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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

76 Anais do IHC’2001 - IV Workshop sobre Fatores Humanos em Sistemas Computacionais were not able to complete all three tasks). Some web pages displayed poorly on low resolution screens, requiring horizontal scrolling, and there was lack of format consistency between some of them. To compare the selected evaluation methods, the criteria previously mentioned were analyzed in detail. In order to easily identify the evaluation groups, the following acronyms will be used throughout this paper: Table 1 - Evaluation groups. Non-experts ISO 9241-10 group Non_E_ISO Control group Non_E_Cntl Ergonomic Criteria group Non_E_EC Heuristic Evaluation group Non_E_Heu Usability Index group Software engineers Non_E_Index Heuristic Evaluation group SE_Heu Usability Index group Usability experts SE_Index Heuristic Evaluation group UE_Heu Usability Index group UE_Index Average evaluation time Comparing the time spent by all evaluation groups, it was noticed that non-experts took more time to complete this activity than software engineers or usability experts. The largest average time (4:27h) was spent by the EC non-expert group, while the shortest one (1:11h) was that of the usability expert group using the Heuristics method. Among the Index groups, software engineers were the fastest group (avg time = 1:54h). The time spent by the researcher was 46% smaller with software engineers and usability experts, in comparison to non-expert groups, because it was unnecessary to be present during evaluation sessions, and to correct evaluation form fields during data analysis of expert groups results. No usability expert or software engineer asked the researcher to solve any doubts about the evaluation process, and no filling errors were identified on their evaluation forms. Allied to their previous computer and/or usability knowledge, the evaluation guide, sent by e-mail to these groups, was considered clear enough for their understanding of the steps to be followed. Number and type of identified usability problems Table 2 shows the distribution of usability problems found by all groups. The predominant types of usability problems were: 'Error prevention', 'Visibility, recognition and conduction', and 'Flexibility and efficiency of use'. Software engineers (SE) and usability experts (UE) using the Index method were the groups that identified more of these types of
Anais do IHC’2001 - IV Workshop sobre Fatores Humanos em Sistemas Computacionais 77 usability problems. The Heuristics method, on the other hand, helped evaluators detect 'User control' and 'Aesthetics and simplicity' problems. Only five 'Context compatibility' and 11 'Consistency' problems were identified. Usability Factor Total Non_E _ISO Table 2 - Usability problems identified. Non_E _Cntl Non_E _EC Non_E _Heu SE_ Heu UE_ Heu Non_E _Index SE_In dex UE_In dex Error prevention 29 4 6 1 7 10 12 10 17 11 Visibility, recognition and conduction Flexibility and efficiency of use Aesthetics and simplicity 28 4 8 6 10 11 9 13 15 14 28 3 5 6 8 12 10 11 13 14 20 3 7 6 8 8 10 5 4 4 User control 13 4 3 3 7 7 7 2 3 3 Consistency 11 2 2 2 2 5 6 5 6 4 Context compatibility Total (with duplicates) Total (unique problems) 5 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 3 2 134 21 32 24 44 53 55 47 61 52 120 18 27 19 35 48 48 43 56 47 The ISO standard and the Ergonomic Criteria were the evaluation methods that presented the worst performances in number of identified problems: for example, the Non_E_EC group was able to identify just one of the 29 'Error prevention' problems; the Non_E_ISO group, four. Among the evaluation groups of the first phase (non-experts), the Non_E_Index group was able to detect the largest number of 'Visibility, recognition and conduction', 'Flexibility and efficiency of use', 'Error prevention' and 'Consistency' problems. The Non_E_Heu group was the best on identifying 'Aesthetics and simplicity' and 'User control' problems, and the second best, among non-experts, on 'Visibility, recognition and conduction', 'Flexibility and efficiency of use' and 'Error prevention' usability factors. Taking into account the 'Error prevention' factor, totaling 29 usability problems, the best performances were achieved by the SE_Index group (17 problems), followed by the UE_Heu group (12 problems). The 'Context compatibility' factor, because of its small number of identified problems (just five), could not offer enough data to any significant conclusions about evaluation groups' contribution. Considering now the 'Flexibility and efficiency of use' factor (with a total of 28 detected problems), the usability experts and software engineers groups using the Usability
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: Anais do IHC’2001 - IV Workshop s
Page 95: Anais do IHC’2001 - IV Workshop s
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
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?