How to make usability
Small cozy room. Obviously not an apartment, but it does not look like an office either. A sofa, a few funny pictures on the wall, a mirror, a desktop ... On the desk is a regular computer, a regular LCD screen, a regular webcam, and ordinary speakers. There are less ordinary objects: a video camera on a tripod, a speakerphone system on the table. This is the usability lab of UsabilityLab. Here you may be surprised to find that it is sometimes nice to be a guinea pig.
Author: Ilya Shchurov Voyager
Published in the journal "Computerra" â„–45 from December 12, 2007
')
Most of us work with uncomfortable programs every day. For some, we have adapted and no longer notice inconvenience, while others continue to cause a storm of emotions whenever we do not find the right button in the “obvious” place or in response to the usual action we get a strange result. For us, these emotions are a by-product of work that we release to the environment for free. For usability specialists, they are a source of valuable information. Those who find themselves in this room will be paid for all their sighs, curses and curses to the developers.
“It is clear that the test participants may be nervous and worried at first,” says leading usability specialist Tatyana Kravchuk, “and we are trying to calm them down and make the situation quite comfortable.” This is understandable: the participants know that after the start of the test, their every action, movement with a mouse, turning the head, changing the expression of the face or carelessly escaping the word will be recorded, and then studied almost under a microscope. We all fear these complex and incomprehensible programs, but even more we fear people who will see our fear of programs. No one wants to feel like a fool. “We have to explain that it’s not the person being tested, but the program and its interface; that if there are any problems or something will not work out, this is just very good, this is what we need, ”says Tatyana.
At first, I wanted to look at a relatively recent development in the field of usability testing - a user eye tracking system (eye-tracking; we wrote about Tobii, which produces such solutions, in a report from last year's CeBIT) - there is such a thing in UsabilityLab, but it appeared she recently and has not yet stepped on "combat duty." “Maybe it's for the better,” I think, taking up space at the desk. Tatiana sets up the settings in the Morae Recorder program, opens our editorial blog inside.computerra.ru in the browser and clicks on the big red button, then goes to the next room and leaves me almost alone with the computer. I know that the mirror on my left side, on the other hand, is transparent, Tatyana sees me through it and through a webcam, and that I can communicate with her over the hands-free system, but otherwise I’m left to myself: the feeling of “looking from shoulder "no.
Actually, I am not a very good candidate for the role of a testing participant - despite all the oddities of our blog (for example, half the English interface), I perform most of the standard actions “on the machine”, and in order to face some problem worthy of analysis, you have to invent yourself unobvious tasks. “The participant probably should not be familiar with the product in order to obtain adequate results?” I clarify. Tatyana answers that everything depends on the task: if you need to know how new users will react, then the participants are selected inexperienced; and if, say, a new version of a popular program is released or two interface designs are compared, the test results of experienced users will show how painful (or, on the contrary, pleasant) changes will turn out for them.
However, in my case I didn’t have to go too far for the problem - trying to log in using OpenID through LiveJournal, I quickly get an error message that makes me think for a few seconds. “What happened, Ilya?” Asks Tatyana, who constantly keeps up the conversation with me in the testing process so that I can comment on the actions, rather than close in on myself. (This technique is called “pronouncing” and is often used in such tests.) Returning to the page back (and cursing the MSIE developers, in which, apparently, the data entered into the web form when returning to the page still does not remain) I understand that instead of my login in LJ I entered the full path to the journal. In another situation, I would say that this was my mistake (I did not notice that the OpenID “LiveJournal account” type was chosen), but there are no “user errors” here.
Having coped with OpenID, I, pleased, add a comment to my own entry. The first task of testing is solved.
I notice on the table a strange device, resembling a miniature lamppost. “This is a system for testing mobile applications,” explains Tatiana. - A phone is put on the ruler, the camera on top records what is happening on the screen and the buttons that are pressed. Generally speaking, such devices are also commercially available, but until recently UsabilityLab was quite comfortable with their “home” design. “Usability laboratories generally have to invent quite a lot themselves - the area is very young, and the market does not always have the right solutions; besides, this is how we can take 100% of our needs into account. ” However, in the near future "homemade" still give way to an industrial model.
The next room looks completely different. The mirror is no longer a mirror, but a window. Two two-monitor systems that display the current activities of the participant. Behind one is an employee who directly performs the testing and communicates with the “test subject” (it is called the facilitator or moderator), after another - an assistant who keeps track of what is happening and arranges notes, which then simplify the analysis of the recording - for example, the beginning or end of the assignment, the embarrassment, etc.
The row of chairs is intended for customer representatives; the usual TV on which the picture from the video camera is broadcast is for them. “It's very good when the customer participates in the testing process. Often it makes a very strong impression - says Tatiana. “One thing is when, during the peer review, some shortcomings in the interface are reported, and quite another is when you can see how real people are experiencing difficulties when working with the program.” According to her, once after such a “session”, the customer literally ran away to redo the interface with the words “Well, of course, you also send the report, but we already understood our mistakes”.
The intervention of the facilitator in the testing process should be very neat. On the one hand, it is often necessary to direct the user’s actions in the right direction in order to obtain the necessary information (for example, if a particular dialogue is tested, and the user tries to come up with a solution to the task before him without using this dialogue), on the other hand, the testing participant must have sufficient freedom in their actions so that the situation is realistic - therefore, there is no clear indication of what to do.
After the completion of the righteous works of the user remains a detailed record of all his actions, already marked and ready for analysis - it is revised, certain points are supplied with additional comments, etc. At the “exit” of the analyst’s work, a thick written report can be provided that can be supplied with a video application — for example, by cutting out facial expressions of participants when they encountered difficulties in performing an action — so that the customer literally looks his problems at his face. (We hope to post an example of such a report on the same long-suffering inside.computerra.ru.)
