Difference between revisions of "User Interface Evaluation"

From MPDLMediaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 169: Line 169:
|}
|}


===Interviews for PubMan Release 2===
'''Interview series I'''
*Munich: 2 Interviews
'''Interview series II'''
*Nijmegen: 9 Interviews
'''[[User Interface Evaluation/Workshops/Interview Analysis|Interview Analysis]]'''
===Interviews for PubMan Release 3===
'''Interview series I'''
{|style= color:black; background-color:#fff; cellpadding=5; cellspacing=0; border=0
|<b>Place</b>
|
*Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology, Berlin: 2 Interviews
*Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute), Golm 2 Interviews
*Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin 2 Interviews
|-
|<b>Date/Time</b>
|August 6/7
|-
|<b>Status</b>
|Closed
|-
|}
'''Interview Series II'''
{|style= color:black; background-color:#fff; cellpadding=5; cellspacing=0; border=0
|<b>Place</b>
|
*Harnack-Haus, Berlin: 3 Interviews
|-
|<b>Date/Time</b>
|Mittwoch, 05. November 2008/09:00-12:00
|-
|<b>Status</b>
|Closed
|-
|}
'''[[User Interface Evaluation/Workshops/R3 Interview Analysis|R3 Interview Analysis]]'''
===Interviews for PubMan Release 4===
'''Interview series I'''
{|style= color:black; background-color:#fff; cellpadding=5; cellspacing=0; border=0
|<b>Place</b>
|
*Max Planck Digital Library, Munich: 4 Interviews
|-
|<b>Date/Time</b>
|April - June
|-
|<b>Status</b>
|Open
|-
|}
'''Interview Series II'''
{|style= color:black; background-color:#fff; cellpadding=5; cellspacing=0; border=0
|<b>Place</b>
|
*Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Social Law, Munich: 2 Interviews
|-
|<b>Date/Time</b>
|April - June
|-
|<b>Status</b>
|Open
|-
|}
'''[[User Interface Evaluation/Workshops/R4 Interview Analysis|R4 Interview Analysis]]'''
===Interviews for FACES Release 3 (Prototype test)===
{|style= color:black; background-color:#fff; cellpadding=5; cellspacing=0; border=0
|<b>Place</b>
|
*Max Planck Institute for Human Development
|-
|<b>Date/Time</b>
|[http://www.doodle.com/9zy24f297pkbzsaz To be scheduled]
|-
|<b>Please note</b>
|We need an information about your status (expert/non-expert) Please take a note behind your name.
|-
|<b>Status</b>
|Planned
|-
|}
==Expert Interviews==
{|{{Prettytable}}
|-
!bgcolor = #eee |Participants
|
1
|-
!bgcolor = #eee |Supervisor
|
1 - 2
|-
!bgcolor = #eee |Equipment
|
<ol>
<li>PC</li>
<li>Internet connection</li>
<li>Interview agenda (provided by UIE)</li>
<li>Audio recording device (provided by UIE)</li>
</ol>
|-
!bgcolor = #eee |Duration
|
2h - 4h
|-
!bgcolor = #eee |Results
|
Document with protocol of interview. Prototype draft.
|-
!bgcolor = #eee |Steps
|
<ol>
<li>Introduction</li>
<li>Q & A (Questions and Answers)</li>
<li>Summary</li>
</ol>
|}
Expert interviews are conducted to get a better understanding of one specific working process and how it can be organized/reorganized within the user interface. A very domain specific knowledge is needed to understand interface requirements better. Functional aspects come additionally and can not be separated from interface needs.
===Expert Interviews 2007===
*'''[[User Interface Evaluation/Expert Interviews/2007 Garching]]'''
*'''[[User Interface Evaluation/Expert Interviews/2007 Munich]]'''
*'''[[User Interface Evaluation/Expert Interviews/Easy Submission Summary]]'''
===Expert Interviews 2009===
*'''Max Planck Institute for Human Development (Planned)'''
==Workshops==
{|{{Prettytable}}
|-
!bgcolor = #eee |Participants
|
5 - 8
|-
!bgcolor = #eee |Supervisor
|
1 - 2
|-
!bgcolor = #eee |Equipment
|
Equipment provided by UIE Team
|-
!bgcolor = #eee |Duration
|
4h - 6h
|-
!bgcolor = #eee |Result
|
A rough draft of a graphical user interface part.
|-
!bgcolor = #eee |Steps
|
<ol>
<li>Introduction to a GUI task</li>
<li>Participants work on paper prototypes</li>
<li>Question and Answers</li>
<li>Comparison of Results</li>
<li>Clustering</li>
<li>Rework if necessary</li>
<li>Preparation plus dissamination of results</li>
</ol>
|}
For each workshop the UIE team prepares a topic. The following topics are already covered:
===Workshops 2008===
*'''Scheduled: 09.12.2008 - 10.12.2008, Bibliotheca Hertziana - Max Planck Institute for Art History'''
<b>Topics</b>: A brainstorming can be found on [[Faces_GUI#User_Interface_Evaluation|Faces GUI]].
*'''[[User Interface Evaluation/Adding Lists of Authors]], MPDL Berlin'''
*'''[[User Interface Evaluation/Easy Submission]], Nijmegen'''
===Workshops 2007===
*'''[[User Interface Evaluation/Short Item View]], MPDL Munich'''
==Software based Evaluation==
Currently the pubman prototype is monitored by an open source application called [http://www.labsmedia.com/clickheat/index.html ClickHeat]. This solution generates pictures called heat maps. Heat maps show where users click (dots) and how often (colour).
Example:
[[Image:clickheat_depositor.png|framed|center|Heat Map of Depositor Workspace]]
Software based evaluation is not conducted for R3. Currently no open source application is available for analysing dynamic pages.
</div>


