Talk:User Interface Evaluation

(Researcher) Feedback on GUI R4 in Nijmegen
I asked a researcher who never has seen R3 to look at R4 and give me her impressions. We sat together, beforehand she had already gotten the URL to the QA-server (date: 14 jan 09) and a short hint how to browse with the organization tree.

Main issues

Display mode you don't know the title
 * The source (Journal, book title) should be immediately visible. Often you're looking for the 'Psychological Science article from 2004 by Cutler' and
 * the order of the display should be: Creators, citation (source), content, files

Rupert: Domain/pilots specific ordering of these forms should be specified functionally. I think the ordering was a common agreement among pilots' preferences (?) The best approach to this would be to tackle this with the user preferences because we will always have different requirements on that. A functionality which is not in place yet. --Rupert 09:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * omit blank lines and everything will be more clearly arranged

Rupert: At PubMan days there was a decision to go with the hyphen. --Rupert 09:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * the label 'source' wasn't what she expected
 * The word 'creator' was bewildering. Her first association was that the creator of the item was meant. Also in display/edit the word 'author' was hardly found.
 * File / Locator
 * the function of the field Locator wasn't obvious
 * she expected that you can link where it says file locator; the whole section isn't self explaining
 * locator in migrated data have a different function than with new submission
 * with browse there aren't any more possibilities to filter your search, clicking on revise gets back to initial screen

Rupert: It would help a lot to have more detailed information in the help manual at least. Another approach would be to use small info buttons (Later Release) --Rupert 09:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit mode
 * function upload file was fine
 * she didn't know what to do expect with the locator field and thought maybe one was to enter the url to the publisher's website of the article
 * again in doubt if the creator of the item or creator of the publication was meant (of course we hope they will be the same, [comment by karin])
 * adding authors, was used to 1st author, 2nd author, was afraid the order of the authors will be disturbed
 * found the link to adding multiple authors, and asked if it also was possible to say with regard to organizations: same as above if all authors belong to the same organization
 * label organization unit and adress was confusing - thinks that people will do a lot of different input there
 * identifier - no clue what to enter in that field
 * button 'add more details' was assumed to refer to the source details, and then after hitting the button you jump back to the top was confusing -> so probably we shoud make clear that the input is finished UNLESS you want to add more details to the WHOLE

General She didn't say anything about the size of the fonts and I didn't ask. And I got the impression the overall impression was okay, once one was used to the funny labels, like creator. --Karin 15:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Feedback:
 * state medium view/short view:. A bit confusing at first because when it says on the result list "medium view", what you then actually see is the result list in short view and vice versa. Only when you click on the text, the medium view appears.  So, I thought 'what you see is what you get', and when I see a list with the label  'state' : 'medium view', I think, so this is the medium list ( but it's not, it's the short list),  hmmm, do you see my point? (feedback by Annemieke Sweere)--Karin 14:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Rupert: Understood, currently most actions work the other way around "they say what they will do". They do not say in which state things are, because you already see it. At the beginning this needs a little experience because you see it the first time. (a trade off: learnability - "rememberability"). --Rupert 09:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)