Project 5: Formative
Usability Evaluation
Due as per class
calendar.
Overview
This step in your
usability engineering process is the real payoff. It's where you find how good
the usability is and where you identify the usability problems. Most students
think this is the most fun and most rewarding part of the project. 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.
What To Do
Before
Data Collection Session
- Pilot test your high-fidelity
prototype some more.
- Select user participants.
- Decide team roles. Prepare blank
data collection forms and Quis-style user questionnaire.
During
Data Collection Session
- Get ready and have participants
from the appropriate user classes perform benchmark tasks using your prototype.
- Take quantitative and qualitative
usability data. Then finish up with each participant.
After
Data Collection
Session
- Do usability data analysis.
- Compile a list of usability
problems identified in your testing.
- Do cost-importance analysis
to decide which problems to fix.
- Consider what you learned in
this formative evaluation process.
How To Do It
- 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 bug-free and that it 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 shakedown the benchmark tasks and usability specifications
you have chosen for evaluation. Don't yet fix usability problems found in
pilot testing.
- Select user participants. Enlist
at least 4 representative users from your client organization. Your user
participants should cover all of your defined user classes. Use more participants
as necessary for your own situation. The rule of thumb is 3 to 5 users.
This number is 'per user class', because each user class requires potentially
a new test, with different benchmark tasks and different usability specifications.
For this class you can use as few as 2 participants per user class and not
get penalized. Sometimes, when even 2 participants are not available for
a user class, you should use what you can get. You should explain and justify
this kind of exception.
- 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 responsible 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).
Gather up the 5 or more benchmark tasks you created in Project 4 and print
each one on a separate sheet of paper. At this point you should also prepare
several blank data collection forms.
You'll need at least one form per benchmark task per user participant
- Before each participant arrives,
get your prototype "booted" up and ready to go. Then greet
the participant. You will meet each participant at a predetermined 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 answer any questions they might have. If you are using
an informed consent form, have them sign it now.
Give the participant the written benchmark task description for the first
task, 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. Tell them when to start, so you can
start timing, etc. 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. Repeat the same for all the benchmark
tasks. You are expected to run all the benchmark tasks you developed in
(Project 4) with real participants.
- During the usability evaluation
session the team member selected for the role should take quantitative data
(e.g. time on task, error counts). Others 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
performance measurement is completed (so you don't interfere with measurement),
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 end of each session, have the participant fill out the questionnaire
(that you created in Project 4) for your selected questions. Then thank
the participant, answer any final questions they may have, and give them
their "reward".
- After testing is over, do a
complete work-up and analysis of both the quantitative and the qualitative
data, following the techniques described in the class notes and in-class
activities. Compute the average values for your quantitative measures and
compare them with your usability specifications, as described in the deliverables
below. It is normal for a design to not meet your usability specifications
in the first round of usability testing. That is why it is an iterative
process. If you meet most or all your usability specifications, we will
be suspicious that the design was too simple, the benchmark tasks were too
easy, or you set the target levels too leniently.
- 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 dozen critical incidents (indicating usability
problems) in your usability evaluation; more is not unusual. If you don't,
I would be suspicious of something -- your design is not rich enough, your
benchmark tasks are too easy, or there is something wrong with how you did
the process (e.g., not seeing all the critical incidents). In such a case,
reconsider and revise something and do more formative evaluation until you
have enough critical incidents.
- Do a complete cost-importance
analysis, as we did in class. Use a cost-importance
table to show, for each usability problem, your estimated importance
to fix and cost to fix and your priority ratios and rankings. Combine related
usability problems, as we did in class, representing the combination as
a single new problem in the table. Show the original separate problems and
the group problem together, as we did in the "Grouping Example"
in the class notes. Do the cost-importance analysis (ranking, etc.) based
on the grouped problems, not the original individual problems that comprise
a group. Pull out Must Fix problems, if any, and put at the top. Sort the
rest by descending values of priority ratio. 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"). Show your
final resolution for each problem (e.g., must do, will do, do if time, next
version, probably never, etc.).
- As a team, discuss process problems,
lessons learned, and what you got out of this process. Take notes for reporting
in the deliverables.
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
- "CS 3724– <current semester,
year>"
Contents of Project 5 section.
Number and label
your items per this list:
- Begin after the tab for this
section, with a blank printed grading
form for this deliverable.
- Then include a Table of Contents
for this particular deliverable (not the whole folder).
- Then follow with these items,
numbered as they are here:
- To make this report a stand-alone
document, repeat the latest version of your product concept statement,
as a synopsis of your project.
- 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. If any of the usability specifications you finally used are changed
from the ones you reported in your last deliverable, that is normal.
Just say what has changed and why. Do not include quantitative data
from the pilot test in the final results (even though this can be tempting
if they turn out well).
- Describe your participants
for formative evaluation, how you selected them (very briefly), and
how they "cover" your user classes.
- Describe the team member
roles you decided on for the usability evaluation sessions.
- Make any brief comments
you would like to about how the process of setting up, greeting the
participants, and having the participants perform the task.
- Very briefly describe your
method(s) for taking quantitative data. Very briefly describe the verbal
protocol taking process that you did and how it worked for you. Very
briefly describe the critical incident taking process that you did.
This is to describe how you collected critical incident data and how
it worked for you. (The place for describing problems found is coming
up below.) Include a blank copy of the questionnaire you used to gather
subjective data.
- Give an executive summary
statement highlighting the overall results of the formative evaluation
activity, saying which usability specifications were met and which were
not and including any high-level conclusions you might have.
Next show a more detailed
summary of evaluation results in the form of the usability specification
table with a column added at the right, containing the summary figures
for observed data. Putting the results together with the usability specifications
allows direct comparison. For objective measures, give a brief description
of the corresponding benchmark task as context for results (e.g., listed
just below the table). For subjective measures, show the corresponding
questionnaire questions as context.
8. 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, with any Must Fix problems at the top. 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
Discuss any groupings
you made, combining individual related usability problems into one broader
problem. List only the final merged problem in the table. Indicate the number
of person-hours you have allowed yourself as a hypothetical limit and show
it on the cost-importance table as a "cutoff" 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.
9. Conclude the
report with a brief statement reflecting on how the process worked
(or didn't) for your team, 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.