• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on >Exploring Think-Alouds in Usability Testing: An International Survey
【24h】

Exploring Think-Alouds in Usability Testing: An International Survey

机译：探索可用性测试中的大声思考：一项国际调查

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Research problem: The study explored think-aloud methods usage within usability testing by examining the following questions: How, and why is the think-aloud method used? What is the gap between theory and practice? Where does this gap occur? Literature review: The review informed the survey design. Usability research based on field studies and empirical tests indicates that variations in think-aloud procedures may reduce test reliability. The guidance offered on think-aloud procedures within a number of handbooks on usability testing is also mixed. This indicates potential variability in practice, but how much and for what reasons is unknown. Methodology: An exploratory, qualitative survey was conducted using a web-based questionnaire (during November-December 2010). Usability evaluators were sought via emails (sent to personal contacts, usability companies, conference attendees, and special interest groups) to be cascaded to the international community. As a result we received 207 full responses. Descriptive statistics and thematic coding were used to analyze the data sets. Results: Respondents found the concurrent technique particularly suited usability testing as it was fast, easy for users to relate to, and requires limited resources. Divergent practice was reported in terms of think-aloud instructions, practice, interventions, and the use of demonstrations. A range of interventions was used to better understand participant actions and verbalizations, however, respondents were aware of potential threats to test reliability, and took steps to reduce this impact. Implications: The reliability considerations underpinning the classic think-aloud approach are pragmatically balanced against the need to capture useful data in the time available. A limitation of the study is the focus on the concurrent method; other methods were explored but the differences in application were not considered. Future work is needed to explore the impact of divergent use of think-aloud - nstructions, practice tasks, and the use of demonstrations on test reliability.
机译：研究问题：通过研究以下问题，探讨了可用性测试中思考方法的使用：如何以及为什么使用思考方法？理论与实践之间的差距是什么？这种差距在哪里出现？文献综述：该综述为调查设计提供了依据。基于现场研究和经验测试的可用性研究表明，思考程序的变化可能会降低测试的可靠性。许多可用性测试手册中有关思考程序的指南也各不相同。这表明在实践中可能存在可变性，但是多少以及出于什么原因尚不清楚。方法：采用基于网络的调查问卷进行了探索性，定性调查（2010年11月至12月）。通过电子邮件（发送给个人联系人，可用性公司，会议参加者和特殊兴趣小组）寻求可用性评估者，并将其级联到国际社会。结果，我们收到了207条完整答复。描述性统计和主题编码用于分析数据集。结果：受访者发现并发技术特别适用于可用性测试，因为它快速，易于与用户建立联系并需要有限的资源。据报告，在思维指导，实践，干预和示范使用方面存在分歧。采取了一系列干预措施，以更好地理解参与者的行为和言语，但是，受访者意识到测试可靠性的潜在威胁，并采取了措施来减少这种影响。含义：支持经典思维方式的可靠性考虑在实用上与需要在可用时间内捕获有用数据的平衡。研究的局限性在于对并发方法的关注。探索了其他方法，但没有考虑应用的差异。需要进行进一步的工作来探索思维方式的不同使用的影响-指令，练习任务以及演示对测试可靠性的影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号