[[Category:User Interface Evaluation| ]]
[[Category:User Interface Evaluation| ]]

Revision as of 13:24, 23 June 2009

Interfaces, built at the MPDL are subject to evaluation. Main focus are all interfaces of the current PubMan solution. Evaluation of the User Interface Engineering team has different approaches: Usability Interviews and tests, GUI Workshops and software based evaluation.

Usability Interviews (Thinking Aloud)[edit]

Interface releases are tested together with potential users from institutes of the Max Planck Society. They perform tasks covering important application functionality. An interviewer tracks feedback and observes user interactions. All issues are noted down. The test result is accumulated if at least 8-11 interviews are performed. A summary is given at the end of the interview series which leads to measures and changes in the interface.

The following table shows what is needed to conduct an interview at an istitute:

Participants

1

Supervisor

1 plus 1 visitor (optionally, usually developers)

Equipment
  1. PC
  2. Internet connection
  3. Tasklist (provided by UIE)
  4. Test Form (provided by UIE)
  5. Recording Device (optionally)
Duration

1h

Results

Document with notes on user actions for each action/step.

The results are analysed after 6 - 8 interviews towards a statistic, providing GUI issues ordered by functional area and tasks.

Steps
  1. Short Introduction
  2. Participant solves task independently
  3. Open questions/diskussion


Usability interviews are conducted to discover, document and classify usability issues for

  • a specific release (e.g. PubMan 2.0.0.1)
  • a functional prototype
  • a prototype draft

Up to 8 interviews are usually sufficient to discover the main flaws of a GUI. The interviewer just provides tasks for his participant. The participant does all tasks on his own and should be encouraged to comment on his actions. It is not recommended for the interviewer to interfere in any form. If the participant gets stuck and there are important steps to follow, he gets a hint how to continue.

Interviews can be recorded optionally if participants agree. If a participant is not able to solve a task or step it will be noted as a fatal usability issue. For later interviews with a more standardized set of tasks the issues are to be classified in the following way:

  1. Fatal (Task could not be finished successfully or in a proper way)
  2. Serious (Task could not be finished on the first attempt or user performance is bad)
  3. Minor = (The user hesitates, is not sure or does not feel comfortable with the flow)

For each interview the UIE team provides an interview outcome. The document contains all tasks, observation notes and comments of participants. Additionally the interviews collect demographic characteristics as well to prepare data needed for personas. After a valid number of interviews exists they are analysed and summarized.

Interview Form Example[edit]

Submission Participant 01 Participant 02 Participant 03
Nr. Task Nr. Step Status Issue Comment (Observation) Type Status Issue Comment (Observation) Type Status Issue Comment (Observation) Type
1 Submit a publication item detailled
1 clicks submission in the Main menu OK OK No choosed it from startpage content OK
2 clicks on full submission OK Automatically chosen OK Easy Submission OK
3 clicks a collection (optional) OK Automatically chosen OK
4 identifies group basic OK
5 selects genre = journal article OK OK
6 fills title OK OK
7 identifies group person & org OK OK
8 enters author name, role OK OK
9 clicks on select or types manually Serious Did\'t use Affiliation input (mixed up with source) Procedure OK After automatic detection all authors must be entered
10 clicks an organization in tree (optional) Serious Used \"Help\" to get information (not helpful). Procedure
11 identifies group details OK OK
12 fills a date OK OK
13 identifies group source Serious Mixed up source data and publ. Data Procedure OK
14 fills genre and title Minor Was looking for \"Sternderl\" Position OK
14 clicks on the button ‘submit‘ Validation cycle! (Aff. Missing) OK
End OK OK
2 Upload 2 different files
1 identify group ‘file’ OK OK
2 click on browse OK OK
3 click on upload OK OK
4 enter file properties OK OK
5 operate ‘add’ OK OK
6 repeat actions two times OK OK
End OK OK
3 Save Locator/File
1 Type URL in input field OK OK
2 Click upload link OK OK
3 Choose content category OK OK
End OK OK
2 Use item as template
1 go to workspace OK Hard to find from Submission back OK
2 click on title to enter item version view Serious Did not realize the linked title Procedure OK
3 click on ‘use as template’ OK
End OK OK
4 Add 2 organizations for an author
1 OK OK
2 OK OK
3 OK OK
End OK OK