Anais do IHC'2001 - Departamento de Informática e Estatística - UFSC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

82 Anais do IHC’2001 - IV Workshop sobre Fatores Humanos em Sistemas Computacionais corresponding the detected problems to the correct principles presented in the methods' documents. In regard to the size of aggregates of non-expert groups, this study verified that the EC and the ISO groups, even with five evaluators each, did not achieve the same number of usability problems uncovered, individually, by the first evaluators of the HEU or INDEX groups. The performances of the EC and ISO groups were compared to each other, but below that of the Control group. This particular result is at odds with Bastien, Scapin & Leulier (1996) data. These researchers observed that, when using the EC method, participants uncovered more usability problems than ISO or Control groups. In this study, it was also observed that there was no relevant increase on the total number of uncovered problems, as more than three or four evaluators were added to the group. The same happened with the aggregates' curve of severe problems. It was also verified that usability experts got better performance with fewer people, when compared to software engineers or non-experts. The findings of this research were confronted with other comparative studies, like Bastien, Scapin & Leulier (1996), who compared the Ergonomic Criteria with the ISO 9241- 10 Dialogue principles; Jeffries et al. (1991), who evaluated four techniques (among them, heuristic evaluation and software guidelines); Karat, Campbell & Fiegel (1992), who investigated the relative effectiveness of empirical usability testing and individual and team walkthrough methods in identifying usability problems; and Levi & Conrad (1996), who examined the heuristic evaluation using two different groups of evaluators - software developers and usability experts. In general, this case study remarked that: (1) the heuristic evaluation achieved better results, when compared to guidelines, identifying a larger number of severe problems, specially when performed by usability experts (agreeing with Jeffries et al. (1991)); (2) assigning more than three or four evaluators does not necessarily, or significantly, increase the total number of usability problems identified. In heuristic evaluations, it would be better to assign usability experts as evaluators, in order to obtain a better performance with fewer people (compatible with Nielsen’s suggestion to employ from three to five usability experts in heuristic evaluations (Nielsen, 1993)); (3) software engineers, following guidelines or checklists, can complete usability evaluations with relative success, uncovering general and recurring problems, but missing some severe problems (confirming the results of Jeffries et al. (1991); and Karat, Campbell & Fiegel (1992)); (4) one method can not completely substitute another one, because they identify different types of problems. Usability evaluation methods should be taken as complementary methods (agreeing with Karat, Campbell & Fiegel (1992)); (5) each professional profile is more suitable to a certain method: software engineers, to checklists; usability experts, to heuristic evaluation (diverging from Levi & Conrad (1996) data - these researchers did not find significant differences between theses two groups of evaluators). After comparing the examined methods, this research made clear that, to achieve satisfactory results in the usability evaluation of this case study’s corporate portal, identifying more problems, in quantity and in variety, taking less time and fewer evaluators, it was necessary to analyze its context of use and to employ, as complementary
Anais do IHC’2001 - IV Workshop sobre Fatores Humanos em Sistemas Computacionais 83 methods, the Usability Index Checklist for Websites, used by software engineers; and the heuristic evaluation, performed by usability experts, using the Corporate Portal Heuristics. The results of this research suggest that, in usability evaluations of corporate portals, it would be more cost-effective to assign, at first, software engineers, using the Index checklist. After proper modification of the portal design, eliminating the usability problems identified in the first step, some usability experts would be assigned to perform heuristic evaluation and complement the usability inspection. Deciding between these methods or procedures, however, depends on the evaluation goals, the portal’s context of use, and the available resources. References Bastien, C. & Scapin, D. (1993) Critérios ergonômicos para avaliação de interfaces homemcomputador. [on-line], September, 2000. http://www.labiutil.inf.ufsc.br/indice-1.html. Bastien, C., Scapin, D. & Leulier, C. (1996) Looking for usability problems with the ergonomic criteria and with the ISO 9241-10 dialogue principles. In: Proceedings of CHI'96, Vancouver, Canada, April, 1996. [on-line], September, 2000. http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi96/proceedings/intpost/Bastien/jmcb_txt.htm. Dias, C. (2001) Métodos de avaliação de usabilidade no contexto de portais corporativos: um estudo de caso no Senado Federal. Brasília: UnB. 229p. ISO (1996) 9241 Part 10. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals, Part 10: Dialogue principles. Jeffries, R. et al. (1991) User interface evaluation in the real world: a comparison of four techniques. In: Proceedings of CHI'91, New Orleans, LA, April-May, 1991. New York: ACM. p. 119-124. Karat, C., Campbell, R. & Fiegel, T. (1992) Comparison of empirical testing and walkthrough methods in user interface evaluation. In: Proceedings of CHI'92, Monterey, CA, May, 1992. New York: ACM Press. p. 397-404. Keevil, B. (1998) Measuring the usability index of your web site. In: Proceedings of CHI'98, Los Angeles, CA, April, 1998. New York: ACM Press. p. 271-277. Levi, M. D. & Conrad, F. G. (1996) A heuristic evaluation of a World Wide Web prototype. Interactions, July/Aug., 1996. p. 50-61. Nielsen, J. (1993) Usability engineering. Boston, MA: Academic Press. 362p. ______. (1994) Ten usability heuristics. In: Nielsen, J. & Mack, R. (eds.) Usability inspection methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons. [on-line], June 1999. http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html.
Page 1 and 2:
De 15 a 17 de outubro de 2001 Flori
Page 3 and 4:
Sumário Apresentação............
Page 5 and 6:
Análise Ergonômica do Estado da A
Page 7 and 8:
de formidável coesão, denominado
Page 9 and 10:
Sociedade Brasileira de Computaçã
Page 11:
Fund. Educacional de Criciúma - FU
Page 15 and 16:
Palestras Internacionais Online Com
Page 17:
Objetivos: O objetivo deste mini-cu
Page 21 and 22:
Anais do IHC’2001 - IV Workshop s
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
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:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52: Anais do IHC’2001 - IV Workshop s
Page 101: Anais do IHC’2001 - IV Workshop s
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
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:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289:
IV Workshop sobre Fatores Humanos e
Page 292 and 293:
272 Anais do IHC’2001 - IV Worksh
Page 294 and 295:
274 4. Considerações Finais Anais
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
314 Artigos Anais do IHC’2001 - I
show all

Anais do IHC'2001 - Departamento de Informática e Estatística - UFSC

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?