Design process evaluating interactive_designs

Design Process:
Evaluating Interactive
Systems
Preeti Mishra
Course Instructor

What is Evaluation
 Evaluation is defined as .. “To examine and judge
carefully”
 In order to examine and judge, we need criteria
against which to base our assessment.

Why Evaluate
 In HCI we evaluate interfaces and systems to:
 Determine how usable they are for different
user groups
 Identify good and bad features to inform future design
 Compare design choices to assist us in making
decisions
 Observe the effects of specific interfaces on users

Criteria for Evaluation
 Expert Analysis
 User-Based Criteria
 Model Based

Expert Analysis
Heuristic Evaluation
Cognitive Walkthrough
Review-based Evaluation.

Expert Analysis
 Expert analysis: designer or HCI expert assesses a
design based on known/standard cognitive principles or
empirical results.
 Expert analysis methods can be used at any stage in the life
cycle.
 Expert analysis methods are relatively cheap.
 Expert analysis methods, however, do not assess the actual
use of the system.
 Examples of expert analysis methods: Heuristic
Evaluation (HE), Cognitive Walkthrough (CW), Review-
based Evaluation.

Heuristic Based
Evaluation Technique
(“to discover”) pertains to the process of gaining knowledge
or some desired result by intelligent guesswork rather than
by following some pre established formula.

Introduction
 Heuristic Evaluation (HE) was proposed by Nielsen and
Molich. ( Read Nielsen’s ten Heuristics already discussed
earlier)
 In HE, experts scrutinize the interface and its elements
against established usability heuristics [another previous
tutorial].
 The experts should have some background knowledge or
experience in HCI design and usability evaluation.

The Process..
 3 to 5 experts are considered to be sufficient to detect most of
the usability problems.
 The enlisted experts are provided with the proper roles (and
sometimes scenarios to use) to support them when interacting
with the system/prototype under evaluation.
 They then evaluate the system/prototype individually. This is to
ensure an independent and unbiased evaluation by eachexpert.
 They assess the user interface as a whole and also the
individual user interface elements. The assessment is
performed with reference to a set of established usability
principles.
 When all the experts are through with the assessment, they
come together and compare and appropriately aggregate their
findings.

Cognitive
Walkthrough
Relating to the mental processes of perception, memory,
judgment, and reasoning, as contrasted with emotional
and volitional processes.

Introduction
 Cognitive Walkthrough (CW) was proposed by Polson et al.
 CW evaluates design on how well the design supports user
in learning the task to be performed [primarily through
exploration i.e. hands on].
 •CW is usually performed by expert in cognitive psychology.

The Process..
 The expert ‘walks through’ the design [i.e. steps through
each step of some known/representative task] to identify
potential problems.
 4 requirements in order to perform the CW:
1.specification or prototype of the system
2.description of the task the user is to perform
3.complete, written list of actions constituting the task
4.description of the user (including the level of experience and
knowledge)

The Process..
 With the foregoing information, the evaluator steps through
each of the actions trying to answer the following 4
questions:
1. Is the effect of the action the same as the user's goal at that
point? [what the action will do/action's effect should be what the
user intends/user's goal.]
2.will users see that the action is available [when they want it] -
visibility at that time?
3.once users have found the correct action [as in the foregoing], will
they know/recognize it is the one they need? [effective
representation of the action, clear representation.]
4.after the action is taken, will users understand the feedback they
get? [effective confirmation that the action has been taken.]

The Process..
 forms are used to guide analysis e.g.
 cover form [for the four requirements above, date, time,
evaluators of the CW],
 answer form [for answering the four questions above],
 usability problem report [for describing any negative
answers/problems, severity of the problem e.g. frequency of
occurrence and seriousness of the problem, date, time,
evaluators].

Introduction
 Experimental results and empirical evidence from
the literature [e.g., from psychology, HCI, etc] can
be used to support or refute parts of design.

The Process..
 It is expensive to repeat experiments continually and
therefore a review of relevant literature can save resources
(e.g., effort, time, finances, etc).
 However, care should be taken to ensure results are
transferable to the new design
 [e.g., note the design in consideration, the user audience,
the assumptions made, etc].

How to Proceed!
 Cognitive models can be used to filter design
options
 e.g. GOMS (Goals, Operators, Methods and
Selection) model can be used to predict user
performance with a user interface, keystroke-level
model can be used to predict performance for
low-level tasks

 User-based evaluation basically is evaluation through user
participation i.e. evaluation that involves the people for
whom the system is intended; the users.

