Mobile Application Usability: Heuristic Evaluation and Evaluation of Heuristics

Ger Joyce, Mariana Lilley, Trevor Barker, and Amanda Jefferies, 'Mobile Application Usability: Heuristic Evaluation and Evaluation of Heuristics', paper presented at AHFE 2016 International Conference on Human Factors, Software, and Systems Engineering. Walt Disney World, Florida USA, 27-31 July 2016Many traditional usability evaluation methods do not consider mobile-specific issues. This can result in mobile applications that abound in usability issues. We empirically evaluate three sets of usability heuristics for use with mobile applications, including a set defined by the authors. While the set of heuristics defined by the authors surface more usability issues in a mobile application than other sets of heuristics, improvements to the set can be made

Occupational therapists’ views of using a virtual reality interior design application within the pre-discharge home visit process

This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Background: A key role of Occupational Therapists (OTs) is to carry out pre-discharge home visits (PHV) and propose appropriate adaptations to the home environment, to enable patients to function independently after hospital-home discharge. However, research shows that more than 50% of specialist equipment installed as part of home adaptations is not used by patients. A key reason for this is that decisions about home adaptations are often made without adequate collaboration and consultation with the patient. Consequently, there is an urgent need to seek out new and innovative uses of technology to facilitate patient/practitioner collaboration, engagement and shared decision making in the PHV process. Virtual reality interior design applications (VRIDAs) primarily allow users to simulate the home environment and visualise changes prior to implementing them. Customised VRIDAs, which also model specialist occupational therapy equipment, could become a valuable tool to facilitate improved patient/practitioner collaboration if developed effectively and integrated into the PHV process. Objective: To explore the perceptions of occupational therapists with regards to using VRIDAs as an assistive tool within the PHV process. Methods: Task-oriented interactive usability sessions, utilising the think-aloud protocol and subsequent semi-structured interviews were carried out with seven Occupational Therapists who possessed significant experience across a range of clinical settings. Template analysis was carried out on the think-aloud and interview data. Analysis was both inductive and driven by theory, centring around the parameters that impact upon the acceptance, adoption and use of this technology in practice as indicated by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Results: OTs’ perceptions were identified relating to three core themes: (1) perceived usefulness (PU), (2) perceived ease of use (PEoU), and (3) actual use (AU). Regarding PU, OTs believed VRIDAs had promising potential to increase understanding, enrich communications and patient involvement, and improved patient/practitioner shared understanding. However, it was unlikely that VRIDAs would be suitable for use with cognitively impaired patients. For PEoU, all OTs were able to use the software and complete the tasks successfully, however, participants noted numerous specialist equipment items that could be added to the furniture library. AU perceptions were positive regarding use of the application across a range of clinical settings including children/young adults, long-term conditions, neurology, older adults, and social services. However, some “fine tuning” may be necessary if the application is to be optimally used in practice. Conclusions: Participants perceived the use of VRIDAs in practice would enhance levels of patient/practitioner collaboration and provide a much needed mechanism via which patients are empowered to become more equal partners in decisions made about their care. Further research is needed to explore patient perceptions of VRIDAs, to make necessary customisations accordingly, and to explore deployment of the application in a collaborative patient/practitioner-based context

Models for Learning (Mod4L) Final Report: Representing Learning Designs

The Mod4L Models of Practice project is part of the JISC-funded Design for Learning Programme. It ran from 1 May – 31 December 2006. The philosophy underlying the project was that a general split is evident in the e-learning community between development of e-learning tools, services and standards, and research into how teachers can use these most effectively, and is impeding uptake of new tools and methods by teachers. To help overcome this barrier and bridge the gap, a need is felt for practitioner-focused resources which describe a range of learning designs and offer guidance on how these may be chosen and applied, how they can support effective practice in design for learning, and how they can support the development of effective tools, standards and systems with a learning design capability (see, for example, Griffiths and Blat 2005, JISC 2006). Practice models, it was suggested, were such a resource. The aim of the project was to: develop a range of practice models that could be used by practitioners in real life contexts and have a high impact on improving teaching and learning practice. We worked with two definitions of practice models. Practice models are: 1. generic approaches to the structuring and orchestration of learning activities. They express elements of pedagogic principle and allow practitioners to make informed choices (JISC 2006) However, however effective a learning design may be, it can only be shared with others through a representation. The issue of representation of learning designs is, then, central to the concept of sharing and reuse at the heart of JISC’s Design for Learning programme. Thus practice models should be both representations of effective practice, and effective representations of practice. Hence we arrived at the project working definition of practice models as: 2. Common, but decontextualised, learning designs that are represented in a way that is usable by practitioners (teachers, managers, etc).(Mod4L working definition, Falconer & Littlejohn 2006). A learning design is defined as the outcome of the process of designing, planning and orchestrating learning activities as part of a learning session or programme (JISC 2006). Practice models have many potential uses: they describe a range of learning designs that are found to be effective, and offer guidance on their use; they support sharing, reuse and adaptation of learning designs by teachers, and also the development of tools, standards and systems for planning, editing and running the designs. The project took a practitioner-centred approach, working in close collaboration with a focus group of 12 teachers recruited across a range of disciplines and from both FE and HE. Focus group members are listed in Appendix 1. Information was gathered from the focus group through two face to face workshops, and through their contributions to discussions on the project wiki. This was supplemented by an activity at a JISC pedagogy experts meeting in October 2006, and a part workshop at ALT-C in September 2006. The project interim report of August 2006 contained the outcomes of the first workshop (Falconer and Littlejohn, 2006). The current report refines the discussion of issues of representing learning designs for sharing and reuse evidenced in the interim report and highlights problems with the concept of practice models (section 2), characterises the requirements teachers have of effective representations (section 3), evaluates a number of types of representation against these requirements (section 4), explores the more technically focused role of sequencing representations and controlled vocabularies (sections 5 & 6), documents some generic learning designs (section 8.2) and suggests ways forward for bridging the gap between teachers and developers (section 2.6). All quotations are taken from the Mod4L wiki unless otherwise stated

Reviewing and extending the five-user assumption: A grounded procedure for interaction evaluation

" © ACM, 2013. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of ACM for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), {VOL 20, ISS 5, (November 2013)} http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2506210 "The debate concerning how many participants represents a sufficient number for interaction testing is well-established and long-running, with prominent contributions arguing that five users provide a good benchmark when seeking to discover interaction problems. We argue that adoption of five users in this context is often done with little understanding of the basis for, or implications of, the decision. We present an analysis of relevant research to clarify the meaning of the five-user assumption and to examine the way in which the original research that suggested it has been applied. This includes its blind adoption and application in some studies, and complaints about its inadequacies in others. We argue that the five-user assumption is often misunderstood, not only in the field of Human-Computer Interaction, but also in fields such as medical device design, or in business and information applications. The analysis that we present allows us to define a systematic approach for monitoring the sample discovery likelihood, in formative and summative evaluations, and for gathering information in order to make critical decisions during the interaction testing, while respecting the aim of the evaluation and allotted budget. This approach – which we call the ‘Grounded Procedure’ – is introduced and its value argued.The MATCH programme (EPSRC Grants: EP/F063822/1 EP/G012393/1