软件可用性测试实验教学环境的设计与实现

软件可用性是衡量用户使用某种软件执行指定任务难易程度的重要指标。软件可用性测试能够评估和测试软件设计方案或者软件产品的可用性水平。构建功能完善的可用性测试实验室需要比较大的空间和比较大的资金投入。本文设计了一种比较简单的基于C/S结构的可用性测试实验环境,系统包含程序控制系统、键鼠记录系统、图像记录系统和数据传输系统,能够满足学生进行软件可用性测试实验教学的基本要求。     

可用性测试在ERP系统中的应用

随着以用户为中心的开发思路越来越被接受,人们越来越重视软件的可用性,可用性测试应作为软件测试的重要方面加入到软件测试的日程中.对常用的可用性测试方法进行了深入分析,以某公司的企业资源规划系统的可用性测试为例,阐述可用性测试的常用方法和实施过程,并使用可用性成熟度模型(UMM)对测试进行评价.该方法可为一般软件系统的可用性测试提供参考.     

可用性测试平台

阐明了软件可用性测试的重要性及其方法分类,着重说明了用户测试方法的步骤.介绍了所设计的软件可用性测试平台的特点和建设该平台的必要性,通过该平台对鱼眼菜单、单列菜单、级联式菜单进行了可用性测试.在测试用户较少的情况下,实验结果与其它主流实验室的结果相一致,表明了该实验平台的有效性和高效性.最后,对该测试平台可能的改进提出了设想.     

CBID系统的可用性评估

本文采用用户测试法和用户调查法对CBID(Case Based Industrial Design)系统进行评估分析。通过对可用性评估结果的分析,进一步为CBID系统与ICAID系统可用性对比研究提供根据。     

网站可用性测试的探索与研究

网站可用性直接影响着用户的使用体验感受,因此受到多领域的广泛关注,提高网站可用性得到了越来越多的重视。通过对可用性测试进行阐述,提出来网站可用性测试流程结构,希望能对我国网站可用性测试的研究提供参考依据。     

人机界面可用性测试与评估研究综述

介绍并评述人机界面可用性的定义、可用性测试与评估的指标及方法。学术界对于可用性的内涵已基本达成共识,但大多针对不同界面选取不同的测试与评估指标及权重,测试与评估方法也大都停留于主观评价,还未能深入探讨用户与系统交互过程中的内在心理机制。     

以用户为中心的手机界面设计方法探讨与实践

针对老年人这一特殊群体设计更具可用性的手机操作界面，具体阐述了“以用户为中心”设计理论中的需求分析，界面设计及可用性评估的方法和原则。并通过用户测试实验证明“以用户为中心”的设计方法提高了手机用户操作界面的可用性，解决了手机向老年用户群体普及难的问题。     

海量存储系统可用性静态测试评估方案

本文分析和研究了海量存储系统可用性关键技术和体系结构,设计制定可用性静态测试评估方案,方案分为定性检查和准则评估两个部分。通过可用性静态测试评估,可以对目标系统的可用性做出直观和准确的初步评价。     

IT产品的可用性测试与评估

可用性测试与评估是可用性工程的重要组成部分。该文首先提出可用性质量的指标体系,它为衡量和改进产品的可用性质量提供了参照系和必要的基础,然后重点介绍几个用户评估与专家评估方法,最后给出一个可用性用户评估的实例。     

IT产品用户体验质量的模糊综合评价研究

提出了一种基于可用性测试的旨在对产品使用过程中的用户体验质量进行综合评价的模型。首先结合ISO9241-11有关可用性的定义,建立了包括人-机交互角度、用户角度和观察者角度的用户体验质量的360°指标体系模型;然后针对可用性概念的模糊性及其综合评估中的问题,应用层次分析法(AHP)确定了指标体系中相关因素的权重,并根据模糊隶属度函数对用户体验质量评价标准进行了模糊化处理;最后采用模糊评价方法对用户体验质量进行评价。实例表明用户体验质量的综合性评估模型可以有效地对用户体验质量进行综合性评价。     

