Asking users and experts

Asking users and experts

1. interviews

   • Interviews can be thought of as a "conversation with a purpose" (Kahn and Cannell, 1957). How like an ordinary conversation the interview is depends on the questions to be answered and the type of interview method used
   • open-ended or unstructured
   • structured
   • semi-structured
   • group interviews
   • Avoid long questions because they are difficult to remember
   • Avoid compound sentences by splitting them into two separate questions.
   • Avoid using jargon and language that the interviewee may not understand
   • Introduction
     • the interviewer introduces himself and explains why he is doing the interview
   • warmup
     • session where easy, non-threatening questions come first. These may include questions about demographic information
   • main session
     • in which the questions are presented in a logical sequence, with the more difficult ones at the end.
   • cool-offperiod
     • consisting of a few easy questions
   • closing session
     • in which the interviewer thanks the interviewee and switches off the recorder or puts her notebook away, signaling that the interview has ended.

2. questionnaires

   • are a well-established technique for collecting demographic data and users' opinions. They are similar to interviews and can have closed or open questions. Effort and skill are needed to ensure that questions are clearly worded and the data collected can be analyzed efficiently
   • Make questions clear and specific.
   • When possible, ask closed questions and offer a range of answers
   • Consider including a "no-opinion" option for questions that seek opinions
   • Avoid complex multiple questions
   • A balance must be struck between using white space and the need to keep the questionnaire as compact as possible
   • Check boxes and ranges
   • Likert Scales
   • Semantic differential scales

3. inspections

   • Heuristic evaluation
     • is an informal usability inspection technique developed by Jakob Nielsen and his colleagues (Nielsen, 1994a) in which experts, guided by a set of usability principles known as heuristics, evaluate whether user-interface elements, such as dialog boxes, menus, navigation structure, online help, etc., conform to the principles
     • Visibility of system status
     • Match between system and the real world
     • User control and freedom
     • Consistency and standards
     • Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors
     • Error prevention
     • Recognition rather than recall
     • Flexibility and eficiency of use
     • Help and documentation
     • Aesthetic and minimalist design

4. walkthroughs

   • are an alternative approach to heuristic evaluation for predicting users' problems without doing user testing. As the name suggests, they involve walking through a task with the system and noting problematic usability features.
   • Cognitive walkthroughs
     • The characteristics of typical users are identified and documented and sample tasks are developed that focus on the aspects of the design to be evaluated.
     • A designer and one or more expert evaluators then come together to do the analysis.
     • The evaluators walk through the action sequences for each task, placing it within the context of a typical scenario
     • As the walkthrough is being done, a record of critical information is compiled in which:
       • The assumptions about what would cause problems and why are recorded. This involves explaining why users would face difficulties,
       • Notes about side issues and design changes are made.
       • A summary of the results is compiled
     • The design is then revised to fix the problems presented
   • Pluralistic walkthroughs
     • Scenarios are developed in the form of a series of hard-copy screens representing a single path through the interface
     • The scenarios are presented to the panel of evaluators and the panelists are asked to write down the sequence of actions they would take to move from one screen to another.
     • When everyone has written down their actions, the panelists discuss the actions that they suggested for that round of the review. Usually, the representative users go first so that they are not influenced by the other panel members and are not deterred from speaking. Then the usability experts present their findings, and finally the developers offer their comments
     • Then the panel moves on to the next round of screens. This process continues until all the scenarios have been evaluated

5. Naomi Macias Honti

   • A01282098

Images and files in the map