Archive for the ‘可用性测试’ category

在可用性测试中做一个好的倾听者

May 30th, 2009

可用性中主持人需要扮演的几个角色,例如保证测试中使用的仪器,软件等正常工作,保证测试按计划进行,还要和你的客户(不管是内部客户还是外部客户)保持良好的沟通。但是主持人最重要的角色是倾听用户。在一个90分钟的测试中,这是一个不可多得的机会,让设计团队能理解用户是怎么样使用他们的产品。

怎么样做到倾听用户呢?

做一个好的倾听者-15个要点

1)尝试阅读用户的非言语行为,比如音调,手势,姿态以及面部表情等。2)努力排出测试中的无关干扰,比如录像,录屏设备出现的问题可能会干扰到你倾听用户。

3)努力跟随用户的思路,尤其是那些比较难更随的用户。比如那些讲话特别慢,或者讲话思路没有得到很好的组织,或者一再重复自己的那些用户。

4)使用非言语的沟通来暗示用户你希望能听到更多的东西。

5)必要的时候重复用户用户所说的,或者重新组织一下用户表达的意思,确认用户表达的意思,同时也让用户知道你理解了他(她)。比如“刚才我听你说…”或者“如果我理解正确的话…”或者“让我再确认一下我的理解是否正确…”

6)如果你没有听懂用户说的,直接告诉用户你没有听懂,让用户重复他/她刚才说的。

7)不要在用户还在讲话的时候,就开始琢磨要怎么样进行反应。

8)不要只是听用户对界面某些事实的陈述,这个虽然重要,但却仅仅抓到了用户对界面看法的一点皮毛。更重要的是要倾听用户的感觉,态度,知觉及其价值判断等。

9)不要只听用户说的。用户很长的时间可能什么也没说,即使你追问用户“你现在在想什么?”。你也要倾听用户没有说的,因为这通常表明用户认为这些都是理所当然。

10)不要打扰用户。如果你发现你说的比用户说的还要多,即刻闭嘴会更好。你会有更多的机会在你的测试报告中来表达你的意见。

11)不要装作很专注。如果你突然走神了,先定定神,再问一个相关的问题,表明你刚才有注意用户的操作。

12)别因为你觉得用户很笨,而对用户不予理睬。到处都有可用信息挖掘,也许你需要的是更加努力一点去找到他们。

13)尽量避免因为用户的穿着打扮,言语风格,方言等影响你对用户的倾听。

14)不要把你对用户倾听的好坏跟用户自己扯上关系。每个招募来的用户,都是通过了筛选问卷的,你应该对他们一视同仁。

15)不要让你的期望―听你想要听到的―影响你的倾听行为。

听和倾听是不一样的,下次在你和别人谈话时,试试上面说的这些技巧,逐步提高自己的倾听能力,你会有意想不到的收获。

专家评估:超越启发式评估

April 22nd, 2009

Usability Expert Reviews: Beyond Heuristic Evaluation
很多人用Nielsen的十个可用性原则来进行专家评估。这10个原则很多都是common sense,没有经过研究进行验证过的。国际可用性标准,BS EN-ISO 9241-110,建议另外一套评估原则,包含七个guidelines。这些guidelines得到国际一致的认可,并且可以用到任何的交互系统上。
原文:http://www.userfocus.co.uk/articles/expertreviews.html

什么是可用性专家评估(usability expert review)?
专家评估,是由评估人员使用产品或者网站,根据一些列设计原则来评估其可用性。专家评估之所以流行是因为迅速,便宜,相比可用性测试而言。
Nielsen的10个评估原则,相信大家都很熟悉了。
1. 系统状态可见性 Visibility of system status

