Today I received an email from Kamal of IPS, MMU.
Received my Letter of Offer to do PhD at MMU.
Registration Date: 15 Oct 2009 (Thu).
Status: Full time.
Minimum period: 2 years.
Maximum period: 5 years.
Going to go to MMU tomorrow to get the actual, hardcopy Letter of Offer.
Felt & feeling very HAPPY.
I said earlier, "I shall return."
Now, I am saying, "I am returning."
:)
:D
Showing posts with label Michael Yeap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Yeap. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Sep 7 - Yeap, Who & When to do Heuristic Evaluation (part 9 of UIC for eLearn)
Nielsen's Heuristic Evaluation Methodology: Who To Do Heuristic Evaluation
Heuristic evaluation is conducted based on a set of guidelines or heuristics. Hence, it could be carried out by virtually anyone. Usability experts are generally more effective in identifying usability problems as compared to novice evaluators. Nielsen (1995a) stated that simple usability inspection could be carried out after a few hours of training.
“Heuristic evaluation was originally developed as a usability engineering method for evaluators who had some knowledge of usability principles but were not necessarily usability experts.” (Nielsen, 1992a)
Figure 2.3: Graph showing proportion of usability problems found against number of evaluators. Taken from: Nielsen (2000a), Why You Need To Test With 5 Users.
Nielsen’s recommendation is three to five evaluators. (Nielsen, 2000a; Nielsen, 2005b) Referring to Figure 2.3, three evaluators could detect about 65% of usability problems, and five evaluators could detect about 85%. Based on Pareto concept and 80/20 rule, five evaluators would be adequate to find at least 80% of the usability problems.
Number of evaluators for satisfactory identification of high proportion of usability problems is as below.
· Double specialists (usability specialists with experience in the specific type of user interface) – 2 to 3 persons (could detect 81 to 90% of usability problems).
· Usability specialists – 3 to 5 persons (could detect 74% to 87% of usability problems.
· Novice evaluators – 14 persons (could detect more than 75% of usability problems. By using 5 novice evaluators, 51% of the usability problems could be identified. (Nielsen, 1992a; Nielsen & Molich, 1990a)
Figure 2.4: Graph showing benefits-cost ratio against number of evaluators. Taken from: Nielsen (2005b), How to Conduct a Heuristic Evaluation.
“The optimal number of evaluators in this example is four, with benefits that are 62 times greater than the costs.” (Nielsen, 2005b) Referring to Figure 2.4, high benefit-cost ratio is achieved for heuristic evaluation involving three to six evaluators.
When To Do Heuristic Evaluation
Heuristic evaluation is relatively low cost to be conducted. It could be implemented at various stages of portal or website development cycle.
Heuristic evaluation could be conducted at the stages of:
a) Storyboard,
b) Design stage,
c) Prototype of user interface,
d) “Running version” of the prototype,
e) Partial completion of the e-Learning portal or website,
f) Completion of e-Learning portal,
g) Ongoing review of an existing running e-Learning portal.
_______
source:
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap. MDP7515 PROJECT Dissertation. MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY, MALAYSIA, October 2008.
Heuristic evaluation is conducted based on a set of guidelines or heuristics. Hence, it could be carried out by virtually anyone. Usability experts are generally more effective in identifying usability problems as compared to novice evaluators. Nielsen (1995a) stated that simple usability inspection could be carried out after a few hours of training.
“Heuristic evaluation was originally developed as a usability engineering method for evaluators who had some knowledge of usability principles but were not necessarily usability experts.” (Nielsen, 1992a)
Figure 2.3: Graph showing proportion of usability problems found against number of evaluators. Taken from: Nielsen (2000a), Why You Need To Test With 5 Users.
Nielsen’s recommendation is three to five evaluators. (Nielsen, 2000a; Nielsen, 2005b) Referring to Figure 2.3, three evaluators could detect about 65% of usability problems, and five evaluators could detect about 85%. Based on Pareto concept and 80/20 rule, five evaluators would be adequate to find at least 80% of the usability problems.
Number of evaluators for satisfactory identification of high proportion of usability problems is as below.
· Double specialists (usability specialists with experience in the specific type of user interface) – 2 to 3 persons (could detect 81 to 90% of usability problems).
· Usability specialists – 3 to 5 persons (could detect 74% to 87% of usability problems.
· Novice evaluators – 14 persons (could detect more than 75% of usability problems. By using 5 novice evaluators, 51% of the usability problems could be identified. (Nielsen, 1992a; Nielsen & Molich, 1990a)
Figure 2.4: Graph showing benefits-cost ratio against number of evaluators. Taken from: Nielsen (2005b), How to Conduct a Heuristic Evaluation.
“The optimal number of evaluators in this example is four, with benefits that are 62 times greater than the costs.” (Nielsen, 2005b) Referring to Figure 2.4, high benefit-cost ratio is achieved for heuristic evaluation involving three to six evaluators.
When To Do Heuristic Evaluation
Heuristic evaluation is relatively low cost to be conducted. It could be implemented at various stages of portal or website development cycle.
Heuristic evaluation could be conducted at the stages of:
a) Storyboard,
b) Design stage,
c) Prototype of user interface,
d) “Running version” of the prototype,
e) Partial completion of the e-Learning portal or website,
f) Completion of e-Learning portal,
g) Ongoing review of an existing running e-Learning portal.
_______
source:
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap. MDP7515 PROJECT Dissertation. MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY, MALAYSIA, October 2008.
Sep 7 - Yeap, Severity of Usability Problems (part 8 of UIC for eLearn)
Nielsen's Heuristic Evaluation Methodology: Severity of Usability Problems
Blogging part 8 of USABILITY INSPECTION CRITERIA FOR E-LEARNING PORTALS.
For the practice of heuristic evaluation, usability problems are categorized into major or minor problems.
Alternatively, severity rating is assigned for each usability problem after the usability problem detected by evaluators is aggregated.
Severity of usability problems could be rated using 0 to 4 rating scale.
“ 0 = I don't agree that this is a usability problem at all.
1 = Cosmetic problem only: need not be fixed unless extra time is available on project.
2 = Minor usability problem: fixing this should be given low priority.
