Transcript SBD6-Usability

SBD:
Usability Evaluation
Chris North
cs3724: HCI
Usability Evaluation
• Analytic Methods:
•
•
•
•
Usability inspection, Expert review
Heuristic Evaluation
Cognitive walk-through
GOMS analysis
• Empirical Methods:
• Usability Testing
– Field or lab
– Observation, problem identification
• Controlled Experiment
– Formal controlled scientific experiment
– Comparisons, statistical analysis
Heuristic Evaluation
Nielsen’s 10 Heuristics
1. Visible status, feedback
wysiwyg
2. User control, undo, exits
wizards
3. Familiar, speak user’s language
Acrobat error msg
4. Consistent, standards
multi-close Word, PPT
5. Recognition over recall
web nav, phone menu
6. Efficient, expert shortcuts
Word bold
7. Aesthetic, minimalist
phone book
8. Prevent errors
HomeFinder
9. Error recovery
undo, back
10. Help, task-based
IIS help doc
Shneiderman’s 8 Golden Rules
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Consistency
multi-close Word, PPT
Shortcuts for experts
Word bold
Feedback
Wysiwyg
Sequences with closure
wizards
Prevent errors, rapid recovery
undo
Easy reversal
HomeFinder
User control
ClipIt modal
Reduce memory load
web nav, phone menu
Speak the User’s Language
Help documentation
Context help,
help doc,
UI
Usability Testing
Usability Testing
• Formative: helps guide design
• Early in design process
• when architecture is finalized, then its too late!
•
•
•
•
A few users
Usability problems, incidents
Qualitative feedback from users
Quantitative usability specification
Usability Specification Table
Scenario
task
Worst case Planned
Target
Best case
(expert)
Observed
Find most
expensive
house for
sale?
1 min.
3 sec.
??? sec
…
10 sec.
Usability Test Setup
• Set of benchmark tasks
• Easy to hard, specific to open-ended
• Coverage of different UI features
• E.g. “find the 5 most expensive houses for sale”
• Consent forms
• Not needed unless video-taping user’s face (new rule)
• Experimenters:
• Facilitator: instructs user
• Observers: take notes, collect data, video tape screen
• Executor: run the prototype if faked
• Users
• 3-5 users, quality not quantity
Usability Test Procedure
• Goal: mimic real life
• Do not cheat by showing them how to use the UI!
• Initial instructions
• “We are evaluating the system, not you.”
• Repeat:
•
•
•
•
Give user a task
Ask user to “think aloud”
Observe, note mistakes and problems
Avoid interfering, hint only if completely stuck
• Interview
• Verbal feedback
• Questionnaire
• ~1 hour / user
Usability Lab
• E.g. McBryde 102
Data
• Note taking
• E.g. “&%$#@ user keeps clicking on the wrong button…”
• Verbal protocol: think aloud
• E.g. user thinks that button does something else…
• Rough quantitative measures
• HCI metrics: e.g. task completion time, ..
• Interview feedback and surveys
• Video-tape screen & mouse
• Eye tracking, biometrics?
Analyze
• Initial reaction:
• “stupid user!”, “that’s developer X’s fault!”, “this sucks”
• Mature reaction:
• “how can we redesign UI to solve that usability problem?”
• the user is always right
• Identify usability problems
• Learning issues: e.g. can’t figure out or didn’t notice feature
• Performance issues: e.g. arduous, tiring to solve tasks
• Subjective issues: e.g. annoying, ugly
• Problem severity: critical vs. minor
Cost-Importance Analysis
Problem
Importance
Solutions
Cost
Ratio I/C
• Importance 1-5: (task effect, frequency)
• 5 = critical, major impact on user, frequent occurance
• 3 = user can complete task, but with difficulty
• 1 = minor problem, small speed bump, infrequent
• Ratio = importance / cost
• Sort by this
• 3 categories: Must fix, next version, ignored
Refine UI
• Simple solutions vs. major redesigns
• Solve problems in order of: importance/cost
• Example:
• Problem: user didn’t know he could zoom in to see more…
• Potential solutions:
–
–
–
–
Better zoom button icon, tooltip
Add a zoom bar slider (like moosburg)
Icons for different zoom levels: boundaries, roads, buildings
NOT: more “help” documentation!!! You can do better.
• Iterate
• Test, refine, test, refine, test, refine, …
• Until? Meets usability specification
Project: Usability Evaluation
• Usability Evaluation:
•
•
•
•
Informal test
3 users: Not (tainted) HCI students
Simple data collection (Biometrics optional!)
Exploit this opportunity to improve your design
• Report:
•
•
•
•
Procedure (users, tasks, specs, data collection)
Usability problems identified, specs not met
Design modifications
Revised implementation plan
Controlled Experiments
Usability test vs. Controlled Expm.
• Usability test:
•
•
•
•
•
Formative: helps guide design
Single UI, early in design process
Few users
Usability problems, incidents
Qualitative feedback from users
• Controlled experiment:
•
•
•
•
•
Summative: measure final result
Compare multiple UIs
Many users, strict protocol
Independent & dependent variables
Quantitative results, statistical significance
What is Science?
• Measurement
• Modeling
Scientific Method
1.
2.
3.
4.