透过在合理时间内的合适回馈,系统应该让用户了解正在发生的事情

2. 系统与真实世界的关联性 Match between system and the real world

该系统应该以使用者熟悉的语言、文字、词汇与概念来呈现,而不是使用系统导向。遵行现实世界的转换,将可以让资讯以自然与具有逻辑的方式呈现

3. 使用者的控制度与自由度 User control and freedom

使用者时常以尝试错误来选择系统功能,而且他们需要一个明显的「离开系统」来离开使用者不需要的状态。并且支援復原步骤与重复步骤。

4. 一致性和标準 Consistency and standards

使用者不应该猜测同一种动作是否使用不同的字汇、状态或动作。还要考虑到瀏览器的相容性。

5. 预防错误 Error prevention

这是比错误讯息还要亲切的设计,预防是发生问题最先要考虑的事情。不管是移除容易出错的的条件,或是让使用者确认他们接下来要做的行动皆是。

6. 让使用者去认识系统,而非去回顾 Recognition rather than recall

尽量减少使用者需要记忆的事情、行动以及可见的选项。使用者不应该记忆太多步骤。系统使用说明应该在适合的地方表现的显眼且可轻易使用。

7. 灵活性与使用效率 Flexibility and efficiency of use

专家使用者通常可以使用加速器来提昇他们的使用速度,像是满足没有经验与有经验的使用者。允许使用者设定常做的动作。

8. 美术与简化设计 Aesthetic and minimalist design

对话框不应该包含无关紧要或很少用到的讯息。对话框的每一个额外的部份都会相对地降低主要资讯的显眼曾度。

9. 帮助用户认识、侦错并从错误中恢復 Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors

错误讯息应该以叙述文字呈现,而不是错误代码,并且精确地指出问题以及提出建设性的解决方案。

10. 帮助与说明文件 Help and documentation

即使是最好的系统也不能没有说明文件,系统也需要提供帮助与说明文件。这类型的资讯应该很容易被找到,著重在使用者的工作上。

Nielsen可用性原则的限制
虽然简捷,但缺乏可实施的精确度。“这些广泛使用的原则并没有被有效验证。没有证据标明在设计和用户界面的开发中如果使用这些原则就会提高界面的可用性。”

那还有其它的可用性原则么?ISO 9241关于人机交互系统的工效学,110部分关于对话设计的原则。这些原则基于研究得到国际一直的认可。(这里的对话似乎翻译成交互更好,只是原文用了"dialogue")

这些原则,标准的定义如下:

1.对话符合用户当前的任务和技能水平吗?(Suitability for the task)
2.对话对用户下一步要做什么描述清楚吗? (Self-descriptiveness)
3.对话一致吗? (Conformity with user expectations)
4.对话支持学习吗?(Suitability for learning)
5.用户能控制的交互的步伐和顺序吗?(Controllability)
6.对话允许错误的操作吗?(Error tolerance)
7.对话可以个性化以适合用户的个性需求吗? (Suitability for individualisation)

(详细的请看下边的E文)
1. Is the dialogue suitable for the user’s task and skill level? (Suitability for the task)
“A dialogue is suitable for a task when it supports the user in the effective and efficient completion of the task. In a dialogue which is suitable for the task, the user is enabled to focus on the task itself rather than the technology chosen to perform that task.”

2. Does the dialogue make it clear what the user should do next? (Self-descriptiveness)
“A dialogue is self-descriptive to the extent that at any time it is obvious to the users which dialogue they are in, where they are within the dialogue, which actions can be taken and how they can be performed.”

3. Is the dialogue consistent? (Conformity with user expectations)
“A dialogue conforms with user expectations if it corresponds to predictable contextual needs of the user and to commonly accepted conventions.”

4. Does the dialogue support learning? (Suitability for learning)
“A dialogue is suitable for learning when it supports and guides the user in learning to use the system.”

5. Can the user control the pace and sequence of the interaction? (Controllability)
“A dialogue is controllable when the user is able to initiate and control the direction and pace of the interaction until the point at which the goal has been met.”

6. Is the dialogue forgiving? (Error tolerance)
“A dialogue is error-tolerant if, despite evident errors in input, the intended result may be achieved with either no or minimal corrective action by the user. Error tolerance is achieved by means of damage control, error correction, or error management to cope with errors that occur.”

7. Can the dialogue be customised to suit the user? (Suitability for individualisation)
“A dialogue is capable of individualization when users can modify interaction and presentation of information to suit their individual capabilities and needs.”

如果根据国际标准来指出设计中的问题,而不是个人意见的话,更容易被设计师所接受。下一次,你也可以试着用这七个原则进行评估,也行这个并不像Nielsen的10个可用性原则那样广为人知,但是却有国际标准的权威和可信度。

中国的设计师,不同行业不同领域的应该通过自己的用户体验研究部门,经过长期用户研究的结果,建立属于自己的高用户体验的设计原则。

可用性第一原则?别听用户的

March 27th, 2009

原文:http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010805.html
Summary:
To design an easy-to-use interface, pay attention to what users do, not what they say. Self-reported claims are unreliable, as are user speculations about future behavior.

