学术移动应用可用性评价方法比较分析:四种方法是否更好?

Sabda Norman Hayat, F. Ramdani
{"title":"学术移动应用可用性评价方法比较分析:四种方法是否更好?","authors":"Sabda Norman Hayat, F. Ramdani","doi":"10.1145/3427423.3427435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Usability evaluation is an important element which has used to add on insights related to the usability problem of an application. This study aims to identify application's usability problems and to compare the effectiveness of four evaluation methods which has used on an academic portal mobile application: usability testing, interviews, surveys, and heuristic evaluation. The data has collected from users who are in the student category and expert evaluator. The number detail of respondents used are usability testing (N = 10), interviews (N = 10), surveys (N = 110), and heuristic evaluation (N = 3). The four methods identified a total of 44 usability problems: 45% using heuristic evaluation, 24% using surveys, 17% using interviews and 14% using usability testing, resulting into a few similar findings. Then, The problems are categorized using Usability Taxonomy Problem (UPT) which has divided into 5 categories with details of 17 categories of visualness, 6 categories of language, 3 categories of manipulation, 11 categories of task-mapping and 7 others including the category of task-facilitation. The results of this study are capable to prove that the four methods are complementary, each method provides a unique insight to improve the usability of the application user interface. Both researchers recommend using a multi-method approach when evaluating the usability of an application due to it could provide a more comprehensive representation of usability issues.","PeriodicalId":120194,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative analysis of usability evaluation methods of academic mobile application: are four methods better?\",\"authors\":\"Sabda Norman Hayat, F. Ramdani\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3427423.3427435\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Usability evaluation is an important element which has used to add on insights related to the usability problem of an application. This study aims to identify application's usability problems and to compare the effectiveness of four evaluation methods which has used on an academic portal mobile application: usability testing, interviews, surveys, and heuristic evaluation. The data has collected from users who are in the student category and expert evaluator. The number detail of respondents used are usability testing (N = 10), interviews (N = 10), surveys (N = 110), and heuristic evaluation (N = 3). The four methods identified a total of 44 usability problems: 45% using heuristic evaluation, 24% using surveys, 17% using interviews and 14% using usability testing, resulting into a few similar findings. Then, The problems are categorized using Usability Taxonomy Problem (UPT) which has divided into 5 categories with details of 17 categories of visualness, 6 categories of language, 3 categories of manipulation, 11 categories of task-mapping and 7 others including the category of task-facilitation. The results of this study are capable to prove that the four methods are complementary, each method provides a unique insight to improve the usability of the application user interface. Both researchers recommend using a multi-method approach when evaluating the usability of an application due to it could provide a more comprehensive representation of usability issues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":120194,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3427423.3427435\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Sustainable Information Engineering and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3427423.3427435","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

可用性评估是一个重要的元素,它被用来增加与应用程序可用性问题相关的见解。本研究旨在识别应用程序的可用性问题,并比较四种评估方法的有效性:可用性测试、访谈、调查和启发式评估。数据收集自学生类别和专家评估者的用户。使用的受访者数量细节分别是可用性测试(N = 10)、访谈(N = 10)、调查(N = 110)和启发式评估(N = 3)。四种方法共确定了44个可用性问题:启发式评估占45%,调查占24%,访谈占17%,可用性测试占14%,得出了一些类似的发现。然后,使用可用性分类问题(UPT)对问题进行分类,将问题分为5类,其中可视化17类、语言6类、操作3类、任务映射11类和任务促进等7类。本研究的结果能够证明这四种方法是互补的,每种方法都为提高应用程序用户界面的可用性提供了独特的见解。两位研究人员都建议在评估应用程序的可用性时使用多方法方法,因为它可以提供更全面的可用性问题表示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparative analysis of usability evaluation methods of academic mobile application: are four methods better?
Usability evaluation is an important element which has used to add on insights related to the usability problem of an application. This study aims to identify application's usability problems and to compare the effectiveness of four evaluation methods which has used on an academic portal mobile application: usability testing, interviews, surveys, and heuristic evaluation. The data has collected from users who are in the student category and expert evaluator. The number detail of respondents used are usability testing (N = 10), interviews (N = 10), surveys (N = 110), and heuristic evaluation (N = 3). The four methods identified a total of 44 usability problems: 45% using heuristic evaluation, 24% using surveys, 17% using interviews and 14% using usability testing, resulting into a few similar findings. Then, The problems are categorized using Usability Taxonomy Problem (UPT) which has divided into 5 categories with details of 17 categories of visualness, 6 categories of language, 3 categories of manipulation, 11 categories of task-mapping and 7 others including the category of task-facilitation. The results of this study are capable to prove that the four methods are complementary, each method provides a unique insight to improve the usability of the application user interface. Both researchers recommend using a multi-method approach when evaluating the usability of an application due to it could provide a more comprehensive representation of usability issues.
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