CMD300 HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION ASSIGNMENT DISTANCE LEARNING By MOPATI G.

DUBE REFERENCE NO:119064289 BOTSWANA ACCOUNTANCY COLLEGE UNIVERSITY OF SUNDERLAND November 28, 2011

Contents 1.0 Introduction . 3 2.0 Task1 . 3 2.1 Heuristic Evaluation .. 3 2.1.1 Strengths . 4 2.1.2 Weaknesses .. 4 2.2 Focus Groups 4-5 2.2.1 Strengths . 5 2.2.2 Weaknesses .. 5 3.0 Task2 . 5 3.1 No Evaluation . 6 3.2 No Communication. 6-7 3.3 Improper/ Inconsistent layout 7-8 3.4 Confines users .. 8 3.5 No Assistance . 9 4.0 Conclusion 9 5.0 References . 10

1.0 Introduction Usability Evaluation is the extent to which the product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use, defines the (International Organization for Standardization 2002). It extends from formal, quantitative experiments with large model sizes and complicated test designs to informal and qualitative researches with a small number of partakers. The methods of usability differ relying up on the source used for evaluation, this sources can be models, usability experts or users, the five attributes associated with it are; learnability, efficiency, memorability, errors, and user satisfaction thus trying to make the context-of-use as realistic as possible. Depending on the field of appliance one attribute might be more adequate than another. The heart of this report would be focusing on Heuristic Evaluation and Focus groups as approaches used to identify usability problems. 2.0 Task 1 2.1 Heuristic evaluation Nielsen and Molich (1990) who originally proposed the method described heuristic evaluation as an informal method of usability analysis where a number of evaluators are presented with an interface design and asked to comment on it. Its a usability inspection method for computer software which helps to diagnose usability problems in the user interface (UI) design. It particularly includes a set (one to three) of evaluators who independently analyze the interface and reviews its compliance against recognized usability design principles the heuristics (usability.gov). These heuristics are taken from published lists; ideally, each potential usability problem is assigned to one or more heuristics to help facilitate fixing the problem and the more the evaluators involved the more real problems are identified. Some example heuristics used in evaluations of Usability heuristics by (Nielsen, 1994) are; Visibility of system status, Match between system and the real world, User control and freedom, Consistency and standards, Error prevention, Recognition rather than recall, Flexibility and efficiency of use, Aesthetic and minimalist design, Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors, Help and documentation which are evaluated during the evaluation session. To conduct a heuristic evaluation there are a couple of items such as a list of tasks and/or the components of the product that are to be inspected (i.e. a standard form for recording violations of the heuristics) which are needed to conduct the evaluation. Heuristic evaluations are generally organized by a usability practitioner who introduces the method and the principles, though with some training, other members of a product could facilitate (Usability Professionals Association 2010).

