c

Miss Enger

 

Scott Houle, Alex Amiot, Dane Johansen, and Lee Vandal



November 10, 2010

 
Results for the testing of ripping and burning a CD.

We have completed the ripping and burning usability tests at our subject¶s location of choice.
Results show that some steps need to be clarified and or deleted.

 
 




The topic that we chose to teach people was how to rip and burn a CD. Our target audience is
people who have little computer experience who may have trouble completing this task without
clear and concise directions. Our research will allow these individuals to enjoy their genres of
music at their convenience. This instruction manual will help the individual with little computer
experience to be able to rip and burn a CD in a timely fashion. Without clear and concise
instructions, ripping and burning a CD can be a difficult and frustrating task. It is easy for people
with little experience with computers to get frustrated with a task and never want to attempt the
task again. With our clear instruction manual, it will make it easy for these individuals to enjoy
and easily complete this task.


 



Our objective is to be able to teach individuals how to rip and burn a CD. We have designed an
instruction manual that will walk them through each step. We want to be able to determine if our
instructions are effective and efficient enough for the individual to complete the task. We were
also interested to see if our screenshots and images aided our presentation. Another objective of
our brief instruction manual was to see if it was effective enough for the individuals to complete
the task.

 



After completing the entire test-taking process, we discovered that our initial instruction manual
drafts needed some improvement and clarification. Overall, the initial drafts were well-
explained and quite helpful to users taking the test. We have had to make some adjustments in
order to produce the final draft, which therefore slightly differs from the initial draft.

Initially, we began the process of testing our instruction manual by identifying the proper targets
for the test. The targets included a mixture of college students who had little to no experience
with the import/export aspect of Windows Media Player and adults over the age of thirty who
had little to no experience with Windows Media Player or computer programs in general.
Specifically, our targets included the following individuals:
 þ College student #1: 23-year-old; comfortable with computers; no experience with ripping
and burning audio discs with Windows Media Player
þ College student #2: 22-year-old; comfortable with computers; experienced with the
ripping process but unfamiliar with burning with Windows Media Player
þ College student #3: 21-year-old; comfortable with computers; very little experience with
Windows Media Player

Unfortunately, we were unable to find and test an individual who was over the age of 30 and had
little to no experience with Windows Media Player. The three test participants we did have were
good representatives of our target audience in that they lacked the experience and knowledge
required to easily rip and burn audio discs with Windows Media Player. In this way, our
instruction manual could fulfill its purpose in guiding them through process.

The test participants were contacted and provided the informed consent form that our group
composed in the previous week. The test participants were instructed to read through the
informed and consent form and sign at the bottom pending their willingness to participate. All
three test participants agreed to the terms of the consent form and took the test.

All three test participants took the test in their respective places of residence. Ideally, this is a
location that we would have expected our general target audience to be in. We would hope that
our instruction manual would be a material provided to computer users who purchased
computers featured the Windows Media Player application. In this case, they would use this in
their homes.

In regards to the actual test procedure, test participants were first provided with the necessary
documents for the test (the instruction manual, the informed consent form and the follow-up
form), a computer with Windows Media Player, a music CD for ripping, and a blank CD for
burning. At this point, the test participants used the instruction manual to take the test and
complete the ripping/burning process. After taking the test, we asked the participants to fill out
the follow-up form to provide us with information concerning the effectiveness and clarity of the
instructions, any steps that were confusing or hard to understand, and comments on how we
could improve our instruction manual to better aid the user in completing the process.

Concerning the actual test material, we provided the test participants with two different forms of
our instruction manual. Test participants #1 and #3 used the first form and test participant #2
used the second form. The first form of the instruction manual featured a brief set of instructions
with supplemental screen shots to aid the test participant in completing the ripping/burning
process. The second form of the instruction manual featured a more in-depth description of the
process. In this instruction manual, the steps were displayed as bold headings followed by heavy
text. It should also be noted that this manual did not feature any screen shots. By offering two
different forms of the instruction manual, we made it possible to determine the advantages and
disadvantages of the features of both forms.

We confidently believe that our research method was indeed sound due to the fact that we were
able to collect an adequate amount of information regarding the usability and effectiveness of our
instruction manual. This information is discussed in the results and discussion section.






 



All three test participants provided us with comments and suggestions regarding the usability and
effectiveness of our instruction manual. With this test, we were able to produce numerous ways
in which to improve our instruction manual.

Test participant #1 successfully completed the test with the brief form of the instruction manual
and offered comments and suggestions on the follow-up sheet. She mentioned that step one
needed more clarity in reference to whether the internet connection should enabled or disabled.
She also mentioned that, in step 10, there were two arrows instead of the one mentioned in the
instruction manual. She stated that this was confusing and should be clarified in future drafts.
She stated that the screenshots were quite helpful and that we could work on wordiness in steps
12 and 13. Also, step 7 told her to eject the CD, but did not tell her to wait until the ripping
process was complete.

Test participant #2 successfully completed the test with the detailed form of the instruction
manual and offered comments and suggestions on the follow-up sheet. She mentioned that the
two steps under the heading ³Managing´ were difficult to understand because of their ambiguous
nature. She also mentioned that the text-only instruction manual could benefit from bolded
headings and screenshots.

Test participant #3 successfully completed the test with the brief form of the instruction manual
and also offered comments and suggestions.


  
 



Because of the responses from the test participants, we have discovered the positive aspects of
both versions of the instructions. For example, for a comfortable computer user, the brief
instruction set may be more appropriate, but the detailed version is always there for reference if
they need it. The detailed version has been altered to include screenshots and bold text, as test
participant #2 suggested.

We also agreed with participant #2¶s finding concerning the confusion caused by the managing
portion of the manual. We decided to remove the entire portion and found that the manual was
not negatively effected because of its repetitive nature. Finally, the entire text in both versions
has been evaluated to eliminate wordiness. Overall, the tests were beneficial for us because of
the new perspective we have gained in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of our
instruction manuals.

At this point, we have concluded that our final draft of the instruction manual will feature both
versions, the brief one and the in-depth one. We find this to be an excellent idea in that it will
appeal to both segments of our target audience: those familiar with computers and those not. For
those familiar with computers, they will be able to ³zip´ through the brief instruction manual to
make for a quick CD rip and burn. If they do need clarification on a step, they can refer to the
additional in-depth version. For those not familiar with computers, they can use the brief
instruction manual if they can manage, but will have the in-depth copy to walk them through the
process. It¶s a win-win situation! *