Project 5: Formative Usability
Evaluation
CS3724, Fall 2000
Due as per class calendar
Activities
The essence of this assignment is to carry out a full set of formative
usability evaluations on your computer-based prototype, following the detailed
techniques described in the class notes and discussed and practiced in
class.
Before Data Collection Session
- The first things to do before you start any usability testing are
to pilot test, pilot test, and pilot test. Get at least one person
outside your team (it's OK to use people from other teams, but just for
the pilot test) to go through your testing routine as a participant. The primary
goal for pilot testing is to make sure the prototype is complete and will
support usability evaluation without breaking. Also, from
just this quick and simple pre-evaluation activity, you will learn a lot
and it will help you tune and calibrate your formative evaluation setup.
As a result you may make changes to your usability specifications, bench
mark tasks, testing procedures, etc. Make sure to do enough pilot testing
to shake-down the benchmark tasks and usability specifications you have
chosen for evaluation.
- Select user participants. Enlist 3 to 5 representative users from your
client organization. Your user participants should cover all of your defined
user classes.
- Prepare several blank data collection
forms. You'll need at least one form
per benchmark task per user participant.
- Decide team roles. One person should be the evaluation leader or
facilitator, to meet and greet the participants, to keep the evaluation
sessions moving, and to interact with participants. Another person should be
responcible for taking quantitative data (e.g. time on task and error
counts). Everyone else should record (write down) qualitative data (e.g.
critical incidents and comments by the participants).
During Data Collection Session
- Before the participant arrives, get your prototype (low-fidelity or
high-fidelity) "booted" up and ready to go.
- Greet the participant. You will meet each participant at a pre-determined
time and place, often at the client site. Explain the procedure; give the
participant any general written instructions about the overall process. Show
them any setup you have and have them sign the informed consent form (required).
Answer any questions they might have.
- Have participant from the appropriate user class perform benchmark tasks
using your prototype. Give the participant the written benchmark task
description appearing alone on a single sheet of paper, let them read it,
and answer any questions. (Reading time is not part of task performance
time.) If your plan to collect verbal protocol data, ask the user to
"think aloud" while performing the task.
- If you are using a paper and plastic low-fidelity prototype, a team member
should be designated as prototype "executor", to move parts of the
prototype in response top participant actions. Executor must not
anticipate participant actions; especially do not give the correct
"computer" response for a wrong user action! Executor must only
respond to what participants do (with the prototype), and may not speak,
make gestures, etc. You may not change the design on the fly! This is
the reason you pilot test so carefully, so this will not even be a
temptation.
- Do not instruct or coach the participant in details of how to perform a
task as they are working. If they get completely stuck and frustrated, then
give them a hint, but avoid telling them specifics. The idea is not to get
them through the tasks but to discover usability problems in your
interaction design.
- During the usability evaluation session the team member selected for the
role (and all others whenever they can) should take extensive notes on critical incidents and verbal protocol data;
the Data Collection Form is a good place to put these notes. Also, after
the task is completed, talk with the participant about
the task, etc., as you saw in the video in class. Also have the participant
do some "free play" and generally interact with the design and take some
verbal protocol. This can catch some problems not seen in your benchmark
tasks, which are by nature more limited in scope.
- At the appropriate time, have your user participants fill out your questionnaire,
for your selected questions.
- At the end of each session, thank the participant, answer any final
questions they may have, and give them their "reward".
After the Data Collection Session
- After testing is over, do a complete work-up and analysis of the qualitative data,
following the techniques described
in the class notes and in-class activities.
- From your notes, the critical incident
data, and the verbal protocol taking, compile a complete list of usability
problems discovered across all your usability evaluation sessions. You
should easily find a couple dozen usability problems in your usability
evaluation. If you don't, I would be suspicious of something (e.g., how
you did the process).
- Use a cost-importance table to show your estimated
importance and cost to fix and your priority ratios and rankings. The table
should be presented in sorted order by priority ranking. Assign yourself
a fictitious number of person-hours as the available resources to fix problems
and draw a line in the cost-importance table representing where you will
run out of resources (i.e., the line between "can fix" and "put off").
Deliverables
Inside the binder, create a "tabbed" section labeled "Project 5". Add
this section to the front of your team binder. This way, your binder
becomes a cumulative record of your whole project, with the most recent
parts first. This section should start with its own separate cover page
with (mostly the same as on the front of the binder):
-
"Project 5: Formative Usability Evaluation"
-
Team number
-
Project name
-
Name of client organization
-
One-line description of project
-
Team member names
-
"CS3724 – Fall 2000"
Contents of Project 5 section:
-
To make this report a stand-alone document, repeat your synopsis or a revised
version thereof.
-
Describe your pilot test, the results, what you learned, and what (if anything)
it led you to change in your prototype, benchmark tasks, or your formative evaluation plans.
After pilot testing, (for this course) the only changes you should make are ones
that are helpful to the evaluation process (e.g., bad bug in prototype),
not changes that address only usability.
-
Describe your participants for formative evaluation, how you selected them (very
brief), and how they "cover" your user classes.
-
Describe the team member roles you decided on for the usability evaluation
sessions.
-
Give an executive summary statement highlighting the overall results of
the formative evaluation activity, including any high-level conclusions you
might have.
-
Very briefly describe the critical incident taking process that you did.
This is mainly to describe how you collected critical incident data and
how it worked for you. (The place for describing problems found by this
and other techniques is coming up below.)
-
Very briefly describe the verbal protocol taking process that you did and
how it worked for you.
-
In a cost-importance table list each usability problem discovered. The
problem list should contain at least a dozen usability problems and should
be sorted by ascending values of priority rank. If you found a great deal
more than that, list the dozen or so most significant (or most interesting)
ones, showing this summary information:
-
Problem (name and brief description)
-
Importance rating (determined by your team)
-
Proposed solutions and the estimated cost-to-fix of each, in person-hours
-
Priority ratio and priority ranking
-
Indicate the number of person-hours you have allowed yourself as a hypothetical
limit and show it on the cost-importance table as a "cut-off" line. Then
show your final resolution (to fix or not) of each problem, based on where each usability
problem falls in the rankings with respect to that limit.
-
Conclude the report with a brief statement of any important lessons
learned, the kinds of problems encountered by you and/or the participants,
what the participants liked and disliked, and reflections on the prototyping
and formative evaluation processes.