大声思考:效果和有效性

A. M. Gill, B. Nonnecke
{"title":"大声思考:效果和有效性","authors":"A. M. Gill, B. Nonnecke","doi":"10.1145/2379057.2379065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Think aloud is a commonly used usability method with roots in psychology. Although current think aloud practice was adapted from a standard method defined by Ericsson and Simon, there is no evidence of the use of a standard method by usability practitioners. We present the results of a study exploring usability practitioners' awareness of the effects of think aloud and whether validity as defined by Ericsson and Simon is relevant to usability practice. Results indicate that practitioners are aware of some of the effects of think aloud. However, it is not clear whether practitioners are aware of or concerned with the reactive effects of think aloud.","PeriodicalId":447848,"journal":{"name":"ACM International Conference on Design of Communication","volume":"243 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Think aloud: effects and validity\",\"authors\":\"A. M. Gill, B. Nonnecke\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2379057.2379065\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Think aloud is a commonly used usability method with roots in psychology. Although current think aloud practice was adapted from a standard method defined by Ericsson and Simon, there is no evidence of the use of a standard method by usability practitioners. We present the results of a study exploring usability practitioners' awareness of the effects of think aloud and whether validity as defined by Ericsson and Simon is relevant to usability practice. Results indicate that practitioners are aware of some of the effects of think aloud. However, it is not clear whether practitioners are aware of or concerned with the reactive effects of think aloud.\",\"PeriodicalId\":447848,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM International Conference on Design of Communication\",\"volume\":\"243 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM International Conference on Design of Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2379057.2379065\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM International Conference on Design of Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2379057.2379065","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

“大声思考”是一种基于心理学的常用可用性方法。尽管目前的“大声思考”实践是根据Ericsson和Simon定义的标准方法改编的,但没有证据表明可用性实践者使用了标准方法。我们提出了一项研究的结果,探讨可用性实践者对大声思考的影响的认识,以及Ericsson和Simon定义的有效性是否与可用性实践相关。结果表明,实践者意识到大声思考的一些影响。然而,目前尚不清楚实践者是否意识到或关心大声思考的反应效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Think aloud: effects and validity
Think aloud is a commonly used usability method with roots in psychology. Although current think aloud practice was adapted from a standard method defined by Ericsson and Simon, there is no evidence of the use of a standard method by usability practitioners. We present the results of a study exploring usability practitioners' awareness of the effects of think aloud and whether validity as defined by Ericsson and Simon is relevant to usability practice. Results indicate that practitioners are aware of some of the effects of think aloud. However, it is not clear whether practitioners are aware of or concerned with the reactive effects of think aloud.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信