3 = Major usability problem: important to fix, so should be given high priority.
4 = Usability catastrophe: imperative to fix this before product can be released.” (Nielsen, 2005d)
source:
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap. MDP7515 PROJECT Dissertation. MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY, MALAYSIA, October 2008.
Blogging part 8 of USABILITY INSPECTION CRITERIA FOR E-LEARNING PORTALS.
For the practice of heuristic evaluation, usability problems are categorized into major or minor problems.
Alternatively, severity rating is assigned for each usability problem after the usability problem detected by evaluators is aggregated.
Severity of usability problems could be rated using 0 to 4 rating scale.
“ 0 = I don't agree that this is a usability problem at all.
1 = Cosmetic problem only: need not be fixed unless extra time is available on project.
2 = Minor usability problem: fixing this should be given low priority.
3 = Major usability problem: important to fix, so should be given high priority.
4 = Usability catastrophe: imperative to fix this before product can be released.” (Nielsen, 2005d)
source:
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap. MDP7515 PROJECT Dissertation. MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY, MALAYSIA, October 2008.
Sep 7 - Yeap, Nielsen's Heuristic Evaluation: Before the Ten Heuristic Principles (part 7 of UIC for eLearn)
Nielsen's Heuristic Evaluation Methodology: Before the Ten Heuristic Principles
Part 7 - blogging of : Usability Inspection Criteria of e-Learning Portals.
Smith and Mosier (1986), as quoted by Nielsen and Molich (1990a) stated that “…collections of usability guidelines have on the order of one thousand rules to follow, however, and are therefore seen as intimidating by developers. Most people probably perform heuristic evaluation on the basis of their own intuition and common sense instead.”
Rolf Molick and Jakob Nielsen made a smaller set of heuristic guideline for practical heuristic evaluation.
The Nine Usability Heuristics were:
· Simple and natural dialogue
· Speak the user’s language
· Minimize user memory load
· Be consistent
· Provide feedback
· Provide clearly marked exits
· Provide shortcuts
· Good error messages
· Prevent errors. (Molich & Nielsen, 1990; Nielsen & Molich, 1990a)
This list of nine heuristic principles were developed during Nielsen’s and Molich’s many years of teaching and consulting experience in the field of usability engineering. (Nielsen & Molich, 1989; Nielsen & Molich, 1990a)
Nielsen (1994a) explained about the research of 249 usability problems which were detected from 11 earlier projects. Out of the 11 projects, 7 were heuristic evaluation and 4 were user testing projects. He compiled 101 usability heuristics and rated each of them as related to each of 249 usability problems. He did a factor analysis and selected 7 most significant factors.
Table 2.2: 101 Usability Heuristics. Taken from Nielsen (1994b). Enhancing the Explanatory Power of Usability Heuristics.
Based on Factor Analysis,
· 7 most significant factors were selected.
· All the 7 usability heuristics (see Table 2.3) are sorted and ranked according its significance (% value).
· One evaluator by using these 7 usability heuristics should be able to identify about 30.4% of all usability problems (see Figure 2.1). In my opinion, Nielsen may have felt that 30.4% was not sufficient.
Table 2.3: Ranking of the 7 most significant Factors (result of Factor Analysis). Taken from: Nielsen (1994a), Enhancing the Explanatory Power of Usability Heuristics.
Figure 2.1: Pareto Chart showing the 7 most significant Factors (resulting from Factor Analysis). Chart drawing using data from: Nielsen (1994a), Enhancing the Explanatory Power of Usability Heuristics.
Molich and Nielsen (1990) were popular with their Nine Heuristics for heuristic evaluation. Nielsen (1994b) added in Factor 8 and Factor 9 which were “Aesthetic and minimalist design” and “Help users recognise, diagnose and recover from errors.” Hence, the revised Nine Heuristics were established.
With this Nine Heuristics, a single evaluator could identify about 34.4% of all usability problems.
Figure 2.2: Pareto Chart showing the 10 most significant Factors (resulting from Factor Analysis). Chart drawing using data from: Nielsen (1994a), Enhancing the Explanatory Power of Usability Heuristics.
Another usability heuristic that was deemed important, “Help and documentation”, was subsequently added in to be the 10th heuristics. (Nielsen, 1994b; Nielsen, 2005a) With this Ten Heuristics, a single evaluator could identify about 36.4% of all usability problems (see Figure 2.2).
Due to this rather low potential achievement (36.4% only), it is important to use multiple evaluators doing heuristic evaluation on individual basis.
Nielsen's Heuristic Evaluation Methodology: Ten Heuristics Principles
Ten Usability Heuristics for heuristic evaluation are:-
“1 Visibility of system status
The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time.
2 Match between system and the real world
The system should speak the users' language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. Follow real-world conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order.
3 User control and freedom
Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked "emergency exit" to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.
4 Consistency and standards
Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions.
5 Error prevention
Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a problem from occurring in the first place. Either eliminate error-prone conditions or check for them and present users with a confirmation option before they commit to the action.
6 Recognition rather than recall
Minimize the user's memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate.
7 Flexibility and efficiency of use
Accelerators -- unseen by the novice user -- may often speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both inexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions.
8 Aesthetic and minimalist design
Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility.
9 Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors
Error messages should be expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
10 Help and documentation
Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to search, focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large.” (Nielsen, 1994b; Nielsen, 2005a)
source:
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap.
MDP7515 PROJECT
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Multimedia (E-Learning Technologies)
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
MALAYSIA
October 2008.
References:
Molich, R., and Nielsen, J. (1990). Improving a Human-Computer Dialogue: What designers know about traditional interface design. Communication of the ACM. (March 1990).
Nielsen, J., and Molich, R. (1989). Teaching User Interface Design based on Usability Engineering. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 21, 1 (July 1989), 45-48.
Nielsen, J., and Molich, R. (1990a). Heuristic Evaluation of User Interfaces. Proceedings ACM CHI'90 Conf. (Seattle, WA, 1 -5 April), 249-256.
Nielsen, J. (1992a). Finding Usability Problems Through Heuristic Evaluation. Proceedings ACM CHI'92 Conference (Monterey, CA, May 3 -7), 373-380.
