挖掘到受伤为止:与传统的可用性评估相比,从在线评论中自动提取可用性问题

Steffen Hedegaard, J. Simonsen
{"title":"挖掘到受伤为止:与传统的可用性评估相比,从在线评论中自动提取可用性问题","authors":"Steffen Hedegaard, J. Simonsen","doi":"10.1145/2639189.2639211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Large amounts of data available on the web, for example reviews, tweets, and forum postings, contain user narratives on interaction with products. Finding usability issues in such user narratives offers an interesting alternative to traditional usability testing. To leverage such data for identifying usability issues, we (I) devise a methodology for building automated extraction tools for usability issues; (II) perform empirical assessment of such tools by training a number of classifiers to extract sentences describing usability issues for two digital cameras and a children's tablet; (III) perform quantitative and qualitative comparisons between the usability issues identified by the classifiers and those identified and assessed by two traditional methods: heuristic evaluation and think aloud testing. Our results show that it is possible to build and train algorithms for extracting actionable usability issues, but raise serious concerns about the practical future prospects for supplementing traditional evaluation methods with automated extraction algorithms.","PeriodicalId":354301,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational","volume":"90 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mining until it hurts: automatic extraction of usability issues from online reviews compared to traditional usability evaluation\",\"authors\":\"Steffen Hedegaard, J. Simonsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2639189.2639211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Large amounts of data available on the web, for example reviews, tweets, and forum postings, contain user narratives on interaction with products. Finding usability issues in such user narratives offers an interesting alternative to traditional usability testing. To leverage such data for identifying usability issues, we (I) devise a methodology for building automated extraction tools for usability issues; (II) perform empirical assessment of such tools by training a number of classifiers to extract sentences describing usability issues for two digital cameras and a children's tablet; (III) perform quantitative and qualitative comparisons between the usability issues identified by the classifiers and those identified and assessed by two traditional methods: heuristic evaluation and think aloud testing. Our results show that it is possible to build and train algorithms for extracting actionable usability issues, but raise serious concerns about the practical future prospects for supplementing traditional evaluation methods with automated extraction algorithms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":354301,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational\",\"volume\":\"90 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2639211\",\"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 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2639211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

网络上大量可用的数据,例如评论、tweet和论坛帖子,包含用户与产品交互的叙述。在这样的用户叙述中发现可用性问题为传统的可用性测试提供了一个有趣的选择。为了利用这些数据来识别可用性问题,我们(I)设计了一种方法来构建可用性问题的自动提取工具;(II)通过训练一些分类器来提取描述两个数码相机和一个儿童平板电脑可用性问题的句子,对这些工具进行实证评估;(III)将分类器识别的可用性问题与两种传统方法(启发式评估和出声思考测试)识别和评估的可用性问题进行定量和定性比较。我们的研究结果表明,构建和训练算法来提取可操作的可用性问题是可能的,但对用自动提取算法补充传统评估方法的实际未来前景提出了严重的担忧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mining until it hurts: automatic extraction of usability issues from online reviews compared to traditional usability evaluation
Large amounts of data available on the web, for example reviews, tweets, and forum postings, contain user narratives on interaction with products. Finding usability issues in such user narratives offers an interesting alternative to traditional usability testing. To leverage such data for identifying usability issues, we (I) devise a methodology for building automated extraction tools for usability issues; (II) perform empirical assessment of such tools by training a number of classifiers to extract sentences describing usability issues for two digital cameras and a children's tablet; (III) perform quantitative and qualitative comparisons between the usability issues identified by the classifiers and those identified and assessed by two traditional methods: heuristic evaluation and think aloud testing. Our results show that it is possible to build and train algorithms for extracting actionable usability issues, but raise serious concerns about the practical future prospects for supplementing traditional evaluation methods with automated extraction algorithms.
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