2.1.1 Strengths The method can provide some quick and relatively inexpensive feedback to designers. Feedback can be obtained early in the design process therefore it is also less-time consuming to conduct (Nielsen & Molich, 1990). Assigning the correct heuristic can help suggest the best corrective measures to designers (Usability.gov). Can be used early in the development process through the used of paper prototypes of the finished product (Nielsen & Molich, 1990). Lastly it produces faster turnaround time and requires fewer resources than laboratory testing (Usability Professionals Association 2010). Since the evaluators are not using the system as such (to perform a real task), it is possible to perform heuristic evaluation of user interfaces that exist on paper only and have not yet been implemented (Nielsen 1990). This makes heuristic evaluation suited for use early in the usability engineering lifecycle. 2.1.2 Weaknesses The method sometimes identifies usability problems without providing direct suggestions to solve them therefore it is biased by the mindset of evaluators and normally does not generate breakthroughs in the evaluated design (Law & Hvannberg 2004). Moreover, it is difficult to summarize the findings from multiple evaluators as they report problems differently and at different levels. It requires a certain level of knowledge and experience to apply the heuristics effectively. Trained usability experts are sometimes hard to find and can be expensive. Multiple evaluators are recommended and results must be aggregated. The evaluation may identify more minor issues and fewer major issues (Usability.gov). 2.2 Focus Groups Focus groups are discussion groups in which a moderator (normally a human factors engineer) solicits responses from a group of participants (users) through a set of questions on a particular topic (Dave Farkas 2009). The idea behind a focus group is that more and better information is generated when users listen to and respond to one another. One persons comment is apt to elicit related comments from other users, and it may become apparent that many of the participants are having the same problem. In a focus group, a number of open-ended questions are asked in such a way to trigger discussion among the participants. The moderator leads the users in the early stages of product planning and requirements gathering to obtain feedback about users, products, concepts, prototypes, tasks, strategies, and environments. In a short time, the moderator has to create a thoughtful, permissive atmosphere. After an introductory explanation about the aim of the interview and about the purpose of the study and its role, it is very important to formulate some open questions to encourage debate. Nielsen (1993) stated that things to be considered when conducting a focus groups study are; to have more than one focus group, since the outcome of a single session may not be representative and a single discussion may have focused on a subset of the issues or minor aspects of the system. Also a focus group is conducted by bringing together representative users to discuss their issues and concerns about the features of the system being evaluated. With focus groups, evaluators have the opportunity

to collect qualitative information that can be used to identify what worked and what did not, and more importantly, why. Focus groups were first used in the world of marketing to evaluate potential customer response to new products. Now they are being adopted in other domains to identify user needs and feelings that might be missed through other methods of assessment (AVI 2006). This investigation technique is useful because attitudes, feelings, and beliefs are more likely to be revealed via the social gathering and the interaction which being in a focus group entails explained Gibbs (1997). 2.2.1 Strengths A focus group will clearly be most effective when users have used the system recently. Therefore, it makes a great deal of sense to employ these evaluation methods as a follow-up to evaluation methods that entail using the system (Dave Farkas 2009). Focus groups provide qualitative data more quickly, and they are more cost-effective than other methods. Researchers may interact directly with participants and obtain rich data in the participants own words (Krueger 2000). This also gives them the opportunity to clarify the responses, follow up questions, and receive contingent answers to questions; and also Focus groups allow respondents to react to other group members, and to generate new ideas that might have not been uncovered in individual interviews. 2.2.2 Weaknesses Responses from group members are not independent of one other. Also, the small number of participants may limit the generalization of the research (Krueger 2000). A dominant member of the group may bias the result, and more reserved members may be hesitant to talk. The open-ended nature of the responses makes the analysis of the result difficult. Dave Farkas (2009) states an experienced moderator is important for a successful focus group therefore it could be expensive and difficult to find one. The results of a focus group depend on the interaction between the participants and the moderator, and poor moderating can lead to distorted data and misleading conclusions. The participants for a focus group should be reasonably homogenous since the discussion of opinions and attitudes is facilitated by having the participants share some type of common bond. If the people are too divergent, the focus group may end up with few common threads. 3.0 Task 2 Heuristic Evaluation of Botswanas Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MoFAIC ) website which can be accessed at http://www.mofaic.gov.bw The problems identified where;

3.1 No validation; the search textbox allows any character to be entered therefore it can not notify the user to if they have entered search statements that does not make sense, through an error message that would prompt them to enter valid statements. Error Prevention heuristic has not been conformed to the website can not detect invalid statements (when statements that do not make sense are entered, instead of notifying the user the search function goes on to execute them and displays zero results found). Below is a screen shot that denotes this;

3.2 No communication; there is no help messages on the websites interface, so if a user gets stuck while trying to perform or improperly performs a task there would be no means of rescuing them hence they would consider the website as difficult to use. The heuristic of Help users recognize, diagnose and recover form errors has not been accommodated, because firstly the web page does not have any sort of message that can assist on how to deal with errors. As demonstrated by the following screen short.