Nielsen, J. (1992b). The Usability Engineering Life Cycle. IEEE Computer 25, 3 (March 1992), 12-22. Retrieved Jan 1, 2006 from http://web.njit.edu/~jerry/CIS-677/Articles/Nielsen-IEEE-1992.pdf
Nielsen, J. and Landauer, T.K. (1993a). A Mathematical Model of the Finding of Usability Problems. Proceeding ACM INTERCHI’93 (April 24-29, 1993), 206-213.
Nielsen, J. and Phillips, V.L. (1993b). Estimating the Relative Usability of Two Interfaces: Heuristic, Formal, and Empicircal Methods Compared. Proceeding ACM INTERCHI’93 (April 24-29, 1993), 214-221.
Nielsen, J. (1994a). Enhancing the Explanatory Power of Usability Heuristics. Proceeding ACM CHI'94 Conf. (Boston, MA, April 24-28), 152-158.
Nielsen, J. (1994b). Heuristic Evaluation. In Nielsen, J. and Mack, R.L. (eds), Usability Inpection Methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Nielsen, J. and Mack, R.L. (eds)(1994). Usability Inspection Methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Nielsen, J. (1995a). Technology Transfer of Heuristic Evaluation and Usability Inspection. IFIP INTERACT'95 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Lillehammer, Norway, June 27, 1995). Retrieved Dec 23, 2005 from http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/learning_inspection.html
Nielsen, J. (1995b). Usability Inspection Methods. Proceeding ACM CHI ’95. Retrieved Dec 23, 2005 from http://sigchi.org/chi95/Electronic/documnts/tutors/jn_bdy.htm
Nielsen, J. (2000a). Why You Need To Test With 5 Users. Jakob Nielsen’s Alerbox, March 19,2000. Retrieved Dec 23, 2005 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html
Nielsen, J. (2003). Usability 101: Introduction to Usability. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox, Aug 25, 2003. Retrieved Jan 1, 2006 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html
Nielsen, J. (2005a). Ten Usability Heuristics. Retrieved Dec 23, 2005 from http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html
Nielsen, J. (2005b). How to Conduct a Heuristic Evaluation. Retrieved Dec 23, 2005 from http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_evaluation.html
Nielsen, J. (2005c). Characteristics of Usability Problems Found by Heuristic Evaluation. Retrieved Jan 1, 2006 from http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/usability_problems.html
Nielsen, J. (2005d). Severity Ratings for Usability Problems. Retrieved Dec 23, 2005 from http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/severityrating.html
Nielsen, J. (2005e). Summary of Usability Inspection Methods. Retrieved Dec 23, 2005 from http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/inspection_summary.html
Part 7 - blogging of : Usability Inspection Criteria of e-Learning Portals.
Smith and Mosier (1986), as quoted by Nielsen and Molich (1990a) stated that “…collections of usability guidelines have on the order of one thousand rules to follow, however, and are therefore seen as intimidating by developers. Most people probably perform heuristic evaluation on the basis of their own intuition and common sense instead.”
Rolf Molick and Jakob Nielsen made a smaller set of heuristic guideline for practical heuristic evaluation.
The Nine Usability Heuristics were:
· Simple and natural dialogue
· Speak the user’s language
· Minimize user memory load
· Be consistent
· Provide feedback
· Provide clearly marked exits
· Provide shortcuts
· Good error messages
· Prevent errors. (Molich & Nielsen, 1990; Nielsen & Molich, 1990a)
This list of nine heuristic principles were developed during Nielsen’s and Molich’s many years of teaching and consulting experience in the field of usability engineering. (Nielsen & Molich, 1989; Nielsen & Molich, 1990a)
Nielsen (1994a) explained about the research of 249 usability problems which were detected from 11 earlier projects. Out of the 11 projects, 7 were heuristic evaluation and 4 were user testing projects. He compiled 101 usability heuristics and rated each of them as related to each of 249 usability problems. He did a factor analysis and selected 7 most significant factors.
Table 2.2: 101 Usability Heuristics. Taken from Nielsen (1994b). Enhancing the Explanatory Power of Usability Heuristics.
Based on Factor Analysis,
· 7 most significant factors were selected.
· All the 7 usability heuristics (see Table 2.3) are sorted and ranked according its significance (% value).
· One evaluator by using these 7 usability heuristics should be able to identify about 30.4% of all usability problems (see Figure 2.1). In my opinion, Nielsen may have felt that 30.4% was not sufficient.
Table 2.3: Ranking of the 7 most significant Factors (result of Factor Analysis). Taken from: Nielsen (1994a), Enhancing the Explanatory Power of Usability Heuristics.
Figure 2.1: Pareto Chart showing the 7 most significant Factors (resulting from Factor Analysis). Chart drawing using data from: Nielsen (1994a), Enhancing the Explanatory Power of Usability Heuristics.
Molich and Nielsen (1990) were popular with their Nine Heuristics for heuristic evaluation. Nielsen (1994b) added in Factor 8 and Factor 9 which were “Aesthetic and minimalist design” and “Help users recognise, diagnose and recover from errors.” Hence, the revised Nine Heuristics were established.
With this Nine Heuristics, a single evaluator could identify about 34.4% of all usability problems.
Figure 2.2: Pareto Chart showing the 10 most significant Factors (resulting from Factor Analysis). Chart drawing using data from: Nielsen (1994a), Enhancing the Explanatory Power of Usability Heuristics.
Another usability heuristic that was deemed important, “Help and documentation”, was subsequently added in to be the 10th heuristics. (Nielsen, 1994b; Nielsen, 2005a) With this Ten Heuristics, a single evaluator could identify about 36.4% of all usability problems (see Figure 2.2).
Due to this rather low potential achievement (36.4% only), it is important to use multiple evaluators doing heuristic evaluation on individual basis.
Nielsen's Heuristic Evaluation Methodology: Ten Heuristics Principles
Ten Usability Heuristics for heuristic evaluation are:-
“1 Visibility of system status
The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time.
2 Match between system and the real world
The system should speak the users' language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. Follow real-world conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order.
3 User control and freedom
Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked "emergency exit" to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.
4 Consistency and standards
Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions.
