A comparative evaluation of heuristic-based usability inspection methods Export

@inproceedings{Chattratichart2008, address = {New York, NY, USA}, author = {Chattratichart, Jarinee and Lindgaard, Gitte}, booktitle = {CHI '08: CHI '08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems}, citeulike-article-id = {2877178}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1358628.1358654}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358654}, comment = {=== Pre lim Usability test === 16 participants in 4 groups. Each group did different tasks but all on the same website; hotelpenn.com. Their discovered problems were compared with CUE-4 results. 92 overlapped CUE-4 and could be severity coded directly, 18 new, total 110 problems found. === HE experiment ; 4 groups - control, HE, HE++, HE Plus === Hypothesis that HE++ \& HE Plus outperform control and HE in effectiveness and reliability 40 participants, half usability experts, half HCI students. Between subjects, dependent variables thoroughness, validity, effectiveness and reliability. Thoroughness = number of real problems identified / number of real problems exist validity = number of real problems identified / number of problems reported effectiveness = thoroughness x validity reliability = number of evaluators / number of real problems identified ---=note-separator=--- === Analysis === problems found matched against the set in the prelim user testing Each evaluator was analysed for effectivenes using oneway ANOVA HE++ and HE Plus did outperform HE but did not significantly outperform control gropu. Likely that participants were applying previous experience of HE.}, doi = {10.1145/1358628.1358654}, isbn = {978160558012X}, journal = {Proceedings}, keywords = {comparison, evaluation, experts, heuristic, heuristic-evaluation, inspection-method, methodology, novices, project, usability}, pages = {2213--2220}, posted-at = {2009-03-08 11:19:27}, priority = {0}, publisher = {ACM}, title = {A comparative evaluation of heuristic-based usability inspection methods}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358654}, year = {2008} }

TY - CONF ID - Chattratichart2008 L3 - citeulike-article-id:2877178 JF - Proceedings SN - 978160558012X AD - New York, NY, USA EP - 2220 TI - A comparative evaluation of heuristic-based usability inspection methods PB - ACM T2 - CHI '08: CHI '08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems SP - 2213 KW - comparison KW - evaluation KW - experts KW - heuristic KW - heuristic-evaluation KW - inspection-method KW - methodology KW - novices KW - project KW - usability N1 - === Pre lim Usability test === 16 participants in 4 groups. Each group did different tasks but all on the same website; hotelpenn.com. Their discovered problems were compared with CUE-4 results. 92 overlapped CUE-4 and could be severity coded directly, 18 new, total 110 problems found. === HE experiment ; 4 groups - control, HE, HE++, HE Plus === Hypothesis that HE++ & HE Plus outperform control and HE in effectiveness and reliability 40 participants, half usability experts, half HCI students. Between subjects, dependent variables thoroughness, validity, effectiveness and reliability. Thoroughness = number of real problems identified / number of real problems exist validity = number of real problems identified / number of problems reported effectiveness = thoroughness x validity reliability = number of evaluators / number of real problems identified N1 - === Analysis === problems found matched against the set in the prelim user testing Each evaluator was analysed for effectivenes using oneway ANOVA HE++ and HE Plus did outperform HE but did not significantly outperform control gropu. Likely that participants were applying previous experience of HE. AU - Chattratichart, Jarinee AU - Lindgaard, Gitte PY - 2008/// UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358654 ER -