JST Vol. 21 (1) Jan. 2013 - Pertanika Journal - Universiti Putra ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Hasiah Mohamed@Omar, Azizah Jaafar and Rohana Yusoff The number of the sub-heuristics for each heuristic was used in order to calculate the percentage for each heuristic. Based on the percentage presented, further calculation and function were developed. The values (%) for each critical problem found were extracted from the developed functions. This value should be able to help developers to simply get the results of the evaluation for the ECG that is still in the development process. The presentation of the results in the form of percentage is one of the distinctive results from this process. This will help game developers to shorten the process of analyzing the usability problem found. CONCLUSION Evaluating educational computer games using Playability Heuristic Evaluation for Educational Computer Games (PHEG) technique shows the ability of the new technique in identifying usability problems. Meanwhile, the involvement of expert evaluators demonstrates the numbers of usability problems found and the score of the usability problems. The new approach in analyzing critical usability problems found was introduced in order to fabricate more presentable results. The functions to calculate critical problems, based on the number of sub-heuristics, were created. The presentation of the critical usability problems should be able to help ECG developers to easily grab the most critical part that needs to be improved. This particular approach contributes to the body of knowledge in quantitatively analysing usability problems. The outcome of the analysis can be used to indicate the overall critical usability problems of educational computer games. Thus, a future study is suggested to be carried out on the evaluation processes involving expert evaluators (3 to 5) for each heuristic to detect more usability problems. The analysis process needs to take into consideration the number of problems found in term of its uniqueness. Based on the uniqueness of the problems, the overall critical problems can be calculated accurately. REFERENCES Allen, Mureen, Currie, Leanne M., Bakken, Suzanne, Patel, Vimla L., & Cimino, J. J. (2006). Heuristic evaluation of paper-based Web pages: A simplified inspection usability methodology. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 39(4), 412-423. González, M., Masip, L., Granollers, A., & Marta, O. (2009). Quantitative analysis in a heuristic evaluation experiment. Advances in Engineering Software, 40(12), 1271-1278. Hasiah M.O. and Azizah J. (2010). Challenges in the evaluation of educational computer games. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Information Technology (ITSim), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Hasiah M. O., & Azizah J. (2011a). Methodology to evaluate interface of educational computer game Paper presented at the Pattern Analysis and Intelligent Robotics (ICPAIR), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Hasiah M. O., & Azizah J. (2011b). Tools to Evaluate Usability of Educational Computer Game (UsaECG). Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on User Science and Engineering (i-USEr 2011), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Hvannberg, E. T., Law, E. L. -C., & Lárusdóttir, M. K. (2007). Heuristic evaluation: Comparing ways of finding and reporting usability problems. Interacting with Computers, 19(2), 225-240. 258 Pertanika J. Sci. & Technol. 21 (1): 283 - 298 (2013)
Usability of Educational Computer Game (UsaECG): A Quantitative Approach Kato, P. M. (2010). Video games in health care: Closing the gap. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 113-121. Kirmani, S. (2008). Heuristic Evaluation Quality Score (HEQS): Defining Heuristic Expertise. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(1), 49-59. Nielsen, J. (1995). Severity ratings for usability problems Retrieved 15 February, 2012 from http://www. useit.com/papers/heuristic/severityrating.html. Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Empowering people, Seattle, Washington, United States. Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital Game-Based Learning in high school Computer Science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education, 52(1), 1-12. Pinelle, D., Wong, N., Stach, T., & Gutwin, C. (2009). Usability heuristics for networked multiplayer games. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on Supporting group work, Sanibel Island, Florida, USA. Robertson, J., & Howells, C. (2008). Computer game design: Opportunities for successful learning. Computers & Education, 50(2), 559-578. Ssemugabi, S., & Villiers, R. D. (2007). A comparative study of two usability evaluation methods using a web-based e-learning application. Paper presented at the Annual Research Conference of the South African institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries (SAICSIT), Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Tan, W. -S, Liu, D., & Bishu, R. (2009). Web evaluation: Heuristic evaluation vs. user testing. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(4), 621-627. Yee L. E., Zah bte Wan Ali, Wan bt. Mahmud, Rosnaini, & Baki Roselan. (2010). Computer games development experience and appreciative learning approach for creative process enhancement. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1131-1144. Pertanika J. Sci. & Technol. 21 (1): 283 - 298 (2013) 259
Page 2 and 3:
Journal of Science & Technology Jou
Page 4 and 5:
International Advisory Board Adarsh
Page 6 and 7:
ut bovine milk allergy by far is th
Page 8 and 9:
Selected Articles from UPM-Malaysia
Page 11 and 12:
ISSN: 0128-7680 © 2013 Universiti
Page 13 and 14:
Aspect of Fatigue Analysis of Compo
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Application of Anthropometric Dimen
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Different Media Formulation on Bioc
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45:
Page 48 and 49:
Heng, S. C., Ibrahim, Z. B., Suleim
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
CONCLUSION Heng, S. C., Ibrahim, Z.
