Interface evaluation

An application of evaluative methods

 Today’s topics
• Research methods
• Web application
• Navigation
• Link structure (see slides in week)
• Image (see slides in week)
• Interactivity
• User Information Behavior and Design
Implications
• Artifact models
• Examples with questionnaires
S519
 Research methods
• Survey
• Interviews
• Focus groups
• Observations/Contextual Inquiry
• Usage Statistics, Log Analysis
• Usability Testing
• Card Sorting

S519
 Comparison (I)
Research Methods Pros and Cons
Survey Pros: Reach many people
without geographical barriers.
Cons: Low response rate.
Ambiguity in question and/or
answer. Subjective and
retrospective.
Interviews Pros: No ambiguity, can ask
follow-up questions to probe
unexpected topics or clarify
issues. Easy to conduct.
Cons: Subjective and
retrospective.
Best Used for
Collect preferences and
opinions from one or many
large group(s).
Understand business
stakeholders and their
objectives. Gain quick
understanding about issue,
problems and questions
based on verbal report.

Source: Ding, W. & Lin, X. (2010). Information architecture: The design and integration
of information spaces. Morgan & Claypool Publishers.
S519
 Comparison (II)
Research Methods Pros and Cons Best Used for
Focus Groups Pros: Like a group interview. Collect opinions, ideas and
Can reach multiple people at visioning data. Good for
the same time. Participants high-level starting points and
may be inspired by each other trend data.
and provide more valuable
ideas.
Cons: Participants’ opinions
may be influenced by others.
Out of context of the task.
Observations/Contex Pros: Data gathering takes Understand user tasks based
tual Inquiry place in the context of user’s on behavior. Understand
work. Data is more concrete. user’s working environment.
Data is more objective, natural.
Cons: Opportunistic, time
consuming, large amount of
data, analysis takes time.
S519
 Comparison (III)
Research Methods Pros and Cons Best Used for
Usage Statistics, Log Pros: Data is objective and rich. Identify usage patterns and
Analysis May discover in-depth find problems that need
information about user failure. research.
Cons: Sheer volume of data.
Need coding or special
software to do analysis.
Usability Testing Pros: Rich data both verbal Effective in identifying
and behavioral. design defects.
Cons: Lab setting and artificial
tasks may decrease the value
of the data.
Card Sorting Pros: Powerful tool can be used Best used for studying
both qualitatively and users’ mental models
quantitatively.
Cons: Results need to be
presented in a meaningful
S519
way.
Three Generations of the Web (I)

S519
Three Generations of the Web (II)

S519
 Web Applications

Source: Ding, W. & Lin, X. (2010). Information architecture: The design and integration
of information spaces. Morgan & ClaypoolS519Publishers.
 Web 2.0 applications
• Wiki, blog, and SNS

S519
 Example: Campaign websites

Sum

Barack Obama Y Y Y Y Y 5
Michele Bachmann Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7
Ron Paul Y Y Y Y Y Y 6
Rick Perry Y Y Y Y Y 5
Mitt Romney Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7
Sum 5 5 5 2 5 3 5
 Navigation (I)
• Purpose of navigation
– Where am I? (orientation).
– What can I do? (content, interaction, search).
– Where can I go from here?
• Drill up via global navigation.
• Parallel move via local navigation.
• Drill down via associative navigation.

S519
 Navigation (II)
• Navigation types
– Global navigation and sectional navigation
– Local navigation
– Supplemental navigation
– Process navigation

S519
S519
S519
 Compare the two navigation systems
• http://www.libraries.iub.edu/index.php
• http://www.lis.illinois.edu/

S519
 Interaction Design Principles
• Design for Fitts
• Design for Color Blindness
• Design for Affordance
• Design for Efficiency
• Design for Forgiveness
• Design for User Perceptions

S519
 Fitt’s law: Design for Fitts
• Fitts’ Law maintains that the time required to
move rapidly from a starting point to a final
target area is a function of the distance to the
target and the size of the target.
• Bigger is better: Important functions should be
presented with large objects (reasonably big).
• Closer is faster: The contextual action buttons or
links should be presented within the reasonable
proximity of user activities.
S519
 An example
• Which one is better?

