Luis Rivero

Using an empirical study to evaluate the feasibility of a new usability inspection technique for paper based prototypes of web applications

BackgroundUsability is one of the most important factors that determine the quality of Web applications, which can be verified performing usability inspection. This paper presents the Web Design Usability Evaluation (Web DUE) technique, which allows the identification of usability problems in low-fidelity prototypes (or mockups) of Web applications during the design phases of the development. We have also proposed the Mockup Design Usability Evaluation (Mockup DUE) tool which is able to assist inspectors using the Web DUE technique.MethodIn order to verify the feasibility of these technologies, we have performed two empirical studies. During the first study, we compared the effectiveness and efficiency indicators of the Web DUE technique with the ones of its predecessor, the Web Design Perspective (WDP) based usability inspection technique. Also, during the second study, experienced inspectors used the Mockup DUE tool and answered a questionnaire aiming at identifying improvement opportunities in its design.ResultsThe analysis of the quantitative data showed that the Web DUE technique allowed the identification of more usability problems in lesser time when compared to the WDP technique. Moreover, the qualitative data from the second empirical study provided information on the tool’s perceived ease of use, indicating that inspectors were satisfied and that they would use it to perform a usability inspection with the Web DUE technique.ConclusionsThese results showed that the DUE technologies could be applied in the identification of usability problems early in the design of Web applications. Thus, their use could enable the correction of such problems before the source code of the application is written.

Using an Empirical Study to Evaluate the Feasibility of a New Usability Inspection Technique for Paper Based Prototypes of Web Applications

Usability is one of the most important factors that determine the quality of Web applications. Many Usability Inspection Methods (UIMs) are gaining popularity as an effective alternative for addressing Web usability issues. However, most of these UIMs still evaluate artifacts in the last stages of the development process and therefore, the cost of correcting the encountered usability problems is high. This paper presents the Web Design Usability Evaluation (Web DUE) technique that aims to allow the evaluation of low-fidelity prototypes (or mockups) during the design of the application. The Web DUEs main original feature is that it guides the inspection process through Web page zones which are âpiecesâ of Web pages. For each Web page zone, we crafted a set of usability verification items that can aid inspectors in finding usability problems. We have also carried out an empirical study to verify the feasibility of the technique. The analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data provides information on the Web DUEs degree of effectiveness and efficiency, and offers insight on what can be modified to enhance its results.

Evaluating the Use of Pair Programming and Coding Dojo in Teaching Mockups Development: An Empirical Study

Collaborative programming is an important pedagogical tool in computer science higher education. In this context, Pair Programming has been established as an effective practice for teaching programming. In addition, Coding Dojo has recently emerged as a collaborative group practice that uses Pair Programming as a mechanism to allow everyone to participate. However, both Pair Programming and Coding Dojo are rarely used in different types of programming tasks such as front-end programming tasks. In this paper, we present an empirical study comparing Pair Programming and Coding Dojo in the teaching of mock-ups development. Our goal was to evaluate both practices regarding three dimensions: motivation, user experience and learning perceived by students. The results showed that Pair Programming was well accepted by the students with positive results in all three dimensions. Moreover, although Coding Dojo has presented positive results in the leaning process, students reported several challenges related to motivation and user experience.

An Empirical Study to Evaluate the Feasibility of a UX and Usability Inspection Technique for Mobile Applications.

Usability and UX (User eXperience) are some of the most important factors for evaluating the quality of mobile applications. They focus on how easy to use an application is and the emotions that such use evokes. However, these aspects are often evaluated separately in industry through different evaluation techniques. Although it is possible to identify more usability and UX problems by employing different UX and usability evaluation methods, this distributed approach may not be cost effective and may not allow to thoroughly explore the identified issues. In order to support the identification of both UX and usability problems in a single evaluation, we have proposed Userbility, an UX and usability inspection technique that allows evaluating these aspects in mobile applications. This paper presents an empirical study over the second version of Userbility to verify its feasibility. In this study, we compared Userbility with the UX and Usability Guidelines Approach (UUGA) that helps the evaluation of usability and UX separately in mobile applications. According to the quantitative results, considering efficiency, UUGA was better than the Userbility technique. However, the qualitative results suggest that Userbility pointed more improvement suggestions, which could be useful for redesigning the evaluated application. the emotions, perceptions and judgements of an application. Therefore, software development teams willing to increase the quality in use of the developed mobile applications need to evaluate both of them. To evaluate usability and UX together, in our previous work (13), we developed Userbility in order to support inspectors in the evaluation of both UX and usability in mobile applications at the same time, to assess whether Userbility can support inspectors in detecting usability and UX problems. Nascimento et al. (13) conducted a study with five mobile applications. The results showed that it is possible to identify improvements in applications, and allowed us to identify problems during the use of the technique. Based on this, in this paper, we proposed a new version of the technique and an empirical study to evaluate the feasibility of Userbility. We have compared the Userbility to an approach proposed by De Paula et al. (5), which evaluates UX and usability separately. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II presents a background on UX and usability evaluation techniques that can be applied to evaluate mobile applications. Then, Section III shows the Userbility technique in its second version. Section IV presents the empirical study where we compared Userbility with another evaluation approach. In Section V, we present the results of the empirical study. Finally, Section VI presents our conclusions and future work.