The Process
 User-based evaluation techniques include:
 experimental methods,
 observational methods,
 query techniques (e.g., questionnaires and
interviews),
 physiological monitoring methods (e.g., eye tracking,
measuring skin conductance, measuring heart rate).
 User-based methods can be conducted in the
laboratory and/or in the field

Using Laboratory
 Advantages:
 Specialist equipment available.
 Uninterrupted environment.
 Disadvantages:
 Lack of context.
 Difficult to observe several users cooperating.
 Appropriate:
 If system usage location is dangerous, remote or
impractical.
 For very constrained single-user tasks [to allow

Field or Working Environment
 Advantages:
 Natural environment.
 Context retained (though observation may alter it).
 Longitudinal studies possible.
 Disadvantages:
 Field challenges e.g., distractions, interruptions,
movements, danger, noise.
 Appropriate:
 Where context is crucial

Query Technique
Asking questions

Introduction
 Observational methods
 think aloud,
 cooperative evaluation,
 protocol analysis,
 post-task walkthroughs
 Psychological Monitoring

Think aloud
 User is observed performing task.
 User is asked to describe what s/he is doing and why,
what s/he thinks is happening, etc.
 Advantages:
 Simplicity - requires little expertise.
 Can provide useful insight.
 Can show how system is actually used.
 Disadvantages:
 Subjective [really depends on the user].
 Selective [out of many things, the user may choose
what to describe].
 Act of describing may alter task performance.

Cooperative Evaluation
 Variation on think aloud.
 User collaborates in evaluation.
 Both user and evaluator can ask each other
questions throughout.
 Additional advantages:
 Less constrained and easier to use.
 User is encouraged to criticize system.
 Clarification possible.

Protocol Analysis
 Paper and pencil: cheap, limited to writing speed.
 Audio: good for think aloud, difficult to record sufficient
information to identify exact actions in later analysis, difficult to
match with other protocols ('synchronization').
 Video: accurate and realistic, needs special equipment, obtrusive.
 Computer logging: automatic and unobtrusive, large amounts of
data difficult to analyze.
 User notebooks: coarse and subjective, useful insights, good for
longitudinal studies.
 Mixed use in practice.
 Audio/video transcription difficult and requires skill.
 Some automatic support tools available e.g., EVA
(Experimental Video Annotator), Observer Pro (from
Noldus), Workplace project (Xerox PARC), etc.

Post-task Walkthrough
 Transcript played back to participant for comment i.e. user
reacts on action after the event.
 Used to fill in intention i.e. reasons for actions performed
and alternatives considered.
 It also is necessary where think aloud is not possible.
 Advantages:
 Analyst has time to focus on relevant incidents.
 Avoids excessive interruption of task.
 Disadvantages:
 Lack of freshness.
 May be post-hoc interpretation of events.

Physiological monitoring
methods
 [e.g., eye tracking, measuring skin conductance, measuring
heart rate].
 Eye-tracking
 Head or desk mounted equipment tracks the position of the eye.
 Eye movement reflects the amount of cognitive processing a display
requires.
 Measurements include: fixations, scan paths, etc. For instance:
 number of fixations.
 duration of fixation.
 scan paths: moving straight to a target with a short fixation at
the target is optimal.

Psychological Measurements
 Emotional response linked to physical changes.
 These may help determine a user’s reaction to a user
interface.
 Measurements include: heart, sweat, muscle, brain. For
instance:
 heart activity: e.g. blood pressure, volume and pulse.
 activity of sweat glands: Galvanic Skin Response (GSR).
 electrical activity in muscle: electromyogram (EMG).
 electrical activity in brain: electroencephalogram (EEG).
 There is some difficulty in interpreting these physiological
responses; more research is needed.

Design process evaluating interactive_designs

Factors that can influence
the choice
 when in process: design vs. implementation
 style of evaluation: laboratory vs. field
 how objective: subjective vs. objective
 type of measures: qualitative vs. quantitative
 level of information: high level vs. low level
 level of interference: obtrusive vs. unobtrusive
 resources available: time, subjects, equipment, expertise

Design process evaluating interactive_designs

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Design process evaluating interactive_designs (20)

More from Preeti Mishra (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Design process evaluating interactive_designs