---
title: "evaluating-designs"
sr-due: 2022-04-07
sr-interval: 10
sr-ease: 210
tags: 
- info203
---

#unfinished 

Why to evaluate using 'outside' people:
- how do we know if a [[Prototyping|prototype]] is good
- designer/developers are not 'fresh' -> they already have experience with the product
- designer/developers don't know what real users will do

## 0.1 Issues to consider
- Reliability/precision
	- how accurate is your study?
	- Is is reproducible -> if it was repeated, would you get the same result
- Generalizability
	- Is your sample representative
- Realism
	- Would observed behaviour also occur in the wild
- Comparison
	- Shows how different options were recieved
	- rather than a "people liked it" study
- work involved/efficiency
	- How cost efficient are your methods

## 0.2 Factors to consider when choosing an evaluation method
- Stage in the cycle at which the evaluation is carried out -> (design / implementation)
- Style of evaluation -> (lab / field)
- Level of subjectivity or objectivity
- Type of measurement -> (qualitative / quantitative)
- Information provided -> (high-level / low-level)
- Immediacy of response -> (real-time / recollection of events)
- Level of interference implied -> (intrusiveness)
- Resources required -> (equipment, time, money, subjects, expertise, context) 

## 0.3 Styles of evaluation
##### 0.3.1.1.1 Laboratory Studies 
- 1st step: Designer evaluates his/her UI
- Specialised equipment for testing available
- Undisturbed (can be a good or bad thing) 
- Allows for well controlled experiments
- Substitute for dangerous or remote real-world locations
- Variations in manipulations possible / alternatives

##### 0.3.1.1.2 Field Studies
- Within the actual user’s working environment
- Observe the system in action
- Disturbance / interruptions (+/-)
- Long-term studies possible
- Bias: presence of observer and equipment
- Needs support / disturbs real workflow

## 0.4 Quantitative vs Qualitative methods
##### 0.4.1.1.1 Quantitative Measures
- Usually numeric
- E.g. # of errors, time to complete a certain task, questionnaire with scales
- Can be (easily) analysed using statistical techniques
- Rather objective
- Most useful in comparing alternative designs
- Test hypotheses
- Confirm designs

##### 0.4.1.1.2 Qualitative Measures
- Non-numeric
- E.g. survey, interview, informal observation, heuristic evaluation
- Difficult to analyse, demands interpretation
- Rather subjective 
- User’s overall reaction and understanding of design
- Generate hypotheses
- Find flaws

## 0.5 Stage in cycle
##### 0.5.1.1.1 Design Stage
- Only concept (even if very detailed) exists
- More experts, less users involved
- Greatest pay-off: early error detection saves a lot of development money
- Rather qualitative measures (exceptions: detail alternatives; fundamental questions, ...)

##### 0.5.1.1.2 Implementation
- Artefact exists, sth. concrete to be tested
- More users, less experts involved
- Assures quality of product before or after deployment; bug detection
- Rather quantitative measures (exceptions: overall satisfaction, appeal, ...)

## 0.6 Methods
### 0.6.1 Usability studies
- Bringing people in to test Product
	- Usage setting is not ecologically valid - usage in real world can be different
	- can have tester bias - testers are not the same as real users
	- cant compare interfaces
	- requires physical contact
### 0.6.2 Surveys and focus groups
+ quicly get feedback from large number of responses
+ auto tally ressults
+ easy to compare different products
- responder bias
- Not accurate representation of real product
* e.g., ![[Pasted image 20220316130318.png]]
* Focus groups
	* gathering groups of people to discuss an interface
	* group setting can help or hinder
	
### 0.6.3 Feedback from experts
- [[Peer critique]]
- [[Dogfooding]]
	- Using tools yourself
- [[Heuristic Evaluation]]
	- structured feedback

### 0.6.4 Comparative experiments
- in lab, field, online
- short or long duration
- which option is better?
- what matters most?
- can see real usage
- more actionable

### 0.6.5 Participant observation
- observe what people do in the actual evironment
- usually more long term
	- find things not present in short term studies
- [[Observation]]

### 0.6.6 Simulation and formal models
- more mathmatical quantitative 
- useful if you have a theory to test
- often used for input techniques
- can test multiple alternatives quickly
- typically simulation is used in conjugtion with [[monte carlo optimisation]]

## 0.7 Query techniques
- [[Interviews]]
- questionnaires
	- less flexible
	- larger samples possible
	- design of questionnaire is for expert only
	- use of standard (proven) questionnaires recommended
	- types of questions: 
		- general (age, gender)
		- open ended 
		- scalar (e.g., likert-like scales)
		- multiple choice
		- ranking

## 0.8 Users
- users can come up with great ideas
	- lead user -> need specific soluton that does not exist -> often make up their own solution
	- extreme user -> use existing solution for it's intended purpose to an extreme degree 
	- typical user ->