 2013) According to Peacock (2010) and Laja (2013), usability testing will enable the company’s system designers to realize whether they are achieving their goals or not. Normally, the goal of the company implementing the system is to have an uninterrupted interaction through the system to save time and efforts (Lecture 6 2013). Therefore, the test will enable them detect whether users can easily find and understand the information to complete required tasks without much efforts or not. When frictional points are identified, they can easily be fixed to improve the user experience with the system (Lecture 6 2013). Peacock (2010), on commercial scene, establishes that there are several bells and whistles that will divert customers, if the system is not attractive. There are several companies offering the same amount of products and services and therefore if the customer cannot find what he wants, he will automatically move on to the next system of a rival firm. Currently, many companies are now counting on friendly system make-ups as their main marketing tool (Lecture 6). When it becomes hard to navigate it, the clients will have a bad image of the company. Therefore, it will be imperative that businesses do the usability tests in different stages of system development to fix early mistakes and be generally cost effective (Lecture 6). As the computer system continues to exist, there will be usability tests done to evaluate the need for expansion and development. For instance, when the numbers of end users keep on increasing, usability test will have to reveal it so that designers can plan for a more expanded system (Lecture 6). On other hand, if the number of the end users is decreasing, the designers will have to plan for a decreased one (Corrao et al. 2010). Nevertheless, it is a technique of identifying errors at infancy stage of the system. When the system is yet to be implemented, errors can be identified, at earlier stage, and changes made before taking it to users. At this time, it will be cheap and easier for correctional measures to be implemented (Lecture 6 2013). What Usability Testing Involves It is important to note that the time for running usability tests are not subjected to a particular period or a stage of system development. The tests can run anytime in the system’s life cycle to catch major flaws or whenever there is a change in business operations or factors (How To.gov. 2013; Lecture 6 2013). However, in most cases, it is needed that the intervals of time of carrying out the tests depend on the complexity and the critical effect it will have on business (How To.gov. 2013). Designing a Test Lawton (2007), notes that before carrying out the actual tests, designers will have to include a set of predetermined tasks for participants to complete. The design tasks should correspond to those done by actual users. Complex tasks may be done by a collection of few users (Lecture 6 2013; Lawton 2007.). It should include free sessions of observations where participants are just observed as they interact with the system, where but occasionally, will be followed by a written survey to record their interaction with the system. At the end of the exercise, it should have follow up interview sessions where participants and facilitators will discuss the outcomes. The actions chosen by facilitators should be actionable, important, frequent, serious and uncertain (How To.gov 2013) . Identifying Participants and Running the Process According to Lawton, the selection of participants is normally based on the purpose of the website, the goals of facilitators, and characteristics of different users. The participants are supposed to be real users, which are currently those using the products, user groups, and ones that are more experienced (2007). Profiles of actual or potential participants will have to be prepared. They should depict considerations for those participants who have no experience, very limited experience, different applications or platform for the system, a lot of experience, expertise or familiarity with the organization’s business but are aware about the existence of the system (Lecture 6 2013 ). Nevertheless, both infrequent and frequent users should be considered. As time, money and other resources may be limited, one should identify very striking features that he can employ to identify subgroups. It is good to choose representatives that will clearly reflect a subgroup. It is also important, if necessary, to find more information to feel the gap that may show up due to the test’s inadequacies (Lecture 6 2013). To begin the process, the environment should be controlled. However, it is important that participants are encouraged to become familiar with the whole set up of the system. If the usability will have to be used, some time should be allowed for participants to check their settings and change them if necessary. Importantly, there should be specific considerations for users with physical impairments. As the users, start doing particular tasks it is important that their performance be recorded (Lawton 2007). In this domain, it is necessary that one collects data and makes debriefs after each task. This is to cope with those who have short-term memory. Unclear participants or those with speech impairments should be given specific consideration