Scoping Analytical Usability Evaluation Methods: A Case Study
Scoping Analytical Usability Evaluation Methods: A Case Study
复制标题
界定分析可用性评估方法：案例研究
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
I. Connell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Blandford;J. Hyde;T. Green;I. Connell
分析可用性评估方法（UEM）可以补充系统的经验评估：例如，它们通常可以在设计的早期使用，并可以提供为什么用户可能会遇到困难，以及这些困难是什么。然而，它们的属性和价值仅被部分理解。提高理解力的一种方法是使用单个界面或系统作为评估目标进行详细比较，但我们需要比简单的问题更深入地研究：我们需要考虑每个UEM提供什么类型的帐户，以及为什么。在这里，我们报告了八个分析UEM的详细比较。这八种方法被应用到机器人手臂接口，并将研究结果与使用中的手臂的视频数据进行了系统的比较。所确定的可用性问题可以分为五类：系统设计，用户的误解，用户和系统之间的概念配合，物理问题，和上下文的。其他可能的类别，如用户体验，在这项特定的研究中没有出现。除了启发式评估，它支持一系列的见解，每一种分析方法被发现集中注意力在一个或两个类别的问题。三个“土生土长”的方法（评估多模态可用性和基于概念的分析表面和结构不匹配）中的两个被发现占据了空间中的特定位置，而第三个（可编程用户建模）没有。这种方法已经确定了方法之间的共性和对比，并提供了为什么一个特定的方法产生的见解，它没有帐户。这种方法没有考虑问题数量或彻底性等度量，而是深入了解了每种方法的范围。
ABSTRACT Analytical usability evaluation methods (UEMs) can complement empirical evaluation of systems: for example, they can often be used earlier in design and can provide accounts of why users might experience difficulties, as well as what those difficulties are. However, their properties and value are only partially understood. One way to improve our understanding is by detailed comparisons using a single interface or system as a target for evaluation, but we need to look deeper than simple problem counts: we need to consider what kinds of accounts each UEM offers, and why. Here, we report on a detailed comparison of eight analytical UEMs. These eight methods were applied to a robotic arm interface, and the findings were systematically compared against video data of the arm in use. The usability issues that were identified could be grouped into five categories: system design, user misconceptions, conceptual fit between user and system, physical issues, and contextual ones. Other possible categories such as user experience did not emerge in this particular study. With the exception of Heuristic Evaluation, which supported a range of insights, each analytical method was found to focus attention on just one or two categories of issues. Two of the three “home-grown” methods (Evaluating Multimodal Usability and Concept-based Analysis of Surface and Structural Misfits) were found to occupy particular niches in the space, whereas the third (Programmable User Modeling) did not. This approach has identified commonalities and contrasts between methods and provided accounts of why a particular method yielded the insights it did. Rather than considering measures such as problem count or thoroughness, this approach has yielded insights into the scope of each method.
DOI：
10.1007/978-3-319-03068-5_10
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
--
影响因子：
--
作者：
Roast C
通讯作者：
Roast C