Content deleted Content added
Willem-Paul (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Willem-Paul (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 10:
==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. 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] [http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1109/TSMCA.2008.2001056 online]</ref>.
==Usability Questionnaire==
Whereas holistic oriented usability questionnaires such as System Usability Scale (SUS) examine the usability of system on several dimensions such as defined ISO 9241 Part 11 standard effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction, a Component-Based Usability Questionnaire (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] [http://dx.doi.org/DOI:10.1080/01449290701306510 online]</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 Perceived Ease-Of-Use (PEOU) statements 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. Using a One-sample 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 32 ⟶ 33:
* [http://www.example.com/ example.com]
* Example study that uses Component-based Usability Questionnaire including questionnaires and data analysis.
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.
| |||