并发vs任务后可用性测试评级

R. Teague, K. D. Jesus, Marcos Nunes Ueno
{"title":"并发vs任务后可用性测试评级","authors":"R. Teague, K. D. Jesus, Marcos Nunes Ueno","doi":"10.1145/634067.634238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This test of rating scale use showed that there were significant differences between questionnaire ratings when users were asked to rate task ease and enjoyment during task execution (Concurrent) vs. after task completion (Post-Task). Results suggest that users' Post-Task ratings may not accurately reflect their actual task experience. Results also suggested that there are qualitative differences between user verbal protocols between the Concurrent and Post-Task groups. Implications for use of test ratings scales are discussed.","PeriodicalId":351792,"journal":{"name":"CHI '01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"35","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concurrent vs. post-task usability test ratings\",\"authors\":\"R. Teague, K. D. Jesus, Marcos Nunes Ueno\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/634067.634238\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This test of rating scale use showed that there were significant differences between questionnaire ratings when users were asked to rate task ease and enjoyment during task execution (Concurrent) vs. after task completion (Post-Task). Results suggest that users' Post-Task ratings may not accurately reflect their actual task experience. Results also suggested that there are qualitative differences between user verbal protocols between the Concurrent and Post-Task groups. Implications for use of test ratings scales are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":351792,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CHI '01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"35\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CHI '01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/634067.634238\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CHI '01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/634067.634238","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35

摘要

该量表使用测试表明,当用户被要求在任务执行期间(并发)和任务完成后(后任务)对任务的轻松和享受进行评分时,问卷评分之间存在显著差异。结果表明,用户的任务后评分可能不能准确反映他们的实际任务体验。结果还表明,并发组和任务后组之间的用户口头协议存在质的差异。讨论了使用测试评定量表的含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Concurrent vs. post-task usability test ratings
This test of rating scale use showed that there were significant differences between questionnaire ratings when users were asked to rate task ease and enjoyment during task execution (Concurrent) vs. after task completion (Post-Task). Results suggest that users' Post-Task ratings may not accurately reflect their actual task experience. Results also suggested that there are qualitative differences between user verbal protocols between the Concurrent and Post-Task groups. Implications for use of test ratings scales are discussed.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信