3.3 Improper/ inconsistent Layout; the font of some menu/submenu contents is slightly visible and sentences are not properly aligned as some words are hidden by pictures so users can not read and complete sentences therefore it would be difficult to get proper information. Recognition rather than recall heuristic is not conformed to, because some users would not be able to recognize where they are or what they are reading. As demonstrated below;

3.4 Confines users; the website is not user dynamic and friendly, it does not have system functions which allows users to choose what they want to do. If there is not option that allows the user to go to the top of the page undo, exit page. The user control and freedom heuristic has not been accommodated as users cant perform any function (when at the bottom of the page to go to the top, you have to scroll manually to the top of the page because the menu functions are not static) as shown below;

3.5 No Assistance; there is no help options on the web page so when a user encounters any sort of problem they would be no steps that would assist them therefore users would feel there is no assistance that is being offered to they as they would no be able to do what they wanted to do. Heuristic of help and documentation has not been conformed, because there is no help link that would assist users if they need help on how to perform a particular task. As Demonstrated below;

The above identified usability problems proves that this website can only perform easy functions such as clicking on objects (links)that redirect to another page, its incapable of performing tasks such as searching, and it does not offer any online service hence its ineffective and incompetent. Therefore it almost if not does not meet user requirements so it is of no significant to users this will result in the website being abandoned by users, as they would prefer to personally go to Ministries offices for assistance. 4.0 Conclusion Heuristic evaluation is not limited to one of the published lists of heuristics. The list of heuristics can be as long as the evaluators deem appropriate for the task at hand. For example, developing a specialized list of heuristics for specific audiences, like senior citizens, children, or disabled users, based on a review of the literature. Much of the success of a focus group depends on the skill of the moderator. If funds permit, it is good to hire a professional focus-group moderator, as long as the moderator understands enough about the issues that will be discussed. Focus groups will clearly be most effective when users have used the system recently. Therefore, it makes a great deal of sense to employ these evaluation methods as a follow-up to evaluation methods that entail using the system. Focus groups may uncover potential problems and suggest improvements that would not have been revealed with other analytic and empirical evaluation techniques.

5.0 References AVI, 2006,Novel evaluation methods for information visualization, Proceedings of the workshop on Beyond time and errors, Venice, Italy, viewed 19 November 2011, <http://portal.acm.org/toc.cfm?id=1168149> Dave Farkas, 2009, Usability and User Experience, Usability Interface, STC UUX Community Newsletter, vol. 14, No. 2, viewed 25 November 2011, < http://www.stcsig.org/usability/newsletter/0904Testing.htm > International Organization for Standardization, 2002, Usability Evaluation, International Organization for Standardization, viewed 25 November 2011, < http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/ISOOnline.openerpage > Usability.gov, Heuristic Evaluations, U.S Department of Health and Human Services, viewed 26 November 2011 ,< http://www.usability.gov/methods/test_refine/heuristic.html >. Molich, R. & Nielsen, J., 1990, Improving a human computer dialogue, Communications of the ACM, vol. 33, no.3, pp. 338-348. Neilsen, J., 94, Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics, Proceedings ACM CHI Conference, Boston, MA, pp. 152-158. Usability Professionals Association, 2010,Methods, preview of the Usability Body of Knowledge, Usability Professionals Association, viewed 26 November 2011, <http://usabilitybook.org/methods/p275?section=how-to >. Nielsen, J., 1990, Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conferencee on human factors in computing systems, Monterey, CA, USA, pp. 373-380. Law, E.L. & Hvannberg, E.T, 2004, Analysis of strategies for improving and estimating the effectiveness of heuristic evaluation, Proceedings of the Nordi CHI, Tampere, Finland: ACM. J. Nielsen, 1993, Usability Engineering, Academic Press, pp.214-216, viewed 20 November 2011, <http://www.usabilityhome.com/FramedLi.htm?FocusGro.htm > Gibbs, A., 1997, Focus groups, Social Research Update, University of Surrey, UK, no. 19, viewed 20 November 2011, <http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU19.html>. Krueger, R. A., 2000, Focus Groups, A Practical Guide for Applied Research, Third Edition, Sage Publishing, Newbury Park, CA.