to repeat for clarifications if there is a need. After the data has been recorded, it should be taken for analysis (Lecture 6 2013) Data Analysis Generally, the data collected will fall in two groups: quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative data will reveal usability metrics that may include number of clicks or amount of time one will take to complete a certain task. The qualitative data may include the customer’s general acknowledge of how he perceives the ease of system use. Nevertheless, they should also be asked about the structure of the questions asked. In analysis, the designers and system experts should look at variables that include efficiency, Accuracy, Recall and Emotional Responses. Efficiency will measure time; accuracy will measure mistakes that people make; recall will measure how a person remembers the system and its components while emotional responses will reveal the person’s feelings in using the system (Lawton, 2007). Putting the Results of the Test into Action After analysis, the designers would have calculated and found various flaws in the system. The customers’ responses therefore will form a golden opportunity for system improvement and therefore provide overall opportunity to the user experience .After the test, it is imperative its administrators analyze the findings and put them in a format that is easily comprehensible so that the required to stakeholders who can finance the corrections can act upon. One should also work with key stakeholders to ensure that follow up plans are also made (Lecture 6 2013). Advantages and Disadvantages of Usability Test As Bolt (2010) and Behrooz (2013). highlight, usability testing has direct feedback from the users of the system. It will also avoid internal debates since neutral end users will judge its designers. The testing is good since it provides an opportunity for potential problems to be highlighted before the product is launched. Specifically on business part, the company increases the likelihood of the customers repeating the usage of its products. Additionally, apart from minimizing chances of product failure, it will be enabling users to meet their goals, which will be translated into higher sales and revenues On other hand, it is feared that usability testing will not be representative, which may influence the quality of findings. As analysts have noted that it mostly employs qualitative measures, the feedback provided may be far from accuracy and therefore not insightful (Lecture 6 2013; Bolt 2010 and Behrooz 2013). Heuristic Evaluation Generally, it involves a group of experts evaluating the interfaces of a system and judging whether they comply with recognized usability principles/rules or not. They are these principles that are called ‘heuristics’ (Nielsen Norman Group 2013; Lecture 7 2013).The method was designed by Nielsen in (1990s) as an effort to advance a low cost technique of evaluating interfaces. According to him, there are several heuristics (rules of thumb) that one can use to asses compliance of various interface elements. From the time of inception of these heuristics, there have been various revisions to accommodate the emerging technologies, for instance in mobile telephony and other technologies (Nielsen Norman Group 2013; Keith Instone 2013) Nielsen Norman Group (2013) and Keith Instone (2013) list visibility of system status as one of the principles. In this case, the system users should be informed of what is going on through appropriate and timely feedbacks. The second principle states that the system should match with the real world. That is, its language and logic order should be familiar to the outside users. The system should also ensure easy control and freedom of their actions while on it. In simple term, it should facilitate the “do”, “undo” and “redo”. Fourthly, it should manifest consistency and some standards. The system too should have error prevention mechanisms whereby they can either be eliminated or reported to the person commanding it for confirmations. They should be characterized by recognition rather than recall. In this case, the user should not be remembering information from one stage of the process to another. The result of transactions should be visible to the user. Systems are supposed to be flexible and efficient. This means that they should allow users to tailor frequent information and often speed up the rate of interaction. The other principle is that they should contain not information that is irrelevant. It should also diagnose, recognize errors and recover form it by constructively suggesting a solution. Lastly, it should guarantee documentation by enabling easier search for information, and retrieve it (Nielsen 1995; Keith Instone 2013; Lecture 7 2013) How to Conduct Heuristic Usability Evaluation In conducting heuristic evaluation, the process will require that designers use a given set of evaluators to test if the interfaces comply with the heuristics. To begin the evaluations, one should first plan it very well. He should then develop a set of several tasks that he perceives to be critical to the system (Danino 2001; Nielsen 1995; Keith Instone 2013). For instance, if one wants all members to access the Website of his business, he should list all factors that may hinder it. However, it is imperative