Difference between revisions of "User Interface Evaluation"
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| __TOC__ | | __TOC__ | ||
|} | |} | ||
<!--box uid=9d918c381310dd472203b251d1a85892.830.1199881161--> | |||
[{{SERVER}}/mediawiki/index.php/Special:TableEdit?id=9d918c381310dd472203b251d1a85892.830.1199881161&page=830&pagename={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&type=0 Create Table Here] | |||
<!--box uid=9d918c381310dd472203b251d1a85892.830.1199881161--> | |||
==Usability Interviews== | ==Usability Interviews== |
Revision as of 12:19, 9 January 2008
|
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[edit]
Setting:
Participants:1 Supervisor: 1 Duration: ~1h Equipment:
Workshops[edit]
Initially the workshop for the short list view was not ment to deliver very much valid results, but when I put the pages from the whiteboard some things were striking. So I counted them for you:
1. Creators are mostly on the first position (18/23 Participants) 2. Title is mostly used as the second field (15/23 Participants) 2. File/Fulltext seems to have an outstanding position because it was placed differently on exposed positions or apart from the list (down, right, top) 3. Most participants prefer a vertical alignment of labels and fields (16/23)
Some participants tried to do a more sophisticated layout - which might mean that they do not like monotonous listings (just guessing).
Software based Evaluation[edit]
TBD