Form Hypothesis
Collect data
Analyze
Accept/reject hypothesis
•
How to “prove” a hypothesis in science?
•
•
•
•
Easier to disprove things, by counterexample
Null hypothesis = opposite of hypothesis
Disprove null hypothesis
Hence, hypothesis is proved
Empirical Experiment
• Typical question:
• Which visualization is better in which situations?
Spotfire
vs.
TableLens
Cause and Effect
• Goal: determine “cause and effect”
• Cause = visualization tool (Spotfire vs. TableLens)
• Effect = user performance time on task T
• Procedure:
• Vary cause
• Measure effect
• Problem: random variation
random variation
Real
world
Collected
data
uncertain conclusions
• Cause = vis tool OR random variation?
Stats to the Rescue
• Goal:
• Measured effect unlikely to result by random variation
• Hypothesis:
• Cause = visualization tool (e.g. Spotfire ≠ TableLens)
• Null hypothesis:
• Visualization tool has no effect (e.g. Spotfire = TableLens)
• Hence: Cause = random variation
• Stats:
• If null hypothesis true, then measured effect occurs
with probability < 5% (e.g. measured effect >> random variation)
• Hence:
• Null hypothesis unlikely to be true
• Hence, hypothesis likely to be true
Variables
• Independent Variables (what you vary), and
treatments (the variable values):
• Visualization tool
» Spotfire, TableLens, Excel
• Task type
» Find, count, pattern, compare
• Data size (# of items)
» 100, 1000, 1000000
• Dependent Variables (what you measure)
•
•
•
•
User performance time
Errors
Subjective satisfaction (survey)
HCI metrics
Example: 2 x 3 design
Ind Var 2: Task Type
Task1
Task2
Task3
SpotInd Var 1: fire
Vis. Tool TableLens
• n users per cell
Measured user
performance times
(dep var)
Groups
• “Between subjects” variable
•
•
•
•
1 group of users for each variable treatment
Group 1: 20 users, Spotfire
Group 2: 20 users, TableLens
Total: 40 users, 20 per cell
• “With-in subjects” (repeated) variable
•
•
•
•
•
All users perform all treatments
Counter-balancing order effect
Group 1: 20 users, Spotfire then TableLens
Group 2: 20 users, TableLens then Spotfire
Total: 40 users, 40 per cell
Issues
• Eliminate or measure extraneous factors
• Randomized
• Fairness
• Identical procedures, …
• Bias
• User privacy, data security
• IRB (internal review board)
Procedure
• For each user:
• Sign legal forms
• Pre-Survey: demographics
• Instructions
» Do not reveal true purpose of experiment
• Training runs
• Actual runs
» Give task
» measure performance
• Post-Survey: subjective measures
• * n users
Data
• Measured dependent variables
• Spreadsheet:
User Spotfire
TableLens
task task task task task task
1
2
3
1
2
3
Step 1: Visualize it
•
•
•
•
Dig out interesting facts
Qualitative conclusions
Guide stats
Guide future experiments
Step 2: Stats
Ind Var 2: Task Type
SpotInd Var 1: fire
Vis. Tool TableLens
Task1
Task2
Task3
37.2
54.5
103.7
29.8
53.2
145.4
Average
user performance
times (dep var)
TableLens better than Spotfire?
Avg
Perf time
(secs)
Spotfire
TableLens
• Problem with Averages: lossy
• Compares only 2 numbers
• What about the 40 data values? (Show me the data!)
The real picture
Avg
Perf time
(secs)
Spotfire
TableLens
• Need stats that compare all data
Statistics
• t-test
• Compares 1 dep var on 2 treatments of 1 ind var
• ANOVA: Analysis of Variance
• Compares 1 dep var on n treatments of m ind vars
• Result:
• p = probability that difference between treatments is random
(null hypothesis)
• “statistical significance” level
• typical cut-off: p < 0.05
• Hypothesis confidence = 1 - p
In Excel
p < 0.05
•
•
•
•
Woohoo!
Found a “statistically significant” difference
Averages determine which is ‘better’
Conclusion:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cause = visualization tool (e.g. Spotfire ≠ TableLens)
Vis Tool has an effect on user performance for task T …
“95% confident that TableLens better than Spotfire …”
NOT “TableLens beats Spotfire 95% of time”
5% chance of being wrong!
Be careful about generalizing
p > 0.05
• Hence, no difference?
• Vis Tool has no effect on user performance for task T…?
• Spotfire = TableLens ?
• NOT!
•
•
•
•
Did not detect a difference, but could still be different
Potential real effect did not overcome random variation
Provides evidence for Spotfire = TableLens, but not proof
Boring, basically found nothing
• How?
• Not enough users
• Need better tasks, data, …
Data Mountain
• Robertson, “Data Mountain”
•
(Microsoft)
Data Mountain: Experiment
•
•
•
•
Data Mountain vs. IE favorites
32 subjects
Organize 100 pages, then retrieve based on cues
Indep. Vars:
• UI: Data mountain (old, new), IE
• Cue: Title, Summary, Thumbnail, all 3
• Dependent variables:
• User performance time
• Error rates: wrong pages, failed to find in 2 min
• Subjective ratings
Data Mountain: Results
•Spatial Memory!
•Limited scalability?