Page 56 and 57:
Y. Yusuf, J. M. Juoi, Z. M. Rosli,
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Surface Roughness Y. Yusuf, J. M. J
Page 64 and 65:
DISCUSSION Y. Yusuf, J. M. Juoi, Z.
Page 66 and 67:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Modelling of Motion Resistance Rati
Page 73 and 74:
The Empirical Method Modelling of M
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Assessment of Heavy Metal Pollution
Page 89 and 90:
TABLE 1: Size of mussels in average
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
TABLE 5: Heavy metal concentrations
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Physico-Chemical and Electrical Pro
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
TABLE 1: (continued) Physico-Chemic
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119:
Page 122 and 123:
Norhashila Hashim et al. effectiven
Page 124 and 125:
Statistical Analysis Norhashila Has
Page 126 and 127:
Norhashila Hashim et al. Post-hoc a
Page 128 and 129:
Norhashila Hashim et al. Cubero, S.
Page 130 and 131:
S. Ismail and K. A. Mohd Atan 4 4 p
Page 132 and 133:
S. Ismail and K. A. Mohd Atan The f
Page 134 and 135:
Lemma 1.1 The equation S. Ismail an
Page 136 and 137:
CONCLUSION S. Ismail and K. A. Mohd
Page 138 and 139:
INTRODUCTION Tajau, R. et al. A hig
Page 140 and 141:
Tajau, R. et al. the acrylate’s c
Page 142 and 143:
Tajau, R. et al. double bond) and C
Page 144 and 145:
Tajau, R. et al. Ulanski, P., & Ros
Page 146 and 147:
Aji, I. S., Zinudin, E. S., Khairul
Page 148 and 149:
Aji, I. S., Zinudin, E. S., Khairul
Page 150 and 151:
CONCLUSION Aji, I. S., Zinudin, E.
Page 152 and 153:
D. Bachtiar, S. M. Sapuan, E. S. Za
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
TABLE 1: (continue) 4 D. Bachtiar,
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
N. Maizatul, I. Norazowa, W. M. Z.
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
REFERENCES N. Maizatul, I. Norazowa
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
CBIR Using Colour and Shape Fused F
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Toward Automatic Semantic Annotatin
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Issues on Trust Management in Wirel
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Trust Value MF-ID 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
A Negation Query Engine for Complex
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
REFERENCES A Negation Query Engine
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218: The Problem Association Rule Mining
Page 219 and 220: Association Rule Mining threshold t
Page 221 and 222: Association Rule Mining must be sor
Page 223 and 224: Association Rule Mining On the othe
Page 225: Association Rule Mining Quinlan, J.
Page 228 and 229: Che Mustapha Yusuf, J., Mohd Su’u
Page 238 and 239: Az Azrinudin Alidin and Fabio Crest
Page 250 and 251: Yogan Jaya Kumar, Naomie Salim, Ahm
Page 256 and 257: REFERENCES Yogan Jaya Kumar, Naomie
Page 258 and 259: Hasiah Mohamed@Omar, Azizah Jaafar
Page 271 and 272: ISSN: 0128-7680 © 2013 Universiti
Page 273 and 274: The Role of Similarity Measurement
Page 281 and 282: TABLE 5: Winners MRS The Role of Si
Page 283: REFEREES FOR THE PERTANIKA JOURNAL
Page 286 and 287: Guidelines for Authors Publication
Page 288 and 289: table should be prepared on a separ
Page 290 and 291: The Journal’s review process What
Page 293 and 294: Usability of Educational Computer G
show all

JST Vol. 21 (1) Jan. 2013 - Pertanika Journal - Universiti Putra ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?