mirror of
https://github.com/jackyzha0/quartz.git
synced 2025-12-23 21:04:07 -06:00
5.9 KiB
5.9 KiB
| title | draft | sr-due | sr-interval | sr-ease |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluating designs | true | 2022-04-07 | 10 | 210 |
tags: #review
Review questions
- what are two of the five (PGRCW) isses to consider when evaluating designs
- precision and reliability
- are your evaulationg repeatable
- are they accurate
- generalizability
- do your findings apply to the real world
- realism
- do you results apply tot he real world
- comparison
- better than just "do you like it study"
- what are the two styles of evaluation. How do they differ
qualitative and quantitative- field and lab studies
- when would you use a qualitative methods and when would you use a quantitative method
- qualitative when comparing designs
- quantitative when evaluating a single design
- what are two stages of design and in each cycle which type of method should you use
- design stage qualitative
- implentation quantitative
- give a brief description of one method of evaluation.
- feedback from experts
- usbility studies
- observation
- simulation/maths
- surveys/focus groups
- comparitive experiments
Evaluating-designs
Why to evaluate using 'outside' people:
- how do we know if a 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
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
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)
Styles of evaluation
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
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
Quantitative vs Qualitative methods
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
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
Stage in cycle
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, ...)
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, ...)
Methods
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
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.,
- Focus groups
- gathering groups of people to discuss an interface
- group setting can help or hinder
Feedback from experts
- Peer critique
- Dogfooding
- Using tools yourself
- Heuristic Evaluation
- structured feedback
Comparative experiments
- in lab, field, online
- short or long duration
- which option is better?
- what matters most?
- can see real usage
- more actionable
Participant observation
- observe what people do in the actual evironment
- usually more long term
- find things not present in short term studies
- Observation
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
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
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 ->