Component-based usability testing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:09, 3 July 2012

Revision as of 23:46, 22 August 2012

Line 5:

==Testing==

CBUT can be categorized according to two testing paradigms, the single-version testing paradigm (SVTP) and the multiple-versions testing paradigm (MVTP). In SVTP only one version of each interaction component in a system is tested. The focus is to identify interaction components that might reduce the overall usability of the system. SVTP is therefore suitable as part of a software-integration test. In MVTP on the other hand, multiple versions of a single component are tested while the remaining components in the system remain unchanged. The focus is on identifying the version with the highest usability of specific interaction component. MVTP therefore is suitable for component development and selection. Different CBUT methods have been proposed for SVTP and MVTP, which include measures based on recorded user interaction and questionnaires. Whereas in MVTP the recorded data can directly be interpreted by making a comparison between two versions of the interaction component, in SVTP log file analysis is more extensive as interaction with both higher and lower components must be considered .<ref name="Brinkman2007">Brinkman, W.-P., Haakma, R., & Bouwhuis, D.G. (2007), Towards an empirical method of efficiency testing of system parts: a methodological study, ''Interacting with Computers'', vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 342–356. [http://mmi.tudelft.nl/~willem-paul/WP_Papers_online_versie/Towards_an_empirical_method_of_efficiency_testing_of_system_parts_a_methodological_study_preliminary_version.pdf preliminary version] {{doi|10.1016/j.intcom.2007.01.002}}</ref>.

Meta-analysis on the data from several lab experiments that used CBUT measures suggests that these measures can be statistically more powerful than overall (holistic) usability measures .<ref name="Brinkman2008">Brinkman, W.-P., Haakma, R., & Bouwhuis, D.G. (2008). Component-Specific Usability Testing,'' IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A'', vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 1143–1155, September 2008. [http://mmi.tudelft.nl/~willem-paul/WP_Papers_online_versie/Component_specific_usability_testing_preliminary_version.pdf preliminary version] {{doi|10.1109/TSMCA.2008.2001056}}</ref>.

==Usability questionnaire==

Line 14:

''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 One-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 if 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 29:

== External links ==

* [http://mmi.tudelft.nl/~willem-paul/mp3player/Intro.htm Example study] that uses component-based usability questionnaire including [http://mmi.tudelft.nl/~willem-paul/mp3player/study.htm instructions, questionnaires], [http://mmi.tudelft.nl/~willem-paul/mp3player/results.htm data analysis] and [http://mmi.tudelft.nl/willem-paul/index.php/Questionnaires additional instructions] .

<!--- Categories --->

[[Category:Usability]]