28.06.2013 Views

Papers in PDF format

Papers in PDF format

Papers in PDF format

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Introduction<br />

A Web-Based Tool for Evaluat<strong>in</strong>g User-Computer Interaction<br />

Jaime Sánchez and Omar Alonso<br />

Department of Computer Science<br />

University of Chile<br />

Chile<br />

Email: {jsanchez, oalonso}@dcc.uchile.cl<br />

Diverse studies have <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly demanded easy-to-use and well documented tools to evaluate user <strong>in</strong>terfaces [Norman<br />

& Drapper 1988; Norman 1988; W<strong>in</strong>ograd 1996]. Authors agree, that whenever possible dur<strong>in</strong>g the software design<br />

cycle, it is safe and necessary to do some sort of evaluation.<br />

Efficient tools to register adequately data about <strong>in</strong>terfaces (display, dialog boxes, controls, menus, icons) and <strong>in</strong>teraction<br />

(feedback, visibility, mapp<strong>in</strong>g, affordances, usability) are needed <strong>in</strong> terms of hav<strong>in</strong>g standardized measures to get a<br />

sense of how the design matches user satisfaction, needs, feel<strong>in</strong>gs, <strong>in</strong>terests, and mapp<strong>in</strong>g [Norman 1988; Apple 1992].<br />

The process of evaluation is essential to <strong>in</strong>form the designer about how well a proposed design models the users' needs<br />

<strong>in</strong> terms of their characteristics, type of activities to be done with the system, the environment of use, and the technology<br />

that supports it [Preece 1994, Barsfeld 1994, Rada 1995]. Different traditional evaluation techniques such as<br />

observation, verbal protocols, users op<strong>in</strong>ions (<strong>in</strong>terviews, group discussions, questionnaires), focus groups, logg<strong>in</strong>g<br />

actual use, and user feedback have been described <strong>in</strong> the literature <strong>in</strong> order to gather data to better fit the needs of the<br />

users' circumstances [Nielsen 1993; Schneiderman 1992].<br />

It has been said that the process of select<strong>in</strong>g appropriate evaluation techniques <strong>in</strong>volves 'pick<strong>in</strong>g, mix<strong>in</strong>g, and adapt<strong>in</strong>g<br />

from the range of techniques available' [Preece 1994, Cooper 1995; Barsfeld 1993]. This study <strong>in</strong>tends to <strong>in</strong>troduce a<br />

web-based tool based on an <strong>in</strong>teractive questionnaire to obta<strong>in</strong> users' and designers' op<strong>in</strong>ion and reactions both locally<br />

and distributively. We implement a traditional technique, such as a questionnaire, as a tool that can be adm<strong>in</strong>istered and<br />

accessed distributively, anytime, anywhere, from a Web page (see the questionnaire <strong>in</strong><br />

http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~oalonso/project/).<br />

The Model<br />

We present a model for evaluation user <strong>in</strong>teraction process based on a Web application that can complement activities<br />

based on user observation. Possible users of this tool are people <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> evaluat<strong>in</strong>g a specific software based on a<br />

set of questions. Also, it can be useful for <strong>in</strong>terface designers to experiment and collect data for a more <strong>in</strong>-depth analysis<br />

of their design. Both will be us<strong>in</strong>g the same software for evaluation purposes: a Web browser.<br />

The user who wants to evaluate a particular software can <strong>in</strong>teract with a Web browser as the ma<strong>in</strong> tool for answer<strong>in</strong>g<br />

questions and annotat<strong>in</strong>g comments. The user can check for graphical output of the data stored, select comments from<br />

other users, and visualize snapshots of other user <strong>in</strong>terfaces runn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> other platforms.<br />

The <strong>in</strong>terface designer can check for graphical output, special comments, and other requirements. The next step after the<br />

data analysis is to rebuild or rearrange features of the user <strong>in</strong>terface and place them on a Web page. This can be done <strong>in</strong><br />

either of two ways. The designer can choose a user <strong>in</strong>terface toolkit, build one, take snapshots, and place them on the<br />

page. The other approach is to build an applet and place it on the page with the advantage that the user not only can<br />

evaluate the software <strong>in</strong>terface, but can also check and <strong>in</strong>teract with new features while the design process is underway.<br />

Our first test<strong>in</strong>g was centered on the evaluation of Web browsers ow<strong>in</strong>g to the availability of different products and<br />

research prototypes, and to the fact that a Web browser can be used dur<strong>in</strong>g the user-<strong>in</strong>terface evaluation.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!