Web软件的易用性测试探究

随着网络技术在软件方面的广泛应用,Web软件以其方便、快速、易操作等特点成为软件开发的重点。作为与用户交互的主要特性,易用性也随之成为Web软件关注的热点,而易用性测试也为越来越多的人所重视。根据Web软件的特点,对Web软件的易用性测试标准、如何进行Web软件易用性测试以及易用性测试的具体操作步骤进行了探讨。     

Web软件的易用性测试探究

随着网络技术在软件方面的广泛应用,Web软件以其方便、快速、易操作等特点成为软件开发的重点。作为与用户交互的主要特性,易用性也随之成为Web软件关注的热点,而易用性测试也为越来越多的人所重视。根据Web软件的特点,对Web软件的易用性测试标准、如何进行Web软件易用性测试以及易用性测试的具体操作步骤进行了探讨。     

A comparison of usability evaluation methods for evaluating e-commerce websites

The importance of evaluating the usability of e-commerce websites is well recognised. User testing and heuristic evaluation methods are commonly used to evaluate the usability of such sites, but just how effective are these for identifying specific problems? This article describes an evaluation of these methods by comparing the number, severity and type of usability problems identified by each one. The cost of employing these methods is also considered. The findings highlight the number and severity level of 44 specific usability problem areas which were uniquely identified by either user testing or heuristic evaluation methods, common problems that were identified by both methods, and problems that were missed by each method. The results show that user testing uniquely identified major problems related to four specific areas and minor problems related to one area. Conversely, the heuristic evaluation uniquely identified minor problems in eight specific areas and major problems in three areas.     

Usability laboratories

This article provides a table with summary statistics for the thirteen usability laboratories described in the papers in this special issue. It also gives an introduction to the main uses of usability laboratories in usability engineering and surveys some of the issues related to practical use of user testing and CAUSE tools for computer-aided usability engineering.     

Usability laboratories

Abstract

This article provides a table with summary statistics for the thirteen usability laboratories described in the papers in this special issue. It also gives an introduction to the main uses of usability laboratories in usability engineering and surveys some of the issues related to practical use of user testing and CAUSE tools for computer-aided usability engineering.     

The influence of laboratory set-up in usability tests: effects on user performance,subjective ratings and physiological measures

This article examines the influences of situational factors on user behaviour in usability tests. Sixty participants carried out two tasks on a computer-simulated prototype of a mobile phone. Employing a 3 × 2 mixed experimental design, laboratory set-up was varied as a between-subjects variable (presence of facilitator and two non-interactive observers, presence of facilitator or no person present) while task difficulty was manipulated as a within-subjects variable (low vs. high). Performance data, subjective measures and physiological parameters (e.g. heart rate variability) were taken. The results showed that the presence of non-interactive observers during a usability test led to a physiological stress response, decreased performance on some measures and affected the emotional state of test participants. The presence of a facilitator (i.e. a participating observer) also influenced the emotional state of the test participant. Practitioners involved in usability testing need to be aware of undue influences of observers, in particular, if the observers are non-interactive. The findings presented in this paper have implications for the practice of usability testing. They indicated a considerable influence of observers on test participants (physiology and emotions) and on the outcomes of usability tests (performance measures). This should be considered when selecting the set-up of a usability testing procedure.     

The impact of two different think-aloud instructions in a usability test: a case of just following orders?

The instructions used in think-aloud studies can range from a simple request to think-aloud, to an explicit instruction to include certain types of content. The present study compared two think-aloud instructions: the classic neutral think-aloud instruction and an explicit instruction requesting explanations and content that is relevant to the user experience. Data from task performance, mental workload, think-aloud protocols and usability problems were collected from 16 participants, equally distributed between the two think-aloud instruction conditions. No differences were found in task performance, however, participants in the explicit instruction condition reported higher mental workload and a focus on finding interface problems. The explicit instruction condition also yielded more utterances about the user experience, expectations and explanations of behaviour than the neutral condition. An analysis of the resultant usability problems revealed that the explicit instruction led to a larger number of dialogue, navigation, layout and functionality problems, but that the problems which were unique to this condition were, in the main, at a low level of severity.