Comparison of usability evaluation methods: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:56, 28 November 2007

Latest revision as of 12:34, 25 August 2025

(36 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)

Line 1:

[[Usability testing]] methods aim to evaluate the ease of use of a software product by its users. As existing methods are subjective and open to interpretation, scholars have been studying the efficacy of each method

''Source'': <ref>Genise, Pauline (August 28, 2002.). “Usability"Usability EvlauationEvaluation: Methods and Techniques: Version 2.0” August 28, 2002". University of Texas.</ref>

<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Dhouib|first1=A.|last2=Trabelsi|first2=Abdelwaheb|last3=Kolski|first3=C.|last4=Neji|first4=M.|title=2016 9th International Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI) |chapter=A classification and comparison of usability evaluation methods for interactive adaptive systems |date=2016|chapter-url=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7529639|pages=246–251|doi=10.1109/HSI.2016.7529639|isbn=978-1-5090-1729-4|s2cid=19110009|url=https://uphf.hal.science/hal-03350233 |access-date=2021-02-07|archive-date=2021-02-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214114313/https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7529639|url-status=live}}</ref>

<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hocko|first=Jennifer M.|date=2002|title=Reliability of Usability Evaluation Methods|url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/citations;jsessionid=C5845D40ECD67930411AE8996F45674D?doi=10.1.1.131.243}}</ref>

and their adequacy to different subjects, comparing which one may be the most appropriate in fields like e-learning,

<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Vukovac|first1=Dijana Plantak|last2=Kirinic|first2=V.|last3=Klicek|first3=B.|date=2010|title=A Comparison of Usability Evaluation Methods for e- Learning Systems|chapter=A Comparison of Usability Evaluation Methods for e-Learning Systems|chapter-url=https://www.daaam.info/Downloads/Pdfs/science_books_pdfs/2010/Sc_Book_2010-027.pdf|doi=10.2507/daaam.scibook.2010.27|isbn=9783901509742|access-date=2021-02-07|archive-date=2018-06-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180603013250/http://www.daaam.info/Downloads/Pdfs/science_books_pdfs/2010/Sc_Book_2010-027.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

e-commerce,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hasan|first1=L.|last2=Morris|first2=Anne|last3=Probets|first3=S.|date=2012|title=A comparison of usability evaluation methods for evaluating e-commerce websites|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144929X.2011.596996|journal=Behav. Inf. Technol.|volume=31|issue=7|pages=707–737|doi=10.1080/0144929X.2011.596996|s2cid=9998763|access-date=2021-02-07|archive-date=2021-02-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210218062945/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144929X.2011.596996|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

or mobile applications.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Mathur|first1=P.|last2=Chande|first2=Swati V.|title=Microservices in Big Data Analytics|date=2020|chapter=Empirical Investigation of Usability Evaluation Methods for Mobile Applications Using Evidence-Based Approach|pages=95–110|chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-981-15-0128-9_9|doi=10.1007/978-981-15-0128-9_9|isbn=978-981-15-0127-2|s2cid=214128768 |access-date=2021-02-07|archive-date=2021-02-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210218062951/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-981-15-0128-9_9|url-status=live}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable"

|-

Line 8 ⟶ 17:

! Disadvantages

|-

| [[Think -aloud protocol|Think Aloud Protocol]]

| [[Software testing|Testing]]

| Design, coding, testing and release of application

Line 18 ⟶ 27:

*The Environment is not natural to the user

|-

| [[Usability_testing#Remote usability testing|Remote Usability testing]]

| [[Remote Testing]]

| [[Software testing|Testing]]

| Design, coding, testing and release of application

| The experimenter does not directly observe the users while they use the application though activity may be recorded for subsequent viewing

|

*Efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction, the three usability issues, are covered

Line 27 ⟶ 36:

*Additional Software is necessary to observe the participants from a distance

|-

| [[Focus Groupsgroup]]s

| Inquiry

| Testing and release of application

Line 36 ⟶ 45:

*Can improve customer relations

|

*The environment is not natural to the user and may provide accurateinaccurate results.

*The data collected tends to have low validity due to the unstructured nature of the discussion

|-

| [[Interview|Interviews]]s

| Inquiry

| Design, coding, testing and release of application

Line 51 ⟶ 60:

*Does not address the usability issue of efficiency

|-

| [[Cognitive Walkthroughwalkthrough]]

| [[Software inspection|Inspection]]

| Design, coding, testing and release of application

Line 62 ⟶ 71:

*The designer may not behave as the average user when using the application

|-

| [[Pluralistic Walkthroughwalkthrough]]

| [[Software inspection|Inspection]]

| Design

Line 72 ⟶ 81:

*Does not address the usability issue of efficiency

|}

''Source'': Genise, Pauline. “Usability Evlauation: Methods and Techniques: Version 2.0” August 28, 2002. University of Texas.

== See also ==

* [[Usability inspection]]

* [[Partial concurrent thinking aloud]]

== References ==

{{Reflist}}

== External links ==

* [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/8817/27908/01245501.pdf?temp=x Exploring two methods of usability testing: concurrent versus retrospective think-aloud protocols]

[[Category:User interface techniques]]

[[Category:Usability]]

[[Category:Human-computerHuman–computer interaction]]

[[Category:Computing comparisons]]