An Empirical Comparison of Lab and Remote Usability Testing of Web Sites
An Empirical Comparison of Lab and Remote Usability Testing of Web Sites
复制标题
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
T. Tullis;Stan Fleischman;M. McNulty;Carrie Cianchette;Marguerite Bergel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
T. Tullis;Stan Fleischman;M. McNulty;Carrie Cianchette;Marguerite Bergel
本文介绍了两项研究的结果，比较传统的基于实验室的可用性测试和远程基于Web的可用性测试的网站。测试了两个网站：一个雇员福利网站和一个财务信息网站。远程测试使用了自动化技术，用户使用正常的浏览器从正常的工作地点参与，没有实时观察。任务在屏幕顶部的一个小浏览器窗口中呈现给用户，该窗口也用于捕获他们的输入。结果表明，实验室和远程测试的任务完成数据和任务时间数据之间的高度相关性。网站的主观评级也没有相关性。两种技术都确定了网站最关键的可用性问题，尽管每种技术也独特地发现了其他问题。总的来说，结果表明，实验室和远程测试都捕获了关于站点可用性的非常相似的信息。每种类型的测试似乎都提供了自己的优点和缺点，就其可以发现的可用性问题而言。
This paper presents the results of two studies comparing traditional lab-based usability testing and remote Webbased usability testing of Web sites. Two sites were tested: an employee benefits site and a financial information site. The remote tests used an automated technique whereby the users participated from their normal work locations using their normal browser, and there was no real-time observation. Tasks were presented to the user in a small browser window at the top of the screen that was also used to capture their input. Results showed high correlations between lab and remote tests for the task completion data and the task time data. Subjective ratings of the sites did not correlate as well. The most critical usability issues with the sites were identified by both techniques, although each technique also uniquely uncovered other issues. In general, the results indicate that both the lab and remote tests capture very similar information about the usability of a site. Each type of test appears to offer its own advantages and disadvantages in terms of the usability issues it can uncover.