#10384
Taking Usability Testing to the Field 
Know your audiences, comes the repeated message for technical communicators and in response, more and more technical communicators have turned to usability testing to learn more about their readers and to improve their communications. Technical communicators produce manuals, instructions, and warnings for hand tools, medical equipment, lawn mowers, tractors, pesticide sprayers, and thousands of different products. Most manuals, instructions, and products can benefit from usability testing. This case study provides guidance for technical communicators who are novices to usability testing. The lessons we learned can be of value to technical communicators beginning their first usability testing on a wide range of technical communications and products.
Zimmerman, Donald E., Michel Lynn Muraski and Michael D. Slater. Technical Communication Online (1999). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
#28935
Testing Incentives: The Best Way to Pay
The topic of test subject compensation generates a lot of conversation...how do you motivate test participants?
Anderson, Clifford. Boxes and Arrows (2007). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
#28617
Usability Leistungsspektrum Die ausgefeiltesten digitalen Strategien scheitern oft am Einfachsten: der Usability. Doch in einer Zeit, in der Ihr Wettbewerber nur einen Mausklick weit entfernt ist, stellt Usability eine der größten Herausforderungen im Bereich der digitalen Kommunikation dar.
Schröter, Holger. Digital District GmbH (2005). (German) Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
#21125
First, when you are conducting a usability test, it is important to understand exactly what data you should be collecting. You should not run a test without first deciding on what data is required to address your business challenges. Plan ahead! Second, in a usability test, you don't just watch users. You must collect data that reflects how customers actually use your products and services. This is easier said than done.
Rhodes, John S. WebWord (2001). Articles>Usability>Methods>Testing
#18720
Usability Myths Need Reality Checks
Not so very long ago, it was agreed that five to eight users was enough for a good usability test. Somehow, this idea achieved mythic status. We believed it. We preached it to everyone who would listen. It survived in areas where it had been disproved, and was introduced into new situations where it didn't even apply. What gives some ideas such staying power? What did the five-user myth accomplish? It reconciled test plans with testing budgets! If five to eight users are enough, then it's safe to act on the results of a test series with only five to eight users.
Schroeder, Will. User Interface Engineering (2002). Articles>Usability>Methods>Testing
#14996
Usability Studies of WWW Sites: Heuristic Evaluation vs. Laboratory Testing 
Describes the strength and weaknesses of two usability assessment methods frequently applied to web sites to illustrate issues of special interest to designers.
Kantner, Laurie and Stephanie L. Rosenbaum. Tec-Ed, Inc. (1997). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
#11783
Usability Techniques: Analyzing and Reporting Usability Data
There is an ongoing discussion in usability circles about the importance of formal reports that document the results of usability testing. I think that each usability evaluation should have a formal report that provides some context for the problems. Not all problems can be addressed immediately and memories fade. Usability reports are also important for showing what a usability specialist has done. They can also be used to determine some metrics, such as the number of problems addressed by development or the number of problems that occurred during successive prototypes or versions of a product.
Wilson, Chauncey E. STC Usability SIG (1997). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
#19604
People often throw around the terms 'objective' and 'subjective' when talking about the results of a usability test. These terms are frequently equated with the statistical terms 'quantitative' and 'qualitative'. The analogy is false, and this misunderstanding can have consequences for the interpretations and conclusions of usability tests.
Hodgson, Philip. Userfocus (2003). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
#19750
Usability Testing Best Practices: An Interview with Rolf Molich
If you’ve done any usability testing, design evaluations, or heuristic inspections, then you’ve been affected by Rolf Molich's pioneering work.
Perfetti, Christine. User Interface Engineering (2003). Articles>Usability>Methods>Testing
#19626
Usability Testing: 8 Quick Tips for Designing Tests
This document is intended to help beginners design questions to help them conduct a good usability testing session. If you already have a prototype you want to test, you've already drafted a few questions, and you're eager to learn how to make the most of your opportunity to learn from your users, then this document is for you.
Jerz, Dennis G. Seton Hill University (2002). Articles>Usability>Methods>Testing
#19524
Usability Testing: Assess Your Site's Navigation and Structure
Usability is literally the 'ease of use' or understanding it takes to make something work. In this case, Web Site usability is the understanding of how an individual user navigates, finds information and interacts with your Web Site. Unlike online surveys or focus groups, usability testing is a oneon- one process in a 'watch and learn' approach. The results of the sessions are used to improve your user’s experience. Having the development team watch the testing and witness the results helps resolve most internal issues in an undisputed manner. You can’t fight the reality of usability testing.
Goto, Kelly. GotoMedia (2000). Articles>Usability>Methods>Testing
#21030
Usability Testing: Don't Let the Myths Put You Off
Jarrett dispels several myths about usability testing that may dissuade technical communicators from applying valuable usability techniques.
Jarrett, Caroline. Intercom (2003). Articles>Usability>Methods>Testing
#18808
Usability Testing: Getting It Right The First Time
User-centered product design is a design approach that focuses on the users’ job tasks, skills, and abilities. Usability testing has emerged as a critical component in the user-centered design process to assure that a product meets the needs of the user. Implemented correctly, usability testing can increase customer satisfaction and acceptance, improve product image, and reduce development costs. A variety of information is available to help you get started in developing a usability testing process. This workshop will provide sample questionnaires, checklists, scenarios, scripts, etc. However, the main focus of the workshop will be to train participants in the following two areas: (1) writing measurable usability test goals; and (2) collecting and interpreting the test data. These activities are critical because they relate directly to the usefulness of the test results.