that one dialogues with experts to assess dialogue elements according to his system (Danino 2001). The next step will be choosing the most appropriate method, which will exactly depend on the business of the firm. For instance, if one deals with children, he will devise methods with elements that suites children. Then one is supposed to choose evaluators, which are supposed to include those with experience and those without. This is because from studies, it has been found that experts can diagnose 81%-91% of the problems while non-experts can diagnose 22%-29% of them. The experts should then review the heuristics. In this session, the system owner will tell the experts what he expects them to do (Danino 2001; Nielsen 1995; Keith Instone 2013; Lecture 2013). Conducting the Evaluation Each inspector will start by dealing with each interface alone. This will continue until all of them have finished the process to be allowed to communicate. This is done to avoid biasness on the part of evaluators. Thereafter, each expert will take one pass and get a feel of the critical elements agreed. He will then pass the second time while focusing on the exact element of the interface, as he asses its level of compliance with the heuristic principles of system usability. Each principle should be ranked at a scale of 0-4 (Nielsen 1995). Analyzing the Results Once the evaluators are through the tasks or the set goals, they will have to come together so that all their information can be compiled as any duplicates are removed. Comments or problems on the system are then taken for analysis (Danino 2001). In the analysis, severity of a usability problem can be expressed as a combination of frequency, impact and the persistence it has. On frequency, one will be checking whether the problem is common or rare. The impact of the problem will be indicated as difficult or easy, especially for users to overcome. On persistence, the problem may have to be indicated as whether it is a onetime problem that users can overcome or not. As Nielsen notes (1995), severity ratings are important since they will indicate where the organization should allocate most resources to fix a problem. Commercially, it is important to say that several factors of severity problems may affect the product on the market, devastating its popularity on the market. The severity ratings will also play a very big role in determining how resources should be prioritized and decisions be made. Nielsen has however provided a scale of 0-4 that rates the severity of any usability problem. 0 figures indicate an evaluator not agreeing with the usability problem. For 1, it is a problem of cosmetic nature, while 2 represent a minor problem. The rating of 3 represents major usability problem; 4 represents a usability catastrophe (Lectuire 7 2013). Advantages of and Disadvantages of Heuristic Model Heuristic techniques will have the organization wondering less as it will not be pressed to consider ethical issues because it is dealing with experts. Another advantage is that experts are knowledgeable in areas of system, which will make them produce best solutions. Nevertheless, experts will be guided by the usability principles as tools, which will make them very objective. Since Heuristic evaluation identifies the problem in design rather than in end using, it is the better than usability testing which is just reactive (Behrooz 2013). However, according to Behrooz (2013), from experience, different evaluators may find different problems on one issue, which may be difficult to compile. Additionally, experts have been found to espouse a lot of biases, which may hinder objective observations. Lastly, of late, several sub techniques of heuristic evaluation have emerged, which becomes difficult to choose the right one (Bolt 2010; Lecture 7 2013). List of References Behrooz, (2013), Advantages and Disadvantages of Usability Testing, Research Methods- Year 2, viewed 22 October 2013, Bolt, N (2010), Pros and Cons of Remote Usability Testing, Johnny Holland, viewed 22 October 2013, Corrao et al.,(2010), Importance of Testing for Usability When Selecting and Implementing an Electronic Health or Medical Record System. PMC. viewed 20 October 2013, Danino,N (2001),Heuristic Evaluation – a Step By Step Guide Article, sitepoint, viewed 22 October 2013, Frankilne, C. and Coustan, D (2013), How Operating Systems Work, How Stuff works, viewed 22 October 2013, How To.gov, (2013), Website Usability Testing, viewed on 20 October 2013, Keith Instone, (2013), Site Usability Heuristics for the Web, viewed 22 October 2013, Laja, P (2013), Website Usability Testing: A Must for Boosting Conversions, Conversion XL, viewed 22 October 2013 Lawton, S (2007), Conducting Usability Testing, Just Ask: Integrating Accessibility Throughout Design, uiaccess, viewed on 20 October 2013, Lecture 7: Other Evaluation Techniques, (2013), Monash University: Information Technology, PDF E-book. Lecture 6: Evaluation and Usability Testing, (2013), Monash University: Information Technology, PDF E-book. Nielsen, J (1995),How to Conduct a Heuristic Evaluation, Nielsen Norman Group, viewed 22 October 2013, Peacock, M,(2010),The What, Why and How of Usability Testing,CMS WiRE, viewed 22 October 2013, Usability. gov, (2013), Usability Testing, viewed 22 October 2013, Read More