Face to Face With Your Users: Running a Nondirected Interview

An interview is a funny situation. It's like a friendly conversation between strangers, but unlike the kind you may have on the bus. When chatting on the bus, people try very hard to agree with each other and to quickly communicate interesting information. Each person wants to be liked and adjusts the way they speak and what they say so as not to offend. This type of exchange is perfectly fine for maintaining civil society -- deeper exchanges can always happen as an acquaintance deepens -- but shallow banter isn't appropriate for an interview. You need to find out what someone is experiencing, what they're thinking, or what their real opinions are.

Kuniavsky, Mike. Adaptive Path (2003). Articles>User Centered Design>Interviewing>Usability

Facilitate Reading

Despite the fantastic development of computers and software, the paperless society seems to be far from implementation. On the contrary, the consumption of paper for documents has increased over the recent years.

Rullgård, Åke. TC-FORUM (2000). Articles>Documentation>Usability

Fast and Simple Usability Testing

Everyone knows by now that they should test the usability of their applications, but still hardly anybody actually does it. In this article I'll share some tips I've picked up for doing usability tests quickly and effectively. Relatively recent tools like Django and Ruby on Rails allow us to develop projects faster and to make significant changes later in the project timeline. Usability testing methods should now be adapted to fit this modern approach to development.

Downe, Natalie. 24 Ways to impress Your Friends (2005). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods

Fast, Cheap, and Good: Yes, You Can Have It All

The sooner you complete a usability study, the higher its impact on the design process. Slower methods should be deferred to an annual usability checkup.

Nielsen, Jakob. Alertbox (2007). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods

Fast, Cheap, and Good: Yes, You Can Have It All

The sooner you complete a usability study, the higher its impact on the design process. Slower methods should be deferred to an annual usability checkup.

Nielsen, Jakob. Alertbox (2007). Articles>Usability>Methods

Faster Factfinding With Digital Libraries?  

This paper covers the usability testing of a prototype digital library. The library holds technical manuals for scientific instruments. Findings show test subjects can locate desired documents faster with this digital library than a corresponding paper library. However, the same subjects can locate desired information faster in a paper document than a digital one. Finally, most subjects reported they would prefer to using the online library of technical documents over the library of paper ones.

Barnett, Mark R. STC Proceedings (1997). Articles>Usability>Documentation>Online

Fear and Loathing of the Help Menu: A Usability Test of Online Help    

A usability test of online Help for a Windows-based database-searching application showed that test subjects avoided the Help menu for as long as possible. When finally obliged to use Help, they read the information carelessly and bailed out quickly, even without finding the necessary information. On the other hand, the test subjects did use dialog-box Help and pop-up Help for tools. The article identifies three qualities and two requirements that are apparent in dialog-box Help and pop-up Help for tools but which are not shared by the Help menu. It suggests that these qualities and requirements may make any Help access method that contains them attractive to users. It then goes on to examine dialog-box Help, pop-up Help for tools, and several other Help access methods, that use these qualities and requirements.

Grayling, Trevor. Technical Communication Online (1998). Articles>Usability>Online

Features Talk, but Behaviors Close

Features are often the currency of software development and marketing, yet few people can agree on what exactly defines a feature. The term can be used to describe a particular piece of functionality, an entire set of functionality, a capability, or sometimes even a possibility.

Fore, David. Cooper Interaction Design (2003). Articles>Usability

Featuritis (or Creeping Featurism)

Featuritis or creeping featurism is the tendency for the number of features in a product (usually software product) to rise with each release of the product. What may have been a cohesive and consistent design in the early versions may end up as a patchwork of added features. And with extra features comes extra complexity.

Soegaard, Mads. Interaction-Design.org. Articles>Usability>Interaction Design>Project Management

Field Studies Done Right: Fast and Observational

Field studies should emphasize the observation of real user behavior. Simple field studies are fast and easy to conduct, and do not require a posse of anthropologists: All members of a design team should go on customer visits.

Nielsen, Jakob. Alertbox (2002). Articles>Usability>Methods

Field Studies: The Best Tool to Discover User Needs

The most valuable asset of a successful design team is the information they have about their users. When teams have the right information, the job of designing a powerful, intuitive, easy-to-use interface becomes tremendously easier. When they don't, every little design decision becomes a struggle. While techniques, such as focus groups, usability tests, and surveys, can lead to valuable insights, the most powerful tool in the toolbox is the 'field study'. Field studies get the team immersed in the environment of their users and allow them to observe critical details for which there is no other way of discovering.

Spool, Jared M. User Interface Engineering. Articles>User Centered Design>Methods>Usability

Field Trials: Trials and Tribulations of a Field Visit

I dutifully and eagerly prepared myself for the visit. I read books and STC articles on field visits and questionnaires. I was on a quest, and dangerously close to realizing a dream. At last, I would be able to define my audience, and gage the usability of the online help and hard copy manual. I would finally get the answers to my questions directly from a group of users.

Gunn, Robi. Usability Interface (1998). Articles>Usability>Audience Analysis

Finally: Progress in Internet Client Design

There has been no progress in client software for the last seven years: Mosaic defined the Web feature set in 1993, and since then there has only been more fancy page layouts, no better user interfaces. This sorry picture is finally changing. Several recent software products have introduced specialized applications with better user interfaces for special-purpose use. And there is even a new browser out with improved user control.

Nielsen, Jakob. Alertbox (2000). Articles>Usability>Software>Web Browsers

Findability, Orphan of the Web Design Industry

Findability is to Search Engine Optimization (SEO) as 'web standards' is to 'table layouts.' In a web whose vastness exceeds comprehension, sites with findable content win. The good news is that everyone on your team can help make your site findable.

