1. Erfaringer med Remote Usability Testing? Jan Stage Professor, PhD Forskningsleder i Informationssystemer (IS)/Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) Aalborg Universitet, Institut for Datalogi, HCI-Lab jans@cs.aau.dk

2. Institut for Datalogi 2 Undersøgelse 1 Undersøgelse 2 Oversigt

3. Institut for Datalogi 3 Undersøgelse 1: synkron eller asynkron Metode Resultater Konklusion Undersøgelse 2 Oversigt

4. Institut for Datalogi Empirical Study 1 Four methods: LAB – RS – AE – AU Test subjects: 6 in each condition (18 users and 6 with usability expertise), all students at Aalborg University System: Email client (Mozilla Thunderbird 1.5) 9 defined tasks (typical email functions) Setting, procedure and data collection in accordance with method Data analysis: 24 outputs were analysed by three persons in random and different order Generated their individual lists of usability problems with their own categorizations (also for the AE and AU conditions) These were merged into an overall problem list through negotiation 4

5. Institut for Datalogi 5 Results: Task Completion No significant difference in task completion Significant difference in task completion time The users in the two asynchronous conditions spent considerably more time We do not know the reason

6. Institut for Datalogi 6 Results: Usability Problems Identified A total of 46 usability problems No significant difference between LAB and RS AE/AU identified significantly fewer problems, also critical problems No significant difference between AE and AU in terms of problems identified

7. Institut for Datalogi 7 Conclusion RS is the most widely described and used remote method. The performance is virtually equivalent to LAB (or slightly better) AE and AU perform surprisingly well Experts do not perform significantly better than users Video analysis (LAB and RS) required considerably more evaluator effort than the user-based reporting (AU and AE) Users can actually contribute to usability evaluation – not with the same quality, but reasonably well, and there are plenty of them

8. Institut for Datalogi 8 Undersøgelse 1 Undersøgelse 2: hvilken asynkron metode Metode Resultater Konklusion Oversigt

9. Institut for Datalogi 9 Empirical Study 2 Purpose: examine and compare remote asynchronous methods Focus on usability problems identified Comparable with the previous study Selection of asynchronous methods based on literature survey

10. Institut for Datalogi 10 The 3 Remote Asynchronous Methods User-reported critical incident (UCI) Well-defined method (Castillo et al. CHI 1998) Forum-based online reporting and discussion (Forum) Assumption: through collaboration participants may give input which increases data quality and richness (Thompson, 1999) A source for collecting qualitative data in a study of auto logging (Millen, 1999): the participants turned out to report detailed usability feedback Diary-based longitudinal user reporting (Diary) Used on a longitudinal basis for participants in a study of auto logging to provide qualitative information (Steves et al. CSCW 2001) First day: same tasks as the other conditions (first part of diary delivered) Four more days: new tasks (same type) sent daily (complete diary delivered) Conventional user-based laboratory test (Lab) Included as benchmark

11. Institut for Datalogi 11 Participants: 40 test subjects, 10 for each condition Students, age 20 to 30 Distributed evenly: gender and tech/non-tech education Setting: LAB: in our usability lab Remote asynchronous: in the participants’ homes Participants in the remote asynchronous conditions received the software and installed it on their computer Training material for the remote asynchronous conditions Identification and categorisation of usability problems A minimalist approach that was strictly remote and asynchronous (via email) Empirical Study (1)

12. Institut for Datalogi 12 Tasks: Nine fixed tasks The same across the four conditions to ensure that all participants used the same parts of the system Typical email tasks (same as previous study) Data collection in accordance with the method LAB: video recordings UCI: web-based system for generating problem descriptions while solving tasks Forum: after solving tasks, one week for posting and discussing problems Diary: a diary with no imposed structure; first part after the first day Empirical Study (2)

13. Institut for Datalogi 13 All data collected before the data analysis started 3 evaluators did the whole data analysis The 40 data sets were analysed by the 3 evaluators In random order: by a draw In different order between them The user input from the three remote conditions was transformed into usability problem descriptions Each evaluator generated his/her own individual lists of usability problems with their own severity ratings A problem list for each condition A complete problem list (joined) These were merged into an overall problem list through negotiation Data Analysis

14. Institut for Datalogi 14 Results: Task Completion Time Considerable variation in task completion times Participants in the remote conditions worked in their home at a time they selected For each task there was a hint that allowed them to check if they had solved the task correctly As we have no data on the task solving process in the remote conditions, we cannot explain this variation

15. Institut for Datalogi 15 LAB: significantly better than the 3 remote conditions UCI-Forum: no significant difference UCI-Diary: significant overall: Diary – also significant on cosmetic Forum-Diary: significant overall: Diary – not significant on any level Results: Usability Problems Identified Lab N=10 UCI N=10 Forum N=10 Diary N=10 Task completion time in minutes: Average (SD) 24.24 (6.3)34.45 (14.33)15.45 (5.83) Tasks 1-9: 32.57 (28.34) Usability problems:#%#%#%#% Critical (21)209510489431152 Serious (17)148221216635 Cosmetic (24)1250145211250 Total (62)4674132115242947

16. Institut for Datalogi 16 Results: Evaluator Effort The sum for all evaluators involved in each activity Time for finding test subjects is not included (8h, common for all) Task specifications from an earlier study. Preparation in the remote conditions: work out written instructions Considerable differences between the remote conditions for analysis and merging of problem lists Lab (46) UCI (13) Forum (15) Diary (29) Preparation6:002:40 Conducting test10:001:00 1:30 Analysis33:182:523:569:38 Merging problem lists11:451:411:424:58 Total time spent61:038:139:1818:46 Avg. time per problem1:200:380:370:39

17. Institut for Datalogi 17 Conclusion The three remote methods performed significantly below the classical lab test in terms of the number of usability problems identified The Diary was the best remote method – it identified half of the problems found in the Lab condition UCI and Forum performed similarly for critical problems but worse for serious problems UCI and Forum took 13% of the lab test. Diary took 30% The productivity of the remote methods was considerably higher

18. Institut for Datalogi 18

19. Institut for Datalogi Interaktionsdesign og usability-evaluering Master i IT Videreuddannelse under IT-Vest Fagpakke i Interaktionsdesign og usability-evaluering starter 1/2-12 Optager bachelorer, men også indgang for datamatikere Information: http://www.master-it-vest.dk/ 19