Component-based usability testing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:46, 22 August 2012

Latest revision as of 21:58, 14 November 2023

(11 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Testing approach within software engineering}}

'''Component-based usability testing (CBUT)''' is a testing approach which aims at empirically testing the [[usability]] of an interaction component. The latter is defined as an elementary unit of an interactive system, on which behaviour-based evaluation is possible. For this, a component needs to have an independent, and by the user perceivable and controllable state, such as a radio button, a slider or a whole word processor application. The CBUT approach can be regarded as part of [[component-based software engineering]] branch of [[software engineering]].

{{Technical|date=October 2022}}

'''Component-based usability testing''' ('''CBUT)''') is a testing approach which aims at empirically testing the [[usability]] of an interaction component. The latter is defined as an elementary unit of an interactive system, on which behaviourbehavior-based evaluation is possible. For this, a component needs to have an independent, and by the user perceivable and controllable state, such as a radio button, a slider or a whole word processor application. The CBUT approach can be regarded as part of [[component-based software engineering]] branch of [[software engineering]].

==Theory==

CBUT is based on both software architectural views such as [[model–view–controller]] (MVC), [[presentation–abstraction–control]] (PAC), ICON and CNUCE agent models that split up the software in parts, and [[cognitive psychology]] views where a person's mental process is split up in smaller mental processes. Both software architecture and cognitive architecture use the principle of hierarchical layering, in which low level processes are more elementary and for humans often more physical in nature, such as the coordination movement of muscle groups. Processes that operate on higher level layers are more abstract and focus on a person's main goal, such as writing an application letter to get a job.

The Layeredlayered Protocolprotocol Theorytheory (LPT),<ref name="Farrel1999">Farrell, P.S.E., Hollands, J.G., Taylor, M.M., Gamble, H.D., (1999). Perceptual control and layered protocols in interface design: I. Fundamental concepts. ''International Journal of Human-Computer Studies'' 50 (6), 489–520. {{doi|10.1006/ijhc.1998.0259}}</ref> (LPT), which is a special version of [[Perceptualperceptual Controlcontrol Theorytheory]] (PCT), brings these views together by suggesting that users interact with a system across several layers by sending messages. Users interact with components on high layers by sending messages, such as pressing keys, to components operating on lower layers, which on their turn relay a series of these messages into a single high -level message, such as 'DELETE *.*', to a component on a higher layer. Components operating on higher layers, communicate back to the user by sending messages to components operating on lower -level layers. Whereas this layered-interaction model explains how the interaction is established, control loops explain the purpose of the interaction. LPT sees the purpose of the users' behaviourbehavior as the users' attempt to control their perception, in this case the state of the component they perceive. This means that users will only act if they perceive the component to be in an undesirable state. For example, if a person havehas an empty glass but want a full glass of water, he or she will act (e.g. walk to the tap, turning the tap on to fill the glass). The action of filling the glass will continue until the person perceives the glass as full. As interaction with components takes places on several layers, interacting with a single device can include several control loops. The amount of effort put into operating a control loop is seen as an indicator for the usability of an interaction component.

==Testing==

Line 9 ⟶ 14:

==Usability questionnaire==

WhereasWhile [[Holism|holistic]] oriented usability questionnaires such as the [[system usability scale]] (SUS) examine the usability of a system on several dimensions such as defined in [[ISO 9241]] Part 11 standard effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction, a Componentcomponent-Basedbased Usabilityusability Questionnairequestionnaire (CBUQ) <ref name="Brinkman2009">Brinkman, W.-P., Haakma, R., & Bouwhuis, D.G. (2009), Theoretical foundation and validity of a component-based usability questionnaire, ''Behaviour and Information Technology'', 2, no. 28, pp. 121 – 137. [http://mmi.tudelft.nl/~willem-paul/WP_Papers_online_versie/The_theoretical_foundation_and_Validity_of_a_component_based_usability_questionnaire_preliminary_version.pdf preliminary version] [http://mmi.tudelft.nl/~willem-paul/mp3player/Intro.htm MP3 example study] {{doi|10.1080/01449290701306510}}</ref>

is a questionnaire which can be used to evaluate the usability of individual interaction components, such as the volume control or the play control of a MP3 player. To evaluate an interaction component, the six Perceivedperceived Easeease-Ofof-Useuse (PEOU) statements from the [[Technologytechnology acceptance model]] are taken with a reference to the interaction component, instead of to the entire system, for example: .

''Learning to operate the Volume Control would be easy for me''.

Users are asked to rate these statements on a seven -point [[Likert scale]]. The average rating on these six statements is regarded as the user's usability rating of the interaction component. Based on lab studies with difficult to use interaction components and easy to use interaction components, a break-even point of 5.29 on seven -point Likert scale has been determined.<ref name="Brinkman2009" /> Using a Oneone-sample [[student's t-test]], it is possible to examine whether users' rating of an interaction component deviates from this break-even point. Interaction components that receive rating below this break-even point can be regarded as more comparable to the set of difficult to use interaction components, whereas ratings above this break-even point would be more comparable to the set ifof easy -to -use interaction components.

If engineers like to evaluate multiple interaction components simultaneously, the CBUQ questionnaire exists of separate sections, one for each interaction component, each with their own 6 PEOU statements.

Line 32 ⟶ 35:

[[Category:Usability]]

[[Category:Software testing]]

[[Category:Evaluation methods]]

[[Category:Tests]]