Evaluation Methods - Lecture 6 - Human-Computer Interaction (1023841ANR)

This lecture forms part of the course Human-Computer Interaction given at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Transcript

1. 2 December 2005 Human-Computer Interaction Evaluation Methods Prof. Beat Signer Department of Computer Science Vrije Universiteit Brussel beatsigner.com Department of Computer Science Vrije Universiteit Brussel beatsigner.com
2. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 2 October 28, 2024 Evaluation ▪ Evaluation is an integral part of the design process ▪ usability of the system ▪ user experience ▪ Observe participants and measure their perfor- mance ▪ usability testing ▪ experiments ▪ field studies
3. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 3 October 28, 2024 Why, What, Where and When to Evaluate ▪ Why evaluate ▪ do we fulfill user requirements? ▪ ensure that users can use the product and they like it ▪ What to evaluate ▪ conceptual models ▪ early low-fidelity prototypes or high-fidelity prototypes ▪ individual function, complete workflow, aesthetic design, safety, … “User experience encompasses all aspects of the end-user’s interaction […] the first requirement for an exemplary user experience is to meet the exact needs of the customer, without fuss or bother. Next come simplicity and elegance, which produces products that are a joy to own, a joy to use.” Nielsen Norman Group
4. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 4 October 28, 2024 Why, What, Where and When to Evaluate … ▪ Where to evaluate ▪ laboratory ▪ natural setting (in-the-wild studies) - better for user experience ▪ living labs ▪ When to evaluate ▪ formative evaluations - throughout the design process - what and how to redesign? ▪ summative evaluations - assess the final product - how well did we do? Aware Home, Georgia Tech
5. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 5 October 28, 2024 Three Types of Evaluation ▪ Controlled settings involving users ▪ laboratories or living labs ▪ methods: usability testing and experiments ▪ test hypotheses and measure or observe certain behaviour under controlled conditions - reduce outside influences and distractions - same instructions for all participants and results can be generalised ▪ Natural settings involving users ▪ public places and online communities ▪ methods: direct observation (field study), interviews and logging - identify opportunities for new technology - establish requirements for a new design - decide how to best introduce new technology
6. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 6 October 28, 2024 Three Types of Evaluation … ▪ Natural settings involving users … ▪ investigate how product is used in the real world with little or no control of users’ activities - due to lack of control, it might be difficult to anticipate what is going to happen - might get unexpected data and new insights ▪ should be unobtrusive but some methods might influence how people behave ▪ Any setting not involving users ▪ consultants and researchers critique, predict and model parts of the interfaces to identify obvious usability problems ▪ methods: heuristics, walkthroughs, analytics and models ▪ Often a combination of methods is used across these three categories in a single study
7. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 7 October 28, 2024 DECIDE Evaluation Framework ▪ DECIDE framework provides a checklist (guide) to plan an evaluation study and remind about important issues ▪ Determine the goals ▪ Explore the questions ▪ Choose the evaluation methods ▪ Identify the practical issues ▪ Decide how to deal with the ethical issues ▪ Evaluate, analyse, interpret and present the data
8. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 8 October 28, 2024 Determine the Goals ▪ What are the high-level goals of the evaluation? ▪ Who wants the evaluation and why? ▪ Goals influence the methods used for the study ▪ Possible goals ▪ check that user requirements are met ▪ improve the usability of the product ▪ identify the best metaphor for the design ▪ check for consistency ▪ investigate how a product affects working practices ▪ …
9. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 9 October 28, 2024 Explore the Questions ▪ Questions help to guide the evaluation ▪ The goal of finding out why some customers prefer to buy paper airline tickets (rather than e-tickets) can for example be broken down into specific sub-questions ▪ what are customers’ attitudes to e-tickets? ▪ are customers concerned about security? ▪ is the interface to obtain the e-tickets poor? - is the system difficult to navigate? - is the response time too slow? - is the terminology confusing (inconsistent)?
10. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 10 October 28, 2024 Choose the Evaluation Methods ▪ Evaluation method influences how data is collected, analysed and presented ▪ For example, field studies ▪ involve observations and interviews ▪ observe users in natural settings ▪ do not involve controlled tests ▪ produce mainly qualitative data ▪ …
11. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 11 October 28, 2024 Identify the Practical Issues ▪ Selection of users ▪ people with particular level of expertise ▪ gender distribution ▪ age ▪ Find evaluators ▪ Selection of equipment ▪ will participants be disturbed by cameras? ▪ Stay within the budget ▪ Respect the schedule ▪ Should a pilot study be organised?
12. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 12 October 28, 2024 Decide How to Deal with the Ethical Issues ▪ Develop an informed consent form ▪ Information for participants ▪ goals of the study ▪ what happens with the findings - anonymity when quoting them ▪ confidentiality of personal information (coding) ▪ offer draft of final report ▪ Participants are free to stop at any time
13. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 13 October 28, 2024 Evaluate, Interpret and Present the Data ▪ Evaluation method influences how data is collected, analysed and presented ▪ The following needs to be considered ▪ Reliability - can the study be replicated by another evaluator or researcher? ▪ Validity - does the method measure what we expect? ▪ Ecological validity - does the environment influence the findings - are participants aware of being studied (Hawthorne effect)? ▪ Biases - is the process creating biases (e.g. preferences of evaluators)? ▪ Scope - can the findings be generalised
14. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 14 October 28, 2024 Usability Testing ▪ Record the performance (quantitative data) of typical users doing typical tasks in a controlled setting ▪ Participants are observed and timed ▪ Data is recorded on video and interactions (e.g. key presses) are logged ▪ users might be asked to think aloud while carrying out tasks ▪ Data is used to calculate the time to complete a task and to identify the number and type of errors ▪ User satisfaction and opinion is evaluated based on questionnaires and interviews ▪ Field observations may provide contextual understanding
15. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 15 October 28, 2024 Usability Lab with User and Assistant
16. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 16 October 28, 2024 Testing Conditions ▪ Usability lab or other controlled space ▪ usability-in-a-box and remote usability testing as more affordable and mobile alternatives to a usability lab ▪ Emphasis on ▪ selecting representative users ▪ defining representative tasks ▪ 5–12 participants and tasks no longer than 30 minutes ▪ number of participants depends on schedule, availability and cost of running tests ▪ some experts argue that testing should continue until no new insights are gained (saturation) ▪ Same test conditions for every participant
17. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 17 October 28, 2024 System Usability Scale (SUS) ▪ Tool to evaluate the overall usability of interactive systems and user interfaces ▪ 10 standard questions with a 5-point Likert scale ▪ SUS 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = 2.5 ൫ ൯ 𝑄1 − 1 + 5 − 𝑄2 + 𝑄3 − 1 + 5 − 𝑄4 + 𝑄5 − 1 + 5 − 𝑄6 + 𝑄7 − 1 + 5 − 𝑄8 + 𝑄9 − 1 + 5 − 𝑄10 = 2.5ሺ ሻ 20 + 𝑄1 + 𝑄3 + 𝑄5 + 𝑄7 + 𝑄9 − 𝑄2 − 𝑄4 − 𝑄6 − 𝑄8 − 𝑄10 ▪ excellent (>80.3), good (>68), ok (68), poor (<68), awful (<51) J. Brooke, SUS: A Quick and Dirty Usability Scale, 1986
18. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 18 October 28, 2024 Experiments ▪ Test hypothesis to discover new knowledge by inves- tigating the relationship between two or more variables ▪ Independent variable is manipulated by the investigator ▪ e.g. 'cascaded menus' vs. 'context menus' ▪ Dependent variable depends on the independent variable ▪ e.g. time to select an option from the menu ▪ We further define a null hypothesis (e.g. "there is no difference in selection time") and an alternative hypothesis (e.g. "there is a difference between the two menus on selection time")
19. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 19 October 28, 2024 Experiments … ▪ Statistical analysis of the data can be used to contradict the null hypothesis ▪ Experimenter has to set up the conditions and find ways to keep other variables constant (experimental design)
20. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 20 October 28, 2024 Experimental Design ▪ We have to decide which participants to use for which conditions in an experiment ▪ different participants (between-subjects design) - single group of participants is allocated randomly to the experimental conditions - no order or training effects - large number of participants is needed (to minimise individual differences) ▪ same participants (within-subjects design) - all participants appear in both conditions - less participants needed - need counter-balancing to avoid order effect ▪ matched participants (pair-wise design) - participants are matched in pairs (e.g. based on expertise, gender etc.) - same as different participants but individual differences are reduced
21. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 21 October 28, 2024 Usability Testing vs.Research Usability Testing ▪ improve products ▪ a few participants ▪ results inform design ▪ usually not completely replicable ▪ conditions controlled as much as possible ▪ procedure planned ▪ results reported to developers Experiments for Research ▪ discover knowledge ▪ many participants ▪ results validated statistically ▪ must be completely replicable ▪ strongly controlled conditions ▪ experimental design ▪ scientific report to scientific community
22. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 22 October 28, 2024 Field Studies ▪ Field studies are done in natural settings ▪ delivers mainly qualitative data ▪ “in-the-wild studies” is a term for prototypes being used freely in natural settings ▪ Aim to understand what users do naturally and how technology impacts them ▪ Field studies are used in product design to ▪ identify opportunities for new technology ▪ establish requirements for a new design ▪ decide how to best introduce new technology ▪ evaluate technology in use ▪ Findings of field studies can sometimes be unexpected
23. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 23 October 28, 2024 Analysis of Qualitative Data ▪ Qualitative methods for coding data (e.g.via tools such as MAXQDA) MAXQDA
24. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 24 October 28, 2024 UEQ+ User Experience Questionnaire ▪ Tool to build customised UX questionnaire ▪ modular extension of UEQ ▪ customised selection of UX scales ▪ Word templates with questions - more than 20 languages - answers on a 7-point Likert scale ▪ UEQ+ Data Analysis Tool ▪ Excel document creating graphics etc.
25. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 25 October 28, 2024 UEQ+ Available Scales
26. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 26 October 28, 2024 Online Survey Tools Qualtrics
27. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 27 October 28, 2024 Inspections, Analytics and Models ▪ Understand users through knowledge codified in heuristics, remotely collected data or models that predict users’ performance ▪ user does not have to be present during the evaluation ▪ Inspection ▪ heuristic evaluation and walkthroughs ▪ expert plays role of a user and analyses aspect of the interface ▪ Analytics ▪ based on user interaction logging (often done remotely) ▪ Predictive models ▪ analysing and quantifying physical and mental operations needed for a task
28. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 28 October 28, 2024 Inspections ▪ Experts use their knowledge of users and technology to review the usability of a product ▪ Expert critiques can be formal or informal reports ▪ Heuristic evaluation is a review guided by a set of heuristics ▪ Walkthroughs involve stepping through a pre-planned scenario noting down potential problems
29. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 29 October 28, 2024 Heuristic Evaluation ▪ Developed by Jacob Nielsen and his colleagues in the early 1990s ▪ Based on heuristics distilled from an empirical analysis of 249 usability problems ▪ Over time the original heuristics have been revised for current technology ▪ Heuristics being developed for mobile devices, wearables, virtual worlds, … ▪ Design guidelines form a basis for developing heuristics Jacob Nielsen
30. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 30 October 28, 2024 Nielsen’s Original Heuristics ▪ Visibility of system status ▪ Match between system and the real world ▪ User control and freedom ▪ Consistency and standards ▪ Error prevention ▪ Recognition rather than recall ▪ Flexibility and efficiency of use ▪ Aesthetic and minimalistic design ▪ Help users recognise, diagnose and recover from errors ▪ Help and documentation
31. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 31 October 28, 2024 Discount Evaluation ▪ Heuristic evaluation is referred to as discount evaluation when 3–5 evaluators are used ▪ Empirical evidence suggests that on average 5 evalua- tors identify 75-80% of the usability problems
32. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 32 October 28, 2024 Three Stages of Heuristic Evaluation ▪ Briefing session to tell experts what to do ▪ Evaluation period of 1-2 hours in which ▪ each expert works separately ▪ each expert takes one pass to get a feel for the product ▪ each expert takes a second pass to focus on specific features ▪ Debriefing session in which experts work together in order to prioritise the problems
33. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 33 October 28, 2024 Advantages and Problems ▪ Few ethical and practical issues to consider because no users are involved ▪ Can be difficult (and expensive) to find experts ▪ Only best experts have knowledge of the application domain and the users ▪ Important problems might get missed ▪ Many trivial problems and often also problems that are no problems (false alarms) are identified ▪ Experts have biases
34. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 34 October 28, 2024 Cognitive Walkthroughs ▪ Focus on ease of learning ▪ Designer presents an aspect of the design together with usage scenarios (focused evaluation of small parts) ▪ Expert is told the assumptions about the user population, the context of use and the task details ▪ One or more experts walk through the design prototype with the scenario and guided by the following 3 questions ▪ will the correct action be sufficiently evident to the user? ▪ will the user notice that the correct action is available? ▪ will the user associate and interpret the response from the action correctly? ▪ As experts work through the scenario they note problems
35. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 35 October 28, 2024 Analytics ▪ Method for evaluating user traffic through a system or parts of a system ▪ analysing logged parameters of user interactions ▪ Google Analytics is an example for the analytics of web-based solutions ▪ times of day, visitor IP address, exit pages, … ▪ A/B testing ▪ large-scale testing of two slightly different designs
36. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 36 October 28, 2024 Predictive Models ▪ Predictive models provide a way of evaluating products or designs without direct user involvement ▪ Less expensive than user testing ▪ Usefulness is limited to solutions with predictable tasks ▪ e.g.telephone answering system, mobile phones, … ▪ Based on expert error-free behaviour
37. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 37 October 28, 2024 GOMS Model ▪ Goals ▪ what does the user want to achieve - e.g. find a website ▪ Operators ▪ cognitive processes and physical actions needed to attain goals - e.g. decide which search engine to use ▪ Methods ▪ procedure to accomplish the goals - e.g. drag mouse over input field, type in keywords and press the ‘go’ button ▪ Selection rules ▪ decide which method to select when there is more than one - e.g. press the ‘go’ button or the ‘Enter’ key on the keyboard
38. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 38 October 28, 2024 Operator Description Time (sec) K Pressing a single key or button Average skilled typist (55 wpm) Average non-skilled typist (40 wpm) Pressing shift or control key Typist unfamiliar with the keyboard 0.22 0.28 0.08 1.20 P P1 Pointing with a mouse or other device on a display to select an object. This value is derived from Fitts’ Law which is discussed below. Clicking the mouse or similar device 0.40 0.20 H Bring ‘home’ hands on the keyboard or other device 0.40 M Mentally prepare/respond 1.35 R(t) The response time is counted only if it causes the user to wait. t Keystroke Level Model ▪ GOMS model has been further developed into the quantitative keystroke level model ▪ Predicts how long it takes an expert user to perform a task by summing up the necessary operations
39. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 39 October 28, 2024 Fitts’s Law (1954) ▪ Fitts’s Law predicts that the time to point at an object using a device (e.g. mouse) is a function of the distance from the target object and the target object’s size 𝑇 = 𝑘 log2 Τ 𝐷 𝑆 + 1.0 T = time to move the pointer to the target D = distance between the pointer and the target S = size of the target k = constant ▪ The further away and the smaller the object, the longer the time to locate it and point to it Paul Fitts
40. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 40 October 28, 2024 Further Reading ▪ Parts of this lecture are based on the Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction book ▪ chapter 14 - Introducing Evaluation ▪ chapter 15 - Evaluation Studies: From Controlled to Natural Settings ▪ chapter 16 - Evaluation: Inspections, Analytics and Models
41. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 41 October 28, 2024 References ▪ Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, Yvonne Rogers, Helen Sharp and Jenny Preece, Wiley (6th edition), April 2023 ISBN-13: 978-1119901099 ▪ M. Schrepp and J. Thomaschewski, Design and Validation of a Framework for the Creation of User Ex- perience Questionnaires, International Journal of Inter- active Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence 5(7), 2019 ▪ https://dx.doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2019.06.006 ▪ UEQ+: A Modular Extension of the User Experience Questionnaire ▪ https://ueqplus.ueq-research.org
42. Beat Signer - Department of Computer Science - bsigner@vub.be 42 October 28, 2024 References ... ▪ J. Brooke, SUS: A Quick and Dirty Usability Scale, Usability Evaluation in Industry, 189(194), 1986 ▪ https://doi.org/10.1201/9781498710411-35 ▪ MAXQDA ▪ https://www.maxqda.com ▪ Qualtrics XM ▪ https://www.qualtrics.com
43. 2 December 2005 Next Lecture HCI Research Methods