501
edits
Labs/Ubiquity/Usability/Usability Testing/How To: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Labs/Ubiquity/Usability/Usability Testing/How To (view source)
Revision as of 00:04, 26 February 2009
, 26 February 2009no edit summary
Indolering (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Indolering (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
==Dealing with participants== | ==Dealing with participants== | ||
=== | ===Background Psychological Information=== | ||
You don't really need to read the recommendations below, but it makes in the field recruiting much more useful. | You don't really need to read the recommendations below, but it makes in the field recruiting much more useful. | ||
Framing- this is how Obama and Bush won. They framed the issues in a way that there was a water fall of meaning from everything they did. Partial Birth Abortion isn't real, in a historical or technical sense. Yet, there it is, and it is a very powerful frame to invoke the killing of a live baby as opposed to stopping a biological process inside of a woman. | |||
Framing- this is how Obama and Bush won. They framed the issues in a way that there | |||
In the context of usability testing calling the user a ''participant'' or ''subject'' creates a frame that we are testing the ''user'' not the product. This leads to skewing the users actual usage patterns. This is often multiplied by the caliber of a usability testing lab and the size of the audience. In recent years many have abandoned the lab and now test in as low key a setting as possible with as few people as possible or even remotely via the users computer and some webcam/screen capture software. To go a step further I revised the title of the researcher to ''facilitator'' and the title of the user to ''tester''. These might not lead to the most grammatically correct sentences but it does reduce the skewing users introduce. | In the context of usability testing calling the user a ''participant'' or ''subject'' creates a frame that we are testing the ''user'' not the product. This leads to skewing the users actual usage patterns. This is often multiplied by the caliber of a usability testing lab and the size of the audience. In recent years many have abandoned the lab and now test in as low key a setting as possible with as few people as possible or even remotely via the users computer and some webcam/screen capture software. To go a step further I revised the title of the researcher to ''facilitator'' and the title of the user to ''tester''. These might not lead to the most grammatically correct sentences but it does reduce the skewing users introduce. | ||
| Line 58: | Line 48: | ||
DON'T OFFER T-SHIRTS, DRINKS, MONEY, ETC. Then they are doing you a favor instead of them being cool enough to do something with you. Seriously, if you beg it turns into a crappy session. See sessions 9 and 11 vs 5, 6, 7, and 8. | DON'T OFFER T-SHIRTS, DRINKS, MONEY, ETC. Then they are doing you a favor instead of them being cool enough to do something with you. Seriously, if you beg it turns into a crappy session. See sessions 9 and 11 vs 5, 6, 7, and 8. | ||
===Recruitment=== | |||
===Briefing=== | |||
===Debriefing=== | ===Debriefing=== | ||
== Recording Session == | |||
Basically you need screen and web-cam capture software. What you use doesn't really matter, but a quick list of stuff we have tried is [[Labs/Ubiquity/Usability/Usability_Testing/How_To/Software | here]]. | |||
If you are sharing the data publicly (especially personally identifiable information) some sort of consent is a very good idea. While a written consent form an audio or visual consent form is easier to manage and can't be lost as they are embeded in the information itself. | |||
== Analysis and Sharing of Data == | == Analysis and Sharing of Data == | ||
== See Also == | == See Also == | ||