A comparison of iterative and traditional usability test methods /
This research compares two methods for usability testing.
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis Book |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
[Place of publication not identified] :
[publisher not identified] ;
1996.
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://proxy.library.tamu.edu/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=739667921&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=2945&RQT=309&VName=PQD |
| Summary: | This research compares two methods for usability testing. The first method, Traditional, follows a traditional usability test scenario of sequentially testing nine participants with the same computer interface. The second method, Iterative, also tests nine participants, but the participants are equally divided into three iterations. Changes to the interface are made after every iteration. These changes are based on recommendations to improve problems observed during the previous iteration. The primary focus of the research was to determine if the Iterative method enabled identification of more usability problems than the Traditional method. A secondary objective was to discover if typical usability test measures were better using the Iterative method than the Traditional method. Two different prototypes were usability tested with each method. The first prototype, Business Network EDITM (BNet EDI), ran on the MS-Windows 3.1 platform and emulated a business communications product that helps businesses communicate electronically with their customers, suppliers, and financial institutions. The second prototype, Djinni, ran on the MS- Windows '95 platform and modeled an On-Line Service product that accessed bulletin boards, software libraries, and real- time conference areas. Participants in the BNet EDI test sessions attempted five discrete tasks while participants in the Djinni test sessions attempted seven discrete tasks. The usability test data collected included the total number of distinct problems detected, the task completion times, the number of times the test administrator assisted participants, participant average opinion ratings for a given task, and performance by task. The results of this research indicated that the Iterative method did discover a greater number of unique usability problems than the Traditional method for both prototypes. Additionally, the Iterative test method illustrated significantly better task completion times, average opinion ratings, and performance responses than the Traditional test scenario in some instances. The Traditional method never produced significantly better usability test measures. Based on these results, the Iterative method of usability testing does appear to be a better procedure than the Traditional method for uncovering usability problems. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | Vita. "Major Subject: Industrial Engineering". |
| Physical Description: | x, 119 leaves : illustrations ; 28 cm. Issued also on microfiche from University Microfilms Inc. |
| Bibliography: | Includes bibliographical references: pages 42-44. |