1 / 33

Evaluation Techniques

Evaluation Techniques. Overview. Evaluation tests usability and functionality of system occurs in laboratory, field and/or in collaboration with users evaluates both design and implementation Evaluation should be considered at all stages in the design life cycle. Goals of Evaluation.

dorjan
Download Presentation

Evaluation Techniques

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Evaluation Techniques

  2. Overview • Evaluation • tests usability and functionality of system • occurs in laboratory, field and/or in collaboration with users • evaluates both design and implementation • Evaluation should be considered at all stages in the design life cycle

  3. Goals of Evaluation • Assess extent of system functionality • Assess effect of interface on user • Identify specific problems

  4. Styles of Evaluation • Laboratory studies • Advantages: • specialist equipment available • uninterrupted environment • Disadvantages: • lack ofcontext • difficult to observe several users cooperating • Appropriate • if system location is dangerous or impractical • for constrained single user systems • to allow controlled manipulation of use

  5. Styles of Evaluation • Field Studies • Advantages: • natural environment • context retained (though observation may alter it) • longitudinal studies possible • Disadvantages: • distractions • noise • Appropriate • where context is crucial • for longitudinal studies

  6. Styles of Evaluation • Participatory Design • User is an active member of the design team. • Characteristics • context and work oriented rather than system oriented • collaborative • iterative

  7. Evaluating Designs • Cognitive Walkthrough • Heuristic Evaluation • Review-based evaluation • Model-based evaluation

  8. Cognitive Walkthrough • Proposed by Polson et al. • Evaluates design on how well it supports user in learning task • usually performed by expert in cognitive psychology • expert `walks though' design to identify potential problems using psychological principles • forms used to guide analysis

  9. Cognitive Walkthrough • To perform a walkthrough you need four things • 1. A description of the prototype of the system • 2. A description of the task the user is to perform on the system. • 3. A complete written list of the actions needed to complete the task with the given prototype • 4. An indication of who the users are and what kind of experience and knowledge the evaluators can assume about them.

  10. Cognitive Walkthrough • Given this information step through the action sequence ( number 3) • For each action answer the following questions • 1. Will the users be trying to produce whatever effect the action has? • 2. Will users be able to notice that the correct action is available? • 3. Once users find the correct action at the interface, will they know that it is the right one for the effect that they are trying to produce? • 4. After the action is taken will users understand the feedback that they are given?

  11. Cognitive Walkthrough • For each taskwalkthrough considers • what impact will interaction have on user? • what cognitive processes are required? • what learning problems may occur? • Analysis focuses on goals and knowledge: does the design lead the user to generate the correct goals? • An example is expanded in Section 11.4.1

  12. Heuristic Evaluation • Proposed by Nielsen and Molich. (www.useit.com) • Usability criteria (heuristics) are identified • design examined by experts to see if these are violated • Example heuristics • system behaviour is predictable • system behaviour is consistent • feedback is provided • Heuristic evaluation `debugs' design

  13. Heuristic Evaluation • Example criteria - original • Simple and natural dialog • Speak the users language • Minimise user memory load • Be consistent • Provide feedback • Provide clearly marked exits • Provide shortcuts • Good error messages • Prevent errors

  14. Heuristic Evaluation • Example criteria -improved • Visibility of system status • Match between system and real world • User control and freedom • Consistency and standards • Error prevention • Recognition rather than recall • Flexibility and efficiency of use • Aesthetic and minimalist design • Help users recognise, diagnose and recover from errors • Help and documentation

  15. Review-based evaluation • Results reported in the literature are used to support or refute parts of design. • Care is needed to ensure results are transferable to new design.