In past years, the greatest usability barrier was the preponderance of cool design. Most projects were ruled by usability opponents who preferred complexity over simplicity. As a result, billions of dollars were wasted on flashy designs that were difficult to use.

One of the main advantages of the “dot-bomb” downturn is that cool design has suffered a severe set back. Companies are now focused on the bottom line:

  • Public websites, which formerly focused on building awareness, now aim at making it easy for customers to do business.
  • Intranets are similarly refocused on improving employee productivity. Many companies are attempting to create order, impose design standards, and enhance navigation on previously chaotic intranets.

Happily, glamour-based design has lost and usability advocates have won the first and hardest victory: Companies are now paying attention to usability needs.

Unfortunately, winning a battle with usability opponents doesn’t win the war with complexity. It simply moves us to a new front line: The battle is now to get companies to do usability right.

Watch Users Work

Too frequently, I hear about companies basing their designs on user input obtained through misguided methods. A typical example? Create a few alternative designs, show them to a group of users, and ask which one they prefer. Wrong. If the users have not actually tried to use the designs, they’ll base their comments on surface features. Such input often contrasts strongly with feedback based on real use.

For example: A spinning logo might look pretty cool if you don’t need to accomplish anything on the page. Another example is the drop-down menu. Users always love the idea: finally a standard user interface widget that they understand and that stays the same on every page. However, while they offer users a sense of power over the design, drop-down menus often have low usability and either confuse users or lead them to unintended parts of the site.

To discover which designs work best, watch users as they attempt to perform tasks with the user interface. This method is so simple that many people overlook it, assuming that there must be something more to usability testing. Of course, there are many ways to watch and many tricks to running an optimal user test or field study. But ultimately, the way to get user data boils down to the basic rules of usability:

  • Watch what people actually do.
  • Do not believe what people say they do.
  • Definitely don’t believe what people predict they may do in the future.

Say, for example, that 50% of survey respondents claim they would buy more from e-commerce sites that offer 3D product views. Does this mean you should rush to implement 3D on your site? No. It means that 3D sounds cool. The world is littered with failed businesses that banked on people’s attitude toward hypothetical products and services. In speculative surveys, people are simply guessing how they might act or which features they’ll like; it doesn’t meant they’ll actually use or like them in real life.

When and How to Listen

When should you collect preference data from users? Only after they have used a design and have a real feeling for how well it supports them. Jonathan Levy and I analyzed data from 113 pairwise comparisons of user interfaces designed to support the same task and found a 0.44 correlation between users’ measured performance and their stated preference. The more a design supports users in easily and efficiently doing what they want to do, the more they like the design. Very understandable.

However, when collecting preference data, you must take human nature into account. When talking about past behavior, users self-reported data is typically three steps removed from the truth:

  • In answering questions (particularly in a focus group), people bend the truth to be closer to what they think you want to hear or what’s socially acceptable.
  • In telling you what they do, people are really telling you what they remember doing. Human memory is very fallible, especially regarding the small details that are crucial for interface design. Users cannot remember some details at all, such as interface elements that they didn’t see.
  • In reporting what they do remember, people rationalize their behavior. Countless times I have heard statements like “I would have seen the button if it had been bigger.” Maybe. All we know is that the user didn’t see the button.

Finally, you must consider how and when to solicit feedback. Although it might be tempting to simply post a survey online, you’re unlikely to get reliable input (if you get any at all). Users who see the survey and fill it out before they’ve used the site will offer irrelevant answers. Users who see the survey after they’ve used the site will most likely leave without answering the questions. One question that does work well in a website survey is “Why are you visiting our site today?” This question goes to users’ motivation and they can answer it as soon as they arrive.

Your best bet in soliciting reliable feedback is to have a captive audience: Conduct formal testing and ask users to fill out a survey at the end. With techniques like paper prototyping, you can test designs and question users without implementing a thing. Following these basic usability rules and methods will help you ensure that your design is truly as cool as it looks.

