关于可用性测试的可靠性

Martin Kessner, J. Wood, R. Dillon, R. West
{"title":"关于可用性测试的可靠性","authors":"Martin Kessner, J. Wood, R. Dillon, R. West","doi":"10.1145/634067.634127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Six professional usability testing teams conducted a usability test on an early prototype of a dialog box. Altogether, they identified 36 usability problems. No problem was detected by every team, 2 were found by five teams, 4 by four teams, 7 by three teams, 7 by two teams, and 18 problems were identified by one team only. There was more agreement among teams in this study compared to a previous study [1] and there was more agreement among the teams on severe vs. minor problems. Implications for the cooperation between usability testers and their clients are discussed.","PeriodicalId":351792,"journal":{"name":"CHI '01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems","volume":"148 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"49","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the reliability of usability testing\",\"authors\":\"Martin Kessner, J. Wood, R. Dillon, R. West\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/634067.634127\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Six professional usability testing teams conducted a usability test on an early prototype of a dialog box. Altogether, they identified 36 usability problems. No problem was detected by every team, 2 were found by five teams, 4 by four teams, 7 by three teams, 7 by two teams, and 18 problems were identified by one team only. There was more agreement among teams in this study compared to a previous study [1] and there was more agreement among the teams on severe vs. minor problems. Implications for the cooperation between usability testers and their clients are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":351792,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CHI '01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems\",\"volume\":\"148 5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"49\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CHI '01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/634067.634127\",\"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/10.1145/634067.634127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 49

摘要

六个专业的可用性测试团队对一个对话框的早期原型进行了可用性测试。他们总共确定了36个可用性问题。每个团队都没有发现问题,5个团队发现了2个问题,4个团队发现了4个问题,3个团队发现了7个问题,2个团队发现了7个问题,只有一个团队发现了18个问题。与之前的研究[1]相比,本研究中团队之间的一致性更高,团队对严重问题和轻微问题的一致性更高。讨论了可用性测试人员和他们的客户之间合作的含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the reliability of usability testing
Six professional usability testing teams conducted a usability test on an early prototype of a dialog box. Altogether, they identified 36 usability problems. No problem was detected by every team, 2 were found by five teams, 4 by four teams, 7 by three teams, 7 by two teams, and 18 problems were identified by one team only. There was more agreement among teams in this study compared to a previous study [1] and there was more agreement among the teams on severe vs. minor problems. Implications for the cooperation between usability testers and their clients 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