• What about this?

S519
 Design for color blindness
• Besides color, they also use shapes to convey
the information.

S519
 Design for affordance
• An affordance is whatever can be done to an
object
– a chair affords sitting
– a button affords pushing
– a handle afford turning or pulling
• To ensure perceived affordance, the design
should meet user expectations. Following
conventions usually gives good affordance
– Make sure people can easily tell which is clickable and
which is not

S519
 Design for efficiency
• Efficiency allows the user to accomplish the
task more quickly
• Ways to ensure efficiency
– decreasing data entry (Amazon)
– limiting decision making on the user’s side

S519
 Design for forgiveness
• Forgiveness allows the user to feel less anxiety
about making mistakes, and allows for
imperfections in human activity.
• There are different ways to offer forgiveness
– Easy reversal of actions ((are you sure?) dialogs)
– Error prevention
– Error handling

S519
 Design for user perceptions
• User perceptions are not always right
• However, it is very important for designers to
be aware of it during the design process
• It is important to provide multiple ways to
accommodate different users so that they can
choose the preferred method to perform their
tasks

S519
 An example
• A classic example occurred in the 1930s in New York City,
where “users” in a large new high-rise office building
consistently complained about the wait times at the
elevators. Engineers consulted concluded that there was no
way to either speed up the elevators or to increase the
number or capacity of the elevators. A designer was then
called in, and he was able to solve the problem.
• What the designer understood was that the real problem
was not that wait time was too long, but that the wait time
was perceived as too long. The designer solved the
perception problem by placing floor-to-ceiling mirrors all
around the elevator lobbies. People now engaged in
looking at themselves and in surreptitiously looking at
others, through the bounce off multiple mirrors. Their
minds were fully occupied and time flew by.
S519
 How people use websites (I)
• Users first read in a horizontal movement,
usually across the upper part of the content
area. This initial element forms the F’s top bar.
Next, users move down the page a bit and
then read across in a second horizontal
movement that typically covers a shorter area
than the previous movement. This additional
element forms the F’s lower bar. Finally, users
scan the content’s left side in a vertical
movement.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/reading_pattern.html.
S519
 How people use websites (II)
• Users tend to sacrifice information quality for
easy access (e.g. Wikipedia vs. Encyclopedia)
• Relying more on web search engines than
individual websites

S519
 Work models
• Work models
– Work models = a graphical language to capture
knowledge about work
– Models make concepts concrete, in order for the
team to share and discuss ideas
– Models can be used to communicate with clients
• Types of work models
– Flow model, sequence model, culture model,
artifact model, and physical model
S519
 Artifact model
• Artifacts are tangible things people create or use
to help them get their work done
• Presentations
– Information presented by the object
– Parts of the object
– Structure of the parts
– Annotations
– Presentation
– Additional conceptual distinctions
– Usage
– Breakdowns
• A few examples

S519
Questionnaires on interface evaluation
• http://oldwww.acm.org/perlman/question.html
Acronym Instrument Reference Institution Example
QUIS Questionnaire for User Chin et al, 1988 Maryland 27 questions
Interface Satisfaction
PUEU Perceived Usefulness and Davis, 1989 IBM 12 questions
Ease of Use
NAU Nielsen's Attributes of Nielsen, 1993 Bellcore 5 attributes
Usability
NHE Nielsen's Heuristic Evaluation Nielsen, 1993 Bellcore 10 heuristics
CSUQ Computer System Usability Lewis, 1995 IBM 19 questions
Questionnaire
ASQ After Scenario Questionnaire Lewis, 1995 IBM 3 questions

PHUE Practical Heuristics for Perlman, 1997 OSU 13 heuristics

Usability Evaluation
PUTQ Purdue Usability Testing Lin et al, 1997 Purdue 100 questions
Questionnaire
USE USE Questionnaire Lund, 2001 Sapient 30 questions
S519