可用性维度的5个E

November 11th, 2008

Whitney Quesenbery用5个E开头的单词来描述可用性的5个维度,分别是:

  • Effective
  • Efficient
  • Engaging
  • Error Tolerant
  • Easy to Learn

Effective指的是效力。如果一个系统或者设备无法让用户完成他想要做的工作,无论任务难易或者所花费时间的长短,那么这个系统的效力是很低的。如果我们想测量系统的效力,需要先定义什么是成功的完成一个任务,不管是直接或者曲折的。

Efficient指的是效率,这个很容易理解。完成任务的时间是衡量效率的主要指标。

Egaging指的是满意程度,包含了这个界面在多大程度上吸引用户去使用,以及使用中的愉悦感觉,当然还有使用后的满意程度。

Error Tolerant指的是系统防止错误以及从错误中恢复的能力。

Easy to learn指的是可学性。某些系统的使用的频率很低,用户可能隔很久才会再用一次。怎么保证用户事隔很久之后还能很容易的再次使用这个系统呢?可学性是一个重要的指标。

____________________________________________________________________

Effective

The completeness and accuracy with which users achieve their goals.

Effective is the first E. If a user cannot actually do the thing he or she set out to do, it

probably doesn’t matter whether the experience was short or long, easy or hard. In the end,

they have failed to complete their tasks or meet their goals. If we want to be able to

measure effectiveness, we have to know how people define success or usefulness, whether this is

relatively straight forward or more subtle.

Efficient

The speed (with accuracy) with which this work can be done.

Efficiency may be something that is carefully defined, for example in a call center where

operators are measured on the number of calls they can handle in a day. It may be a

subjective judgement of when a task is taking “too long” or “too many clicks.”

Engaging

How pleasant, satisfying or interesting an interface is to use

“Engaging” replaces “satisfaction,” looking for a word that suggests the ways that the

interface can draw someone into a site or a task. It also looks at the quality of the

interaction, or how well the user can connect with the way the product is presented and

organized.

Error Tolerant

How well the product prevents errors, and helps the user recover from any that do

occur

It would be lovely to say “error free” or “prevents errors” but mistakes and accidents and

misunderstandings will happen. The cat nudges the mouse as you click. You misread a link

and need to find your way back, or enter a number with a typo. The real test is how helpful

the interface is when an error does occur.

Easy to Learn

How well the product supports both initial orientation and deeper learning

A product may be used just once, once in a while, or on a daily basis. It may support a task

that is easy or complex; and the user may be an expert or a novice in this task. But every

time it is used the interface must be remembered or relearned, and new areas of the

product may be explored over time.

什么是用户体验?

November 11th, 2008

用户体验User Experience (UX)近几年被提到的越来越多了,可是究竟什么是用户体验,用户体验的定义并不明确。在用户体验UX还没有一个业界公认的定义之前要测量用户体验UX还是很难的。当然不同的行业对用户体验的理解不一样,用户体验关注的侧重点也可能不一样,但这并不意味着用户体验不需要一个大家公认的定义。

我们都知道可用性Usability有ISO的定义,可用性要测量的就是efficiency,effectiveness and satisfaction。有了这样的定义,大家在做可用性测试的时候,在报告可用性测试结果的时候都有章可循了。

前边已经有文章介绍了如何量化用户体验。这里要介绍的一篇文章是Nokia学者写的“Towards a shared definition of User Experience”,怎样得到一个统一的(universal)可操作划的(operational),可测量的(measurable)用户体验的概念,让用户体验更能为实践服务。

Table1 Sample User Experience Definitions

Alben: All the aspects of how people use an interactive

product: the way it feels in their hands, how well they

understand how it works, how they feel about it while

they’re using it, how well it serves their purposes, and how

well it fits into the entire context in which they are using it.

• Wikipedia: User experience is a term used to describe

the overall experience and satisfaction a user has when

using a product or system.

• Nielsen-Norman Group: All aspects of the end-user’s

interaction with the company, its services, and its products.

• Mäkelä & Fulton Suri: A result of motivated action in a

certain context.

• Hassenzahl & Tractinsky: A consequence of a user’s

internal state (predispositions, expectations, needs,

motivation, mood, etc.), the characteristics of the designed

system (e.g. complexity, purpose, usability, functionality,

etc.) and the context (or the environment) within which the

interaction occurs (e.g. organisational/social setting,

meaningfulness of the activity, voluntariness of use, etc.)

Table2 Sample statements about UX

1. UX is an emergent field without a formal body of

knowledge

2. UX is a term that is elusive to grasp

3. UX is a momentary feeling a user has while interacting

with a system

4. UX is an attitude towards a system

5. UX is an emotional bonding with a system

6. Expectations determine user experience

7. UX is a value

8. We cannot design user experience, but we can design for

user experience

9. Usability is subsumed by UX

10. UX is best viewed in terms of marketing

您也许有兴趣阅读:可用性维度的5个E