5 Error prevention
Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a problem from occurring in the first place. Either eliminate error-prone conditions or check for them and present users with a confirmation option before they commit to the action.
6 Recognition rather than recall
Minimize the user's memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate.
7 Flexibility and efficiency of use
Accelerators -- unseen by the novice user -- may often speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both inexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions.
8 Aesthetic and minimalist design
Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility.
9 Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors
Error messages should be expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
10 Help and documentation
Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to search, focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large.” (Nielsen, 1994b; Nielsen, 2005a)
source:
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap.
MDP7515 PROJECT
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Multimedia (E-Learning Technologies)
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
MALAYSIA
October 2008.
References:
Molich, R., and Nielsen, J. (1990). Improving a Human-Computer Dialogue: What designers know about traditional interface design. Communication of the ACM. (March 1990).
Nielsen, J., and Molich, R. (1989). Teaching User Interface Design based on Usability Engineering. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 21, 1 (July 1989), 45-48.
Nielsen, J., and Molich, R. (1990a). Heuristic Evaluation of User Interfaces. Proceedings ACM CHI'90 Conf. (Seattle, WA, 1 -5 April), 249-256.
Nielsen, J. (1992a). Finding Usability Problems Through Heuristic Evaluation. Proceedings ACM CHI'92 Conference (Monterey, CA, May 3 -7), 373-380.
Nielsen, J. (1992b). The Usability Engineering Life Cycle. IEEE Computer 25, 3 (March 1992), 12-22. Retrieved Jan 1, 2006 from http://web.njit.edu/~jerry/CIS-677/Articles/Nielsen-IEEE-1992.pdf
Nielsen, J. and Landauer, T.K. (1993a). A Mathematical Model of the Finding of Usability Problems. Proceeding ACM INTERCHI’93 (April 24-29, 1993), 206-213.
Nielsen, J. and Phillips, V.L. (1993b). Estimating the Relative Usability of Two Interfaces: Heuristic, Formal, and Empicircal Methods Compared. Proceeding ACM INTERCHI’93 (April 24-29, 1993), 214-221.
Nielsen, J. (1994a). Enhancing the Explanatory Power of Usability Heuristics. Proceeding ACM CHI'94 Conf. (Boston, MA, April 24-28), 152-158.
Nielsen, J. (1994b). Heuristic Evaluation. In Nielsen, J. and Mack, R.L. (eds), Usability Inpection Methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Nielsen, J. and Mack, R.L. (eds)(1994). Usability Inspection Methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Nielsen, J. (1995a). Technology Transfer of Heuristic Evaluation and Usability Inspection. IFIP INTERACT'95 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Lillehammer, Norway, June 27, 1995). Retrieved Dec 23, 2005 from http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/learning_inspection.html
Nielsen, J. (1995b). Usability Inspection Methods. Proceeding ACM CHI ’95. Retrieved Dec 23, 2005 from http://sigchi.org/chi95/Electronic/documnts/tutors/jn_bdy.htm
Nielsen, J. (2000a). Why You Need To Test With 5 Users. Jakob Nielsen’s Alerbox, March 19,2000. Retrieved Dec 23, 2005 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html
Nielsen, J. (2003). Usability 101: Introduction to Usability. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox, Aug 25, 2003. Retrieved Jan 1, 2006 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html
Nielsen, J. (2005a). Ten Usability Heuristics. Retrieved Dec 23, 2005 from http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html
Nielsen, J. (2005b). How to Conduct a Heuristic Evaluation. Retrieved Dec 23, 2005 from http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_evaluation.html
Nielsen, J. (2005c). Characteristics of Usability Problems Found by Heuristic Evaluation. Retrieved Jan 1, 2006 from http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/usability_problems.html
Nielsen, J. (2005d). Severity Ratings for Usability Problems. Retrieved Dec 23, 2005 from http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/severityrating.html
Nielsen, J. (2005e). Summary of Usability Inspection Methods. Retrieved Dec 23, 2005 from http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/inspection_summary.html
Sep 6 - Yeap, Advantages & Limitations of Heuristic Evaluation (part 6 of UIC for e-Learn)
Advantages & Limitations of Heuristic Evaluation
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals: Part 6.
A major advantage is the ease of finding usability problem with the aid of the heuristics principles. “Major usability problems have a higher probability than minor problems of being found in a heuristic evaluation, but about twice as many minor problems are found in absolute numbers.” (Nielsen, 1992a)
Another major advantage is no need for numerous users and usability lab. “Heuristic evaluation is easier to set up as there is no need to bring in users or to analyze interaction protocols, and exploits expert scientific and experiential knowledge of general problems and solutions.” (Nielsen & Landauer, 1993a)
Advantages of heuristic evaluation are
· “It is cheap.
· It is intuitive and it is easy to motivate people to do it.
· It does not require advance planning.
· It can be used early in the development process.” (Nielsen & Molich, 1990a)
Other advantages of heuristic evaluation include:
· Can start using simple usability inspection after a few hours of training.
· Usability inspection methods can be used in many different stages of the system development lifecycle.
· Usability inspection can be integrated easily into many established system development practices.
· Lists of usability problems are available immediately after the usability inspection. (Nielsen, 1995a)
· Lists of interface that need to be improved could be quickly distributed for immediate action.
Limitations of heuristic evaluation are:
· Identifies usability problems without providing direct suggestions of solutions.
· Influenced by the current mindset of the evaluators, so-called “evaluator effect.”
· Does not normally generate breakthroughs in the evaluated design. (Nielsen & Molich, 1990a)
source:
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap.
MDP7515 PROJECT
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Multimedia (E-Learning Technologies)
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
MALAYSIA
October 2008.
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals: Part 6.
A major advantage is the ease of finding usability problem with the aid of the heuristics principles. “Major usability problems have a higher probability than minor problems of being found in a heuristic evaluation, but about twice as many minor problems are found in absolute numbers.” (Nielsen, 1992a)
Another major advantage is no need for numerous users and usability lab. “Heuristic evaluation is easier to set up as there is no need to bring in users or to analyze interaction protocols, and exploits expert scientific and experiential knowledge of general problems and solutions.” (Nielsen & Landauer, 1993a)
Advantages of heuristic evaluation are
· “It is cheap.