A Systematic Mapping Study on Research Contributions on UX Evaluation Technologies

User eXperience (UX) refers to quality attributes related to the feelings and emotions of the users. In order to evaluate UX, several technologies (tools, methods, techniques, others) have been proposed that range from using questionnaires to employing biometrics. However, it is essential to characterize UX evaluation technologies to obtain evidence on the contexts in which using a specific technology can provide better evaluation results. In this paper, we present the state of the art on how to evaluate the UX of software applications. We performed a systematic mapping study with an initial sample of 2101 papers from which 227 relevant papers describing UX evaluation technologies have been identified. The results suggest that there is a need for specific UX evaluation technologies that are easy and comfortable to use from the point of view of users, while supporting practitioners in the correction of the aspects that cause poor experiences.

Practical Findings from Applying Innovative Design Usability Evaluation Technologies for Mockups of Web Applications

Web flow is an optimal perceived user experience which improves the user orientation and navigational behaviors towards Web applications. In order for Web applications to achieve Web flow in terms of navigation, it is necessary to enhance their degree of user interaction. However, despite their importance, user interaction features that can improve ease of use and navigation are mostly evaluated late in development. This paper presents practical findings from applying proposed Design Usability Evaluation (DUE) technologies. Such technologies allow the usability inspection of Web applications mockups to reduce the cost of identifying and fixing navigation and ease of use problems early in the development process. We planned an empirical study to evaluate: (a) the capability of applying these technologies without training, and (b) the perceived ease of use and utility of the technologies, using the Technology Acceptance Model. The results show that the DUE technologies could be used without training to find problems affecting navigation and ease of use of Web applications. Also, practitioners agreed that using the DUE technologies could enhance their performance during an inspection. Finally, we provide a list of some of the identified user interaction problems that, if avoided, could aid in the improvement of Web flow.

Evaluating the Feasibility of MAX: A Method Using Cards and a Board for Assessing the Post-Use UX

User Experience (UX) is an important attribute for the success and quality of a software application. UX explores how an application is used and the emotional and behavioral consequences of such use. Although several UX evaluation methods allow understanding the reasons for a poor UX, some of them are tedious or too intrusive, making the evaluation unpleasant. This paper presents the Method for the Assessment of eXperience (MAX), which through cards and a board assists software engineers in gathering UX data while motivating users to report their experience. We conducted two pilot studies to verify the feasibility of MAX, which showed that the method is useful for evaluating the UX of finished/prototyped applications from the point of view of users and software engineers.

Searching for Preferences of Autistic Children to Support the Design of User Interfaces

Autistic people belong to a group with heterogenic conditions that are considerable dynamic. There are several applications specific for autistic users to support their treatment. However, several works do not describe the process for choosing the interface elements to differentiate the specific aspects for such audience. These aspects are important, since an interface containing attractive elements for autistic people can provide a better interaction. This paper presents a study to identify the preferences of autistic children with regards to the interface components. The study was divided in two stages: (a) regarding the view of practitioners that deal directly with the children and with the presence of the researchers; and (b) with the presence of the practitioners, but without the presence of the researchers. This paper also presents the identified aspects, developing a collaborative repository to store recommendations that support the design of interfaces that are specific for autistic children.

Evaluation of UX Methods: Lessons Learned When Evaluating a Multi-user Mobile Application

The User Experience UX of a software product is influenced by pragmatic and hedonic aspects, and it is necessary to choose a UX evaluation method that takes both of these aspects into account. In this paper, we report on the lessons learned from applying different UX evaluation methods 3E, 3E*, SAM, MAX, EM, Think Aloud, and Observation in prototyping a multi-user mobile application. We analyzed the different methods in terms of: i the type of problems they identified, ii their contribution to improve the prototype in each development phase, iii encountered difficulties when applying the method, and iv encountered difficulties when analyzing the results of the method. We found that SAM and MAX were the easiest methods to apply and also to analyze their results. They are best used to identify hedonic problems, as is EM, whereas Think Aloud, EM and 3E* best identify pragmatic ones.