To Intervene or Not to Intervene:An Investigation of Three Think-Aloud Protocols in Usability Testing
To Intervene or Not to Intervene:An Investigation of Three Think-Aloud Protocols in Usability Testing
复制标题
干预还是不干预:可用性测试中三种有声思考协议的调查
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Mayhew
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Obead Alhadreti;P. Mayhew
本文介绍了一项研究的结果，调查使用三种有声思维方法在网站可用性测试：并发有声思维，语音交流，和主动干预的方法。通过对一个图书馆网站的评估，对这三种方法进行了比较，其中涉及四个比较点：整体任务性能，测试参与者的经验，发现的可用性问题的数量和质量，以及采用这些方法的成本。数据收集自60名个体，每种测试方法分配20名参与者，他们被要求完成一组9项实验任务。研究结果显示，这三种变化能够识别出相似数量的可用性问题和类型。然而，主动干预方法被发现会引起一些反应，修改参与者与界面的互动，并对他们对评估者的感觉产生负面影响。就评估人员的时间而言，积极干预方法也比其他两种方法需要更多的投资。
This paper presents the results of a study investigating the use of three think-aloud methods in website usability testing: the concurrent think-aloud, the speech-communication, and the active intervention methods. These three methods were compared through an evaluation of a library website, which involved four points of comparison: overall task performance, test participants’ experiences, the quantity and quality of usability problems discovered, and the cost of employing the methods. Data were collected from 60 individuals, with 20 participants allocated to each testing method, who were asked to complete a set of nine experimental tasks. The results of the study revealed that the three variations enabled the identification of a similar number of usability problems and types. However, the active intervention method was found to cause some reactivity, modifying participants’ interaction with the interface, and negatively affecting their feelings towards the evaluator. The active intervention method also required much greater investment than did the other two methods in terms of evaluators' time.