· It is intuitive and it is easy to motivate people to do it.
· It does not require advance planning.
· It can be used early in the development process.” (Nielsen & Molich, 1990a)
Other advantages of heuristic evaluation include:
· Can start using simple usability inspection after a few hours of training.
· Usability inspection methods can be used in many different stages of the system development lifecycle.
· Usability inspection can be integrated easily into many established system development practices.
· Lists of usability problems are available immediately after the usability inspection. (Nielsen, 1995a)
· Lists of interface that need to be improved could be quickly distributed for immediate action.
Limitations of heuristic evaluation are:
· Identifies usability problems without providing direct suggestions of solutions.
· Influenced by the current mindset of the evaluators, so-called “evaluator effect.”
· Does not normally generate breakthroughs in the evaluated design. (Nielsen & Molich, 1990a)
source:
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap.
MDP7515 PROJECT
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Multimedia (E-Learning Technologies)
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
MALAYSIA
October 2008.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Sep 6 - Yeap, part 5 Methods of Usability Inspection; Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals
Part 5: Methods of Usability Inspection
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap.
MDP7515 PROJECT
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Multimedia (E-Learning Technologies)
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
MALAYSIA
October 2008
Methods of Usability Inspection
Most Popular Usability Inspection Methods
Hollingsed and Novick (2007) stated that heuristic evaluation and cognitive walkthrough appeared to be the most actively used and researched techniques.
Heuristic Evaluation
Heuristic evaluation is also found to be an economical and relatively easy usability evaluation method.
Ssemugabi & de Villiers (2007) had concluded in their research of usability on e-learning applications that heuristic evaluation which was conducted by a competent group of experts, was an appropriate, efficient, and highly effective usability evaluation method for elearning applications.
Heuristic evaluation could also be done with a web-based tool.
Ardito et al (2006) had used Systematic Usability Inspection Tool (SUIT) to help the evaluation conduct the heuristic evaluation. SUIT is an Internet-based tool that supports the evaluators during the usability inspection of software applications.
SUIT makes it possible to reach inspectors everywhere, guiding them in their activities. 4 major processes involved with heuristic evaluation aided with SUIT are:
1. Inspection planning
2. Problem detection
3. Report collection
4. Discussion.
Cognitive Walkthrough
“Cognitive walkthrough is a usability inspection method that evaluates the design of a user interface for its ease of exploratory learning, based on a cognitive model of learning and use. The process of the cognitive walkthrough comprises a preparatory phase and an analysis phase. During the preparatory phase, the experimenters determine the interface to be used, its likely users, the task, and the actions to be taken during the task.” (Hollingsed & Novick, 2007)
During the analysis phase, the usability evaluators would carry out the four steps (Lewis & Polson, 1991):
1. The user sets a goal that is to be completed within the system.
2. The user determines the existing available actions.
3. The user selects the action which will take him closer to his goal.
4. The user does the action and evaluates the feedback from the system.
Pluralistic Walkthrough
Pluralistic usability walkthrough (Bias, 1994) is usability walkthrough which incorporates usability experts, product developers, members of the product team and representative users in the process.
Pluralistic usability walkthrough has five characteristics:
1. Inclusion of usability professionals, representative users and product developers.
2. The application’s screens are similar to how they would appear to the user.
3. All evaluators would assume the role of the user.
4. Evaluators write down what actions they, as users, would take for each screen before the group discusses the screens.
5. During discussion of each screen, the representative users would speak first. (Hollingsed and Novick, 2007)
Formal Usability Inspection
Formal usability inspection is a review by the interface designer and his or her peers of users’ potential task performance (Kahn & Prail, 1994). The reviewers consist of usability experts, the review can be quicker, more thorough, and more technical than in the pluralistic walkthrough. The goal is to identify the maximum number of defects in the user interface. Formal usability inspections require definitions of user profiles and task scenarios. (Hollingsed & Novick, 2007)
Empirical Usability Evaluation
Empirical usability evaluation is an approach that is very different from usability inspection.
Wiberg (2003) stated examples of empirical usability evaluation were (a) think-aloud protocol, (b) use data collection, (c) clinical experiments, (d) surveys and questionnaires, (e) interviews.
Clinical experiments emphasized on statistics for measured clinical aspects such as eye gaze, heart rate, skin color and body heat.
“Both user testing… and heuristic evaluation… can be considered as interface debugging tests with respect to their positioning in the usability engineering lifecycle… Their goal is to find and document as many usability problems in a user interface design as possible so that the problems can be corrected in future versions… user testing is based on bringing real users in and observing them as they interact with the…” (Nielsen & Landauer, 1993a)
User testing is generally more time consuming and often conducted in usability lab. Parameters of usability testing include time to perform specific task, number of clicks, time to download and time of screen viewing.
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap.
MDP7515 PROJECT
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Multimedia (E-Learning Technologies)
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
MALAYSIA
October 2008
Methods of Usability Inspection
Most Popular Usability Inspection Methods
Hollingsed and Novick (2007) stated that heuristic evaluation and cognitive walkthrough appeared to be the most actively used and researched techniques.
Heuristic Evaluation
Heuristic evaluation is also found to be an economical and relatively easy usability evaluation method.
Ssemugabi & de Villiers (2007) had concluded in their research of usability on e-learning applications that heuristic evaluation which was conducted by a competent group of experts, was an appropriate, efficient, and highly effective usability evaluation method for elearning applications.
Heuristic evaluation could also be done with a web-based tool.
Ardito et al (2006) had used Systematic Usability Inspection Tool (SUIT) to help the evaluation conduct the heuristic evaluation. SUIT is an Internet-based tool that supports the evaluators during the usability inspection of software applications.