Cope, Michael and Kevin Uliano. STC Proceedings (1994). Articles>Usability>Methods>Testing
#28017
When 100% Really Isn't 100%: Improving the Accuracy of Small-Sample Estimates of Completion Rates
Small sample sizes are a fact of life for most usability practitioners. This can lead to serious measurement problems, especially when making binary measurements such as successful task completion rates (p). The computation of confidence intervals helps by establishing the likely boundaries of measurement, but there is still a question of how to compute the best point estimate, especially for extreme outcomes. In this paper, we report the results of investigations of the accuracy of different estimation methods for two hypothetical distributions and one empirical distribution of p. If a practitioner has no expectation about the value of p, then the Laplace method ((x+1)/(n+2)) is the best estimator. If practitioners are reasonably sure that p will range between .5 and 1.0, then they should use the Wilson method if the observed value of p is less than .5, Laplace when p is greater than .9, and maximum likelihood (x/n) otherwise.
Lewis, James R. and Jeff Sauro. Journal of Usability Studies (2006). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
#28915
When Observing Users Is Not Enough: 10 Guidelines for Getting More Out of Users' Verbal Comments
One of the principles underlying usability testing is that observing a user perform a task provides more reliable information than simply asking the user how easy it would be to perform the task. By observing users, you can assess whether they are actually able to use a product. By asking them, you simply cannot.
Peyrichoux, Isabelle. UXmatters (2007). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
#27413
Why You Only Need to Test With Five Users
Some people think that usability is very costly and complex and that user tests should be reserved for the rare web design project with a huge budget and a lavish time schedule. Not true. Elaborate usability tests are a waste of resources. The best results come from testing no more than 5 users and running as many small tests as you can afford.
Nielsen, Jakob. Alertbox (2000). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
#28378
#32357
Unexpected Complexity in a Traditional Usability Study
This article is a case study of a demonstration project intended to prove the value of usability testing to a large textbook publishing house. In working with a new client, however, the research team discovered that what our client thought were simple problems for their users were actually complex problems that required the users to evaluate potential solutions in a surprisingly complex context of use. As Redish (2007) predicted, traditional ease of use measures were "not sufficient" indicators and failed to reveal the complex nature of the tasks. Users reported high levels of satisfaction with products being tested and believed they had successfully completed tasks which they judged as easy to complete when, in fact, they unknowingly suffered failure rates as high as 100%. The study recommends that usability specialists expand our definition of traditional usability measures so that measures include external assessment by content experts of the completeness and correctness of users' performance. The study also found that it is strategically indispensable for new clients to comprehend the upper end of complexity in their products because doing so creates a new space for product innovation. In this case, improving our clients' understanding of complexity enabled them to perceive and to take advantage of a new market niche that had been unrealized for decades.
Howard, Tharon W. Journal of Usability Studies (2008). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
#33666
Quick Turnaround Usability Testing, Part II
The beauty of the whiteboard method is that your report becomes simply a summary of what you have already written on the whiteboard, including completion metrics, findings, and recommendations that have been vetted by key stakeholders.
Nuschke, Paul. Boxes and Arrows (2008). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
#34460
The Benefits of Viewing User Tests
The benefits of user testing have long been established. It is still important however to try and maximise these benefits. One way in which this can be done is by viewing the user test yourself.
Frontend Infocentre (2009). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
#34875
Extremely Rapid Usability Testing
The trade show booth on the exhibit floor of a conference is traditionally used for company representatives to sell their products and services. However, the trade booth environment also creates an opportunity, for it can give the development team easy access to many varied participants for usability testing. The question is can we adapt usability testing methods to work in such an environment? Extremely rapid usability testing (ERUT) does just this, where we deploy a combination of questionnaires, interviews, storyboarding, co-discovery, and usability testing in a trade show booth environment. We illustrate ERUT in actual use during a busy photographic trade show. It proved effective for actively gathering real-world user feedback in a rapid paced environment where time is of the essence.
Pawson, Mark and Saul Greenberg. Journal of Usability Studies (2009). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
#34938
Why "How Many Users" is Just the Wrong Question
Every day in offices around the world usability professionals ask and are asked this question: How many users do we need for our usability test? Its an important question. We want to find most of and the most severe problems. So, we need to test enough people. But usability testing is so expensive, and the cost of testing increases with each participant. So, we don't want to test too many, either.
Straub, Kathleen. UI Design Newsletter (2007). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
#34943
Getting the Right Design and the Design Right: Testing Many Is Better Than One
We present a study comparing usability testing of a single interface versus three functionally equivalent but stylistically distinct designs. We found that when presented with a single design, users give significantly higher ratings and were more reluctant to criticize than when presented with the same design in a group of three. Our results imply that by presenting users with alternative design solutions, subjective ratings are less prone to inflation and give rise to more and stronger criticisms when appropriate. Contrary to our expectations, our results also suggest that usability testing by itself, even when multiple designs are presented, is not an effective vehicle for soliciting constructive suggestions about how to improve the design from end users. It is a means to identify problems, not provide solutions.
Tohidi, Maryam, William Buxton, Ronald Baecker and Abigail Sellen. CHI 2006 Proceedings (2006). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
#35266
Six-Step Process for Planning a User Test
Preparing for usability testing requires a surprisingly large amount of planning. Here are the 6 key steps you should go through to get ready.
Warsi, Abid. Webcredible (2009). Articles>Usability>Testing>Methods