  16. Model-based evaluation • Cognitive models are used to filter design options. E.g. GOMS prediction of user performance. • Design rationale can also provide useful information in evaluating designs

  17. Evaluating Implementations • Requires an artefact - simulation, prototype, full implementation. • Experimental evaluation • controlled evaluation of specific aspects of interactive behaviour • evaluator chooses hypothesis to be tested • a number of experimental conditions are considered which differ only in the value of some controlled variable • changes in behavioural measure are attributed to different conditions

  18. Evaluating Implementations • Experimental factors • Subjects • representative • sufficient sample • Variables • independent variable (IV) • characteristic changed to produce different conditions. E.g. interface style, number of menu items. • dependent variable (DV) • characteristics measured in the experiment. E.g. time taken, number of errors

  19. Evaluating Implementations • Hypothesis • prediction of outcome framed in terms of IV and DV • null hypothesis: states no difference between conditions - aim is to disprove this • Experimental design • Within groups design • each subject performs experiment under each condition. Transfer of learning possible but less costly and less likely to suffer from user variation. • Between groups design • each subject performs under only one condition. No transfer of learning but more users required and variation can bias results

  20. Analysis of data • Look at data • Save original data • Choice of statistical technique depends on • type of data • information required • Type of data • Discrete • finite number of values • Continuous • any value

  21. Analysis of data • Types of test • parametric • assume normal distribution • robust • powerful • non-parametric • do not assume normal distribution • less powerful • more reliable • contingency table • classify data by discrete attributes and count number of data items in each group

  22. Analysis of data • What information is required? • is there a difference? • how big is the difference? • how accurate is the estimate? • Parametric and non-parametric tests address mainly the first of these. • Worked examples of data analysis are given in Section 11.5.1. • Table 11.1 summarizes main tests and when they are used

  23. Observational Methods • Think Aloud • user observed performing task • user asked to describe what he is doing and why, what he thinks is happening etc. • Advantages • simplicity |requires little expertise • can provide useful insight • can show how system is actually used • Disadvantages • subjective • selective • act of describing may alter task performance

  24. Observational Methods • Cooperative evaluation - variation on think aloud • user collaborates in evaluation • both user and evaluator can ask each other questions throughout • Additional advantages • less constrained and easier to use • user is encouraged to criticize system • clarification possible

  25. Observational Methods • Protocol analysis methods • paper and pencil • cheap • limited to writing speed • audio • good for think aloud • difficult to match with other protocols • video • accurate and realistic • needs special equipment • obtrusive

  26. Observational Methods • More protocol analysis methods • computer logging • automatic and unobtrusive • large amounts of data difficult to analyse • user notebooks • coarse level and subjective • useful insights • good for longitudinal studies

  27. Observational Methods • Mixed use in practice. • Transcription of audio and video difficult and requires skill. • Some automatic support tools available • EVA • Workplace project

  28. Observational Methods • Post task walkthrough • user reflects on action after the event • used to fill in intention • Advantages • analyst has time to focus on relevant incidents • avoid excessive interruption of task • Disadvantages • lack of freshness • may be post-hoc interpretation of events

  29. Query Techniques • Informal and subjective • Cheap • Interviews • Analyst questions user on one to one basis, • usually based on prepared questions. • Advantages • can be varied to suit context • issues can be explored more fully • can elicit user views and identify unanticipated problems • Disadvantages • very subjective • time consuming

  30. Query Techniques • Questionnaires • Set of fixed questions given to users. • Advantages • quick and reaches large user group • can be analysed more rigorously • Disadvantages • less flexible • less probing • Need careful design • what information is required? • how are answers to be analyzed?

  31. Query Techniques • Questionnaires continued • Styles of question • general • open-ended • scalar • multi-choice • ranked

  32. Choosing an Evaluation Method • Factors to consider (see also Tables 11.3-11.5) • when in cycle is evaluation carried out? • design vs implementation • what style of evaluation is required? • laboratory vs field • how objective should the technique be? • subjective vs objective • what type of measures are required? • qualitative vs quantitative • what level of information is required? • High level vs low level • what level of interference? • obtrusive vs unobtrusive • what resources are available? • time, subjects, equipment, expertise

  33. Choosing an Evaluation Method • Tables 11.3{11.5 rate each techniques along these criteria.

More Related