SUIT makes it possible to reach inspectors everywhere, guiding them in their activities. 4 major processes involved with heuristic evaluation aided with SUIT are:
1. Inspection planning
2. Problem detection
3. Report collection
4. Discussion.
Cognitive Walkthrough
“Cognitive walkthrough is a usability inspection method that evaluates the design of a user interface for its ease of exploratory learning, based on a cognitive model of learning and use. The process of the cognitive walkthrough comprises a preparatory phase and an analysis phase. During the preparatory phase, the experimenters determine the interface to be used, its likely users, the task, and the actions to be taken during the task.” (Hollingsed & Novick, 2007)
During the analysis phase, the usability evaluators would carry out the four steps (Lewis & Polson, 1991):
1. The user sets a goal that is to be completed within the system.
2. The user determines the existing available actions.
3. The user selects the action which will take him closer to his goal.
4. The user does the action and evaluates the feedback from the system.
Pluralistic Walkthrough
Pluralistic usability walkthrough (Bias, 1994) is usability walkthrough which incorporates usability experts, product developers, members of the product team and representative users in the process.
Pluralistic usability walkthrough has five characteristics:
1. Inclusion of usability professionals, representative users and product developers.
2. The application’s screens are similar to how they would appear to the user.
3. All evaluators would assume the role of the user.
4. Evaluators write down what actions they, as users, would take for each screen before the group discusses the screens.
5. During discussion of each screen, the representative users would speak first. (Hollingsed and Novick, 2007)
Formal Usability Inspection
Formal usability inspection is a review by the interface designer and his or her peers of users’ potential task performance (Kahn & Prail, 1994). The reviewers consist of usability experts, the review can be quicker, more thorough, and more technical than in the pluralistic walkthrough. The goal is to identify the maximum number of defects in the user interface. Formal usability inspections require definitions of user profiles and task scenarios. (Hollingsed & Novick, 2007)
Empirical Usability Evaluation
Empirical usability evaluation is an approach that is very different from usability inspection.
Wiberg (2003) stated examples of empirical usability evaluation were (a) think-aloud protocol, (b) use data collection, (c) clinical experiments, (d) surveys and questionnaires, (e) interviews.
Clinical experiments emphasized on statistics for measured clinical aspects such as eye gaze, heart rate, skin color and body heat.
“Both user testing… and heuristic evaluation… can be considered as interface debugging tests with respect to their positioning in the usability engineering lifecycle… Their goal is to find and document as many usability problems in a user interface design as possible so that the problems can be corrected in future versions… user testing is based on bringing real users in and observing them as they interact with the…” (Nielsen & Landauer, 1993a)
User testing is generally more time consuming and often conducted in usability lab. Parameters of usability testing include time to perform specific task, number of clicks, time to download and time of screen viewing.
Sep 6 - Yeap, Methods of Usability Inspection (part 4 of Usability Inspection Criteria of e-Learning Portals)
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap.
Methods of Usability Inspection
According to Nielsen and Molich (1990a), “There are basically four ways to
evaluate a user interface:
· Formally by some analysis technique,
· Automatically by a computerized procedure,
· Empirically by experiments with test users, and
· Heuristically by simply looking at the inter-face and passing judgement according to ones own opinion.”
Nielsen (1995b) classified the types of usability inspection into:
· “Heuristic evaluation is the most informal method and involves having usability specialists judge whether each dialogue element follows established usability principles (the "heuristics").” (Nielsen, 1995b)
· “Heuristic estimation is a variant in which the inspectors are asked to estimate the relative usability of two (or more) designs in quantitative terms (typically expected user performance).” (Nielsen, 1995b)
· “Cognitive walkthrough uses a more explicitly detailed procedure to simulate a user's problem-solving process at each step through the dialogue, checking if the simulated user's goals and memory content can be assumed to lead to the next correct action.” (Nielsen, 1995b)
· “Pluralistic walkthrough uses group meetings where users, developers, and human factors people step through a scenario, discussing each dialogue element.” (Nielsen, 1995b) Developers, users, and human factors people get together in a meeting and go through the e-learning portal step-by-step using a task scenario. They discuss and review the usability issues.
· “Feature inspection lists sequences of features used to accomplish typical tasks, checks for long sequences, cumbersome steps, steps that would not be natural for users to try, and steps that require extensive knowledge/experience in order to assess a proposed feature set.” (Nielsen, 1995b) Sometimes only a particular function in the e-learning portal is inspected, which is called feature inspection. For instance, a feature inspection could be done on the Quizzes feature of the e-learning portal.
· “Consistency inspection has designers who represent multiple other projects inspect an interface to see whether it does things in the same way as their own designs.” (Nielsen, 1995b) Consistency inspection involves web designers from other module of the portal to inspect the user interface, to ensure the consistency of the interaction the entire e-learning portal.
· “Standards inspection has an expert on an interface standard inspect the interface for compliance.” (Nielsen, 1995b) A usability consultant or usability professional inspects the interface to make sure it complies with the international standards or other predetermined standards.
· “Formal usability inspection combines individual and group inspections in a six-step procedure with strictly defined roles to....with elements of both heuristic evaluation and a simplified form of cognitive walkthroughs.” (Nielsen, 1995b; Nielsen, 2005e)
-------------
source:
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap.
MDP7515 PROJECT
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Multimedia (E-Learning Technologies)
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
MALAYSIA
October 2008
TeckChong Yeap.
Methods of Usability Inspection
According to Nielsen and Molich (1990a), “There are basically four ways to
evaluate a user interface:
· Formally by some analysis technique,
· Automatically by a computerized procedure,
· Empirically by experiments with test users, and
· Heuristically by simply looking at the inter-face and passing judgement according to ones own opinion.”
Nielsen (1995b) classified the types of usability inspection into:
· “Heuristic evaluation is the most informal method and involves having usability specialists judge whether each dialogue element follows established usability principles (the "heuristics").” (Nielsen, 1995b)
· “Heuristic estimation is a variant in which the inspectors are asked to estimate the relative usability of two (or more) designs in quantitative terms (typically expected user performance).” (Nielsen, 1995b)
· “Cognitive walkthrough uses a more explicitly detailed procedure to simulate a user's problem-solving process at each step through the dialogue, checking if the simulated user's goals and memory content can be assumed to lead to the next correct action.” (Nielsen, 1995b)
· “Pluralistic walkthrough uses group meetings where users, developers, and human factors people step through a scenario, discussing each dialogue element.” (Nielsen, 1995b) Developers, users, and human factors people get together in a meeting and go through the e-learning portal step-by-step using a task scenario. They discuss and review the usability issues.
