Novice evaluators' behavior when consolidating usability problems individually or collaboratively

E. Hvannberg, E. Law
{"title":"Novice evaluators' behavior when consolidating usability problems individually or collaboratively","authors":"E. Hvannberg, E. Law","doi":"10.1145/3102113.3102129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An important, but resource demanding step in analyzing observations from usability evaluations is to consolidate usability problems (UPs) that were identified by several evaluators into one master list. An open question is whether consolidating UPs in pairs is cost-effective. A within-subject study examined if evaluators merge UPs differently when working in pairs than individually and what motivates their decisions. Eight novice evaluators took part. The number of discarded, retained and merged UPs, evaluators' confidence and severity of UPs in the two settings were measured. The results showed that UPs merged or discarded in the collaborative setting would rather be retained in the individual setting. Participants increased confidence and UP severity in the collaborative setting but decreased UP severity and confidence in the individual setting.","PeriodicalId":185267,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3102113.3102129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

An important, but resource demanding step in analyzing observations from usability evaluations is to consolidate usability problems (UPs) that were identified by several evaluators into one master list. An open question is whether consolidating UPs in pairs is cost-effective. A within-subject study examined if evaluators merge UPs differently when working in pairs than individually and what motivates their decisions. Eight novice evaluators took part. The number of discarded, retained and merged UPs, evaluators' confidence and severity of UPs in the two settings were measured. The results showed that UPs merged or discarded in the collaborative setting would rather be retained in the individual setting. Participants increased confidence and UP severity in the collaborative setting but decreased UP severity and confidence in the individual setting.
新手评估者在单独或协作整合可用性问题时的行为
在分析可用性评估的观察结果时,一个重要但需要资源的步骤是将由几个评估人员确定的可用性问题(UPs)合并到一个主列表中。一个悬而未决的问题是,合并成对的UPs是否具有成本效益。一项主题内研究调查了评估人员在结对工作时与单独工作时合并UPs的方式是否不同,以及他们做出决定的动机是什么。共有8名评估师新手参加。测量了两种情况下丢弃、保留和合并UPs的数量,评估者的信心和UPs的严重程度。结果表明,在协作设置中合并或丢弃UPs宁愿保留在个人设置中。参与者在合作环境中增加了信心和UP严重程度,但在个人环境中降低了UP严重程度和信心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书