“At the end of testing, participants are usually satisfied,” says Tatiana. - They are pleased to feel experts; usually people ask us to invite them next time. ”
Author: Ilya Shchurov Voyager
Published in the journal "Computerra" â„–45 from December 12, 2007
')
Under the microscope
Most of us work with uncomfortable programs every day. For some, we have adapted and no longer notice inconvenience, while others continue to cause a storm of emotions whenever we do not find the right button in the “obvious” place or in response to the usual action we get a strange result. For us, these emotions are a by-product of work that we release to the environment for free. For usability specialists, they are a source of valuable information. Those who find themselves in this room will be paid for all their sighs, curses and curses to the developers.
“It is clear that the test participants may be nervous and worried at first,” says leading usability specialist Tatyana Kravchuk, “and we are trying to calm them down and make the situation quite comfortable.” This is understandable: the participants know that after the start of the test, their every action, movement with a mouse, turning the head, changing the expression of the face or carelessly escaping the word will be recorded, and then studied almost under a microscope. We all fear these complex and incomprehensible programs, but even more we fear people who will see our fear of programs. No one wants to feel like a fool. “We have to explain that it’s not the person being tested, but the program and its interface; that if there are any problems or something will not work out, this is just very good, this is what we need, ”says Tatyana.
At first, I wanted to look at a relatively recent development in the field of usability testing - a user eye tracking system (eye-tracking; we wrote about Tobii, which produces such solutions, in a report from last year's CeBIT) - there is such a thing in UsabilityLab, but it appeared she recently and has not yet stepped on "combat duty." “Maybe it's for the better,” I think, taking up space at the desk. Tatiana sets up the settings in the Morae Recorder program, opens our editorial blog inside.computerra.ru in the browser and clicks on the big red button, then goes to the next room and leaves me almost alone with the computer. I know that the mirror on my left side, on the other hand, is transparent, Tatyana sees me through it and through a webcam, and that I can communicate with her over the hands-free system, but otherwise I’m left to myself: the feeling of “looking from shoulder "no.
Actually, I am not a very good candidate for the role of a testing participant - despite all the oddities of our blog (for example, half the English interface), I perform most of the standard actions “on the machine”, and in order to face some problem worthy of analysis, you have to invent yourself unobvious tasks. “The participant probably should not be familiar with the product in order to obtain adequate results?” I clarify. Tatyana answers that everything depends on the task: if you need to know how new users will react, then the participants are selected inexperienced; and if, say, a new version of a popular program is released or two interface designs are compared, the test results of experienced users will show how painful (or, on the contrary, pleasant) changes will turn out for them.
However, in my case I didn’t have to go too far for the problem - trying to log in using OpenID through LiveJournal, I quickly get an error message that makes me think for a few seconds. “What happened, Ilya?” Asks Tatyana, who constantly keeps up the conversation with me in the testing process so that I can comment on the actions, rather than close in on myself. (This technique is called “pronouncing” and is often used in such tests.) Returning to the page back (and cursing the MSIE developers, in which, apparently, the data entered into the web form when returning to the page still does not remain) I understand that instead of my login in LJ I entered the full path to the journal. In another situation, I would say that this was my mistake (I did not notice that the OpenID “LiveJournal account” type was chosen), but there are no “user errors” here.
Having coped with OpenID, I, pleased, add a comment to my own entry. The first task of testing is solved.
Do it yourself
I notice on the table a strange device, resembling a miniature lamppost. “This is a system for testing mobile applications,” explains Tatiana. - A phone is put on the ruler, the camera on top records what is happening on the screen and the buttons that are pressed. Generally speaking, such devices are also commercially available, but until recently UsabilityLab was quite comfortable with their “home” design. “Usability laboratories generally have to invent quite a lot themselves - the area is very young, and the market does not always have the right solutions; besides, this is how we can take 100% of our needs into account. ” However, in the near future "homemade" still give way to an industrial model.
On the other side of the glass
The next room looks completely different. The mirror is no longer a mirror, but a window. Two two-monitor systems that display the current activities of the participant. Behind one is an employee who directly performs the testing and communicates with the “test subject” (it is called the facilitator or moderator), after another - an assistant who keeps track of what is happening and arranges notes, which then simplify the analysis of the recording - for example, the beginning or end of the assignment, the embarrassment, etc.
The row of chairs is intended for customer representatives; the usual TV on which the picture from the video camera is broadcast is for them. “It's very good when the customer participates in the testing process. Often it makes a very strong impression - says Tatiana. “One thing is when, during the peer review, some shortcomings in the interface are reported, and quite another is when you can see how real people are experiencing difficulties when working with the program.” According to her, once after such a “session”, the customer literally ran away to redo the interface with the words “Well, of course, you also send the report, but we already understood our mistakes”.
The intervention of the facilitator in the testing process should be very neat. On the one hand, it is often necessary to direct the user’s actions in the right direction in order to obtain the necessary information (for example, if a particular dialogue is tested, and the user tries to come up with a solution to the task before him without using this dialogue), on the other hand, the testing participant must have sufficient freedom in their actions so that the situation is realistic - therefore, there is no clear indication of what to do.
After the completion of the righteous works of the user remains a detailed record of all his actions, already marked and ready for analysis - it is revised, certain points are supplied with additional comments, etc. At the “exit” of the analyst’s work, a thick written report can be provided that can be supplied with a video application — for example, by cutting out facial expressions of participants when they encountered difficulties in performing an action — so that the customer literally looks his problems at his face. (We hope to post an example of such a report on the same long-suffering inside.computerra.ru.)
“At the end of testing, participants are usually satisfied,” says Tatiana. - They are pleased to feel experts; usually people ask us to invite them next time. ”
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/17578/
All Articles