· “Feature inspection lists sequences of features used to accomplish typical tasks, checks for long sequences, cumbersome steps, steps that would not be natural for users to try, and steps that require extensive knowledge/experience in order to assess a proposed feature set.” (Nielsen, 1995b) Sometimes only a particular function in the e-learning portal is inspected, which is called feature inspection. For instance, a feature inspection could be done on the Quizzes feature of the e-learning portal.
· “Consistency inspection has designers who represent multiple other projects inspect an interface to see whether it does things in the same way as their own designs.” (Nielsen, 1995b) Consistency inspection involves web designers from other module of the portal to inspect the user interface, to ensure the consistency of the interaction the entire e-learning portal.
· “Standards inspection has an expert on an interface standard inspect the interface for compliance.” (Nielsen, 1995b) A usability consultant or usability professional inspects the interface to make sure it complies with the international standards or other predetermined standards.
· “Formal usability inspection combines individual and group inspections in a six-step procedure with strictly defined roles to....with elements of both heuristic evaluation and a simplified form of cognitive walkthroughs.” (Nielsen, 1995b; Nielsen, 2005e)
-------------
source:
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap.
MDP7515 PROJECT
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Multimedia (E-Learning Technologies)
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
MALAYSIA
October 2008
Sep 6 - Yeap, Relevance of the Research to develop a set of Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals (part 3 of UIC for eLearn)
Relevance of the Research
to develop a set of
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals
Analysis and developing a set of usability inspection criteria for elearning portal is important because:
a) Existing heuristic evaluation is used generally for any type of user interface. It would be better to have a modified set of criteria specifically for elearning portals.
b) Usability inspection enables usability problems to be detected and rectified.
c) E-Learning portal of high usability will enable learners to find it easy to use and navigate.
d) E-Learning portal of high usability will enhance more effective learning.
e) Excellence in usability would contribute indirectly toward the success of an e-learning portal; hence indirectly increase the commercial value and profitability of the e-learning portal.
f) There is a need to develop a set of usability inspection criteria suitable for the usability inspection of e-learning portals.
Capra (2006) had in the course of her research, developed guidelines for usability problem descriptions (UPD). UPD guidelines were somewhat similar to the usability inspection criteria which is the intent of my research.
Ryu (2005) had researched to develop usability questionnaire for electronic mobile products. He had reviewed and studied on usability criteria which were suitable for electronic mobile products, such as mobile phones and PDAs.
Sommerwell (2004) researched on creation and testing of a new set of heuristics which are tailored to the large screen information exhibit (LSIE) system. In other words, he developed a set of usability inspection criteria for LSIE system.
Federoff (2002) had discussed and studied the use of Nielsen’s Ten Heuristics and her suggested games usability criteria to evaluate usability of video games. She eventually produced a list of usability criteria suitable for evaluation of games.
Wiberg (2003) explored the potential of traditional usability evaluation approaches to deal with issues related to user experience. Her research was on evaluation of usability and fun (as related to entertainment).
McDermand (2006) researched on the usability and content analysis of television websites.
Cooper (2006) had a research to evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, credibility, and therefore, the overall usability of the CottonLink media resource Web site.
Axtell (2006) studied on the usability of the USDA-ARS Ogallala Initiative Web site to determine the external user preferences.
Tauro (2008) did a research whereby one study was to evaluate the usability of Vizblog.
Cox (1998) researched on results synthesis of heuristic evaluation. He studied on process of synthesis of heuristic evaluation results which were basically usability problems identified.
Woolrich (2001) studied on the scope and accuracy of usability inspection method of heuristic evaluation.
Hence, it is concluded that Usability is a popular and important area of research.
-------------
source:
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap.
MDP7515 PROJECT
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Multimedia (E-Learning Technologies)
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
MALAYSIA
October 2008
to develop a set of
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals
Analysis and developing a set of usability inspection criteria for elearning portal is important because:
a) Existing heuristic evaluation is used generally for any type of user interface. It would be better to have a modified set of criteria specifically for elearning portals.
b) Usability inspection enables usability problems to be detected and rectified.
c) E-Learning portal of high usability will enable learners to find it easy to use and navigate.
d) E-Learning portal of high usability will enhance more effective learning.
e) Excellence in usability would contribute indirectly toward the success of an e-learning portal; hence indirectly increase the commercial value and profitability of the e-learning portal.
f) There is a need to develop a set of usability inspection criteria suitable for the usability inspection of e-learning portals.
Capra (2006) had in the course of her research, developed guidelines for usability problem descriptions (UPD). UPD guidelines were somewhat similar to the usability inspection criteria which is the intent of my research.
Ryu (2005) had researched to develop usability questionnaire for electronic mobile products. He had reviewed and studied on usability criteria which were suitable for electronic mobile products, such as mobile phones and PDAs.
Sommerwell (2004) researched on creation and testing of a new set of heuristics which are tailored to the large screen information exhibit (LSIE) system. In other words, he developed a set of usability inspection criteria for LSIE system.
Federoff (2002) had discussed and studied the use of Nielsen’s Ten Heuristics and her suggested games usability criteria to evaluate usability of video games. She eventually produced a list of usability criteria suitable for evaluation of games.
Wiberg (2003) explored the potential of traditional usability evaluation approaches to deal with issues related to user experience. Her research was on evaluation of usability and fun (as related to entertainment).
McDermand (2006) researched on the usability and content analysis of television websites.
Cooper (2006) had a research to evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, credibility, and therefore, the overall usability of the CottonLink media resource Web site.
Axtell (2006) studied on the usability of the USDA-ARS Ogallala Initiative Web site to determine the external user preferences.
Tauro (2008) did a research whereby one study was to evaluate the usability of Vizblog.
Cox (1998) researched on results synthesis of heuristic evaluation. He studied on process of synthesis of heuristic evaluation results which were basically usability problems identified.
Woolrich (2001) studied on the scope and accuracy of usability inspection method of heuristic evaluation.
Hence, it is concluded that Usability is a popular and important area of research.
-------------
source:
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap.
MDP7515 PROJECT
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Multimedia (E-Learning Technologies)
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
MALAYSIA
October 2008
Sep 6 - Yeap, Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals (part 2)
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap.