Walter, Aarron. List Apart, A (2008). Articles>Web Design>Usability

Finding Information on the Web: Does the Amount of Whitespace Really Matter?

It has been a long-held notion that the use of open space or 'whitespace' adds not only to the attractiveness of the design of a written publication, but adds to the functionality as well. For example, it has been stated that whitespace plays the crucial role of 'directing the viewers attention to the regions where important information is provided and allowing the global structure of the composition to assume a meaningful configuration' (Mullet & Sano, 1995, p. 126). It is contended that Whitespace 'gives the eye a place to restIt can help to organize the material on the page. It can tie successive pages together by repetition of identifiable areas' (White, 1974, p. 48). However, it has been asserted by Web usability researcher Jared Spool that these assumptions should not apply to Web design.

Bernard, Michael, Barbara S. Chaparro and R. Thomasson. Usability News (2000). Articles>Usability>Web Design

Finding the Right Users

If you’re using the eenie meenie method to select users for your research, perhaps it’s time you tried something a little more scientific. There is no such thing as sound user research without an airtight user-selection process behind it. No matter how good the observation and analysis, it’s all for naught if you’ve studied the wrong people. Too much “user research” is conducted, analyzed, and applied without anyone ever having spoken to users. Researchers then offer guidelines based on the needs and preferences of people who would never use the product in question. Relevant user research results depend on two factors: First, obviously, you’ll need to find people who are likely to use the product. Second, you’ll need to interview enough of them so that trends emerge from their collective behavior. These trends will indicate your primary design targets.

Merholz, Peter. Adaptive Path (2003). Articles>User Centered Design>Usability

First Principles

Principles fundamental to the design and implementation of effective interfaces, whether for traditional GUI environments or the web. Of late, many web applications have reflected a lack of understanding of many of these principles of design, to their great detriment. Because an application or service appears on the web, the principles do not change. If anything, applying these principles become even more important.

Tognazzini, Bruce. Nielsen Norman Group (1994). Articles>Usability>Assessment

First Rule of Usability? Don't Listen to Users

To design an easy-to-use interface, pay attention to what users do, not what they say. Self-reported claims are unreliable, as are user speculations about future behavior.

Nielsen, Jakob. Alertbox (2001). Articles>Usability>Methods

Five-Second Tests: Measuring Your Site's Content Pages

On your site, the content page is the user's most frequent final destination. This page contains the information the user came to the site to find. Sites often have hundreds, if not thousands (and in some cases, millions) of these critical pages. How can design teams be confident their content pages are understandable to users? How does a team ensure they've designed content pages that communicate the essential information effectively?

Perfetti, Christine. User Interface Engineering (2005). Articles>Web Design>Usability>User Centered Design

Focus Groups in Usability: From Face-to-Face to Screen-to-Screen Dialogue  

Electronic focus groups became a popular alternative to face-to-face groups in user research in recent years. They are largely known for the benefits of anonymity, accurate discussion tacking, and low cost. At the same time, the quality of results generated by on-line focus groups remains uncertain. The paper explains five fundamentals of the focus group technique, such as content, context, representation, facilitation and interaction. It reviews different stages of focus group development and provides recommendations for facilitating each stage. The paper discusses the potentials and limitations of electronic focus groups, provides practical tips for facilitators, and compares them with face-to-face groups.

Gorlenko, Lada. STC Proceedings (2005). Articles>Usability>Online>Focus Groups

Focus Groups to Study Work Practice

Focus groups are a good way to learn how people approach tasks and to get an overview of work that spans hours or days or longer periods. Focus groups can be a great way to learn about the work that occurs 'between' or 'around' the tools we build.

Ede, Meghan R. Useit (2002). Articles>Usability>Methods>Focus Groups

Focus Groups to Study Work Practice

My definition of focus groups is very broad. I consider focus groups to occur whenever a group of people are invited to participate in a moderated discussion on a specific topic. I usually use focus groups very early in the design, to better understand potential users of a product or service. This differentiates usability focus groups from marketing focus groups, which often seek to learn reactions to a finished product. Focus groups differ from usability studies in that the participants are not asked to use a product. They differ from participatory design sessions because the participants are not asked to contribute or comment on design ideas. In a focus group, all I want participants to do is talk.

Ede, Meghan R. Usability Interface (1998). Articles>Usability>Methods>Focus Groups

Following a Fast-Moving Target: Recording User Behavior in Web Usability Testing  

Presents techniques for capturing user behavior accurately and completely in real time.

Kantner, Laurie. Tec-Ed, Inc. (2002). Articles>Usability>Methods

Formal Usability Inspections

Formal Usability Inspection takes the software inspection methodology and adapts it to usability evaluation. Software inspections, more commonly known as code inspections, started at IBM as a way to formalize the discovery and recording of software problems ('defects' in quality jargon, 'bugs' in the vernacular). The technique also provided quantitative measurements that could be tracked using statistical process control methods. Code inspections were also adapted to check and track documentation defects, and usability defects were a logical next step. Formal usability inspections include aspects of other inspection methods too. Heuristics are used to help non-usability professionals find usability defects. Inspectors walkthrough tasks with the user's goals and purpose in mind, similar to cognitive walkthroughs, although the emphasis is less on cognitive theory and more on encountering defects.

Hom, James. VWH.net. Articles>Usability>Methods

Formal Usability Reports vs. Quick Findings

Formal reports are the most common way of documenting usability studies, but informal reports are faster to produce and are often a better choice.

Nielsen, Jakob. Alertbox (2005). Articles>Usability>Reports