MDP7515 PROJECT
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Multimedia (E-Learning Technologies)
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
MALAYSIA
October 2008
Usability Inspection Criteria
Usability of e-learning portal, website, software and courseware is important. If the user interface is not user friendly, this may cause it to be more difficult to be used, hence, disliked by the learners and users. Subsequently, it does not become popular, and consequentially, it fails to sell.
Nielsen (1994b) has popularised the heuristic evaluation which is one of the usability inspection methodologies. He uses the Ten Heuristic Principles as evaluation criteria. His methodology is popularly used to evaluate user interface of many web portals and websites. Heuristic evaluation is low cost and simplistic to be implemented.
Kapoun (1998) has popularised the Five Criteria of Evaluating Web Pages. His web evaluation criteria are quoted in many university and college libraries’ websites (Yeap, 2005b). E-Learning content need to be accurate and unbiased in information, and contain correct coverage of knowledge. Hence, using Kapoun’s 5 Web Evaluation Criteria is realistic for evaluating usability of e-Learning portals.
There are many learning theories, learning models and instructional strategies that are important for good e-Learning portal. Most importantly, the e-Learning portal must be effective in delivering knowledge to the learners. What are some of these important principles or characteristics for usability of e-Learning portal?
Usability inspection criteria is important to enable usability practitioner to conduct usability inspection. Most usability inspection criteria written in most books apply to web site or software programs. Hence, there is a need to develop a set of usability inspection criteria which is relevant for evaluating usability of e-learning portals.
TeckChong Yeap.
MDP7515 PROJECT
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Multimedia (E-Learning Technologies)
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
MALAYSIA
October 2008
Usability Inspection Criteria
Usability of e-learning portal, website, software and courseware is important. If the user interface is not user friendly, this may cause it to be more difficult to be used, hence, disliked by the learners and users. Subsequently, it does not become popular, and consequentially, it fails to sell.
Nielsen (1994b) has popularised the heuristic evaluation which is one of the usability inspection methodologies. He uses the Ten Heuristic Principles as evaluation criteria. His methodology is popularly used to evaluate user interface of many web portals and websites. Heuristic evaluation is low cost and simplistic to be implemented.
Kapoun (1998) has popularised the Five Criteria of Evaluating Web Pages. His web evaluation criteria are quoted in many university and college libraries’ websites (Yeap, 2005b). E-Learning content need to be accurate and unbiased in information, and contain correct coverage of knowledge. Hence, using Kapoun’s 5 Web Evaluation Criteria is realistic for evaluating usability of e-Learning portals.
There are many learning theories, learning models and instructional strategies that are important for good e-Learning portal. Most importantly, the e-Learning portal must be effective in delivering knowledge to the learners. What are some of these important principles or characteristics for usability of e-Learning portal?
Usability inspection criteria is important to enable usability practitioner to conduct usability inspection. Most usability inspection criteria written in most books apply to web site or software programs. Hence, there is a need to develop a set of usability inspection criteria which is relevant for evaluating usability of e-learning portals.
Sep 6 - Yeap, Importance of Usability of e-Learning Portal (part 1 of Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals)
Importance of Usability of e-Learning Portal
“The business benefits of adding Usability to a product development process include:
· Increased productivity
· Increased sales and revenues
· Decreased training and support costs
· Reduced development time and costs
· Reduced maintenance costs
· Increased customer satisfaction.” (UPA, 2005)
“Learners must not be distracted from their initial learning task by unnecessary or inconvenient features of the screen design. A bad usability does hurt learning by increasing the extraneous cognitive load.” (Domagk et al, 2004)
Hence, good usability of e-learning portal is crucial for enhancing the learning process.
Usability is important for e-learning portal to ensure that:
· Learning would be effective for most of the learners.
· User interface is user-friendly and easy to navigate.
· Learning content has the element of self-paced and self-directed. Learning may not necessarily be linear nor sequential. Learner can choose which module, which lesson and the sequence he desires.
· E-Learning portal is free of bugs and intelligently prevent errors by learners.
· E-Learning content is accurate, complete and of non-biased content.
· Design is simplistic and does not hinder the process of learning.
· E-Learning portal could run smoothly and cater to the needs of learners using broadband Internet as well as dial up Internet connection.
· Learner could choose rich media or text-based. Learner could choose to read or listen to narration or both.
· Help, FAQ (frequently asked question) and documentation is available to guide the learners in usage of e-Learning portal.
· User interface is consistent and has similar looks and feel throughout an entire courseware.
-----------
source:
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap.
MDP7515 PROJECT
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Multimedia (E-Learning Technologies)
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
MALAYSIA
October 2008
“The business benefits of adding Usability to a product development process include:
· Increased productivity
· Increased sales and revenues
· Decreased training and support costs
· Reduced development time and costs
· Reduced maintenance costs
· Increased customer satisfaction.” (UPA, 2005)
“Learners must not be distracted from their initial learning task by unnecessary or inconvenient features of the screen design. A bad usability does hurt learning by increasing the extraneous cognitive load.” (Domagk et al, 2004)
Hence, good usability of e-learning portal is crucial for enhancing the learning process.
Usability is important for e-learning portal to ensure that:
· Learning would be effective for most of the learners.
· User interface is user-friendly and easy to navigate.
· Learning content has the element of self-paced and self-directed. Learning may not necessarily be linear nor sequential. Learner can choose which module, which lesson and the sequence he desires.
· E-Learning portal is free of bugs and intelligently prevent errors by learners.
· E-Learning content is accurate, complete and of non-biased content.
· Design is simplistic and does not hinder the process of learning.
· E-Learning portal could run smoothly and cater to the needs of learners using broadband Internet as well as dial up Internet connection.
· Learner could choose rich media or text-based. Learner could choose to read or listen to narration or both.
· Help, FAQ (frequently asked question) and documentation is available to guide the learners in usage of e-Learning portal.
· User interface is consistent and has similar looks and feel throughout an entire courseware.
-----------
source:
Usability Inspection Criteria for e-Learning Portals.
TeckChong Yeap.
MDP7515 PROJECT
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
Master of Multimedia (E-Learning Technologies)
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
MALAYSIA
October 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
