How do different usability evaluation methods, focussed on experts and users, contribute to the evaluation of a system during an iterative design process? The PAT Workbench was used as a case to test usability methods. This is a tool that was developed at the department of Communication and Information Sciences of the University of Groningen, to store, annotate, retrieve and view multimodal instructions (MIs). MIs are instructions that consists of text and pictures. The goal of the PAT Workbench is to create a corpus of annotated MIs for further research. The framework used for this process was the design re-search cylce (Hevner, 2007

van der Sluis, Ielka

Van't Hul, Manon

NARCIS 

Does it work?: Applying formative evaluation methods to test the usability of the PAT Workbench

University of Groningen

   University of GroningenDoes it work?Van't Hul, Manon; van der Sluis, IelkaIMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionFinal author's version (accepted by publisher, after peer review)Publication date:2017Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Van't Hul, M., & van der Sluis, I. (2017). Does it work? Applying formative evaluation methods to test theusability of the PAT Workbench. Poster session presented at TABU Dag, Groningen, Netherlands.CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 13-11-2019Research question  How do different usability evaluation methods, focussed on experts and users, contribute to the evaluation of a system during an iterative design process?  The PAT Workbench was used as a case  to test usability methods.  This is a tool that was developed at the de-partment of Communication and Information Sciences of the University of Groningen, to store, annotate, retrieve and view multimodal instructions (MIs). MIs are instructions that consists of text and pictures. The goal of the PAT Workbench is to create a corpus of annotated MIs for further research. The framework used for this process was the design re-search cylce (Hevner, 2007).Design research cycleExpert review• Functional analysis• Heuristic inspection• Cognitive walkthrough w.r.t. PAT’s top tasks  (upload MI, search MI and annotate MI User evaluation Two tests with real users, students enrolled in the master course on multimodal instructions in Communication and Information Sciences.• Test 1 at beginning of course, with 9 users • Test 2 after seven weeks, with 4 users• Three top tasks while thinking aloud• A questionnaire after each task • Two general usability questionnaires • Interview with the participants.Expert review: Heuristic inspection This inspection was based on the 10 heuristic principles by Nielsen (1995). Results showed that, given the three top tasks, the two most severe usability problems were ‘visibility of system status’ (e.g. lack of feedback to the user, available information and functions were not clear) and ‘consistency and web standards’ (e.g. clickable links styled as text, site behaved not as expected).An iterative design process allows for the use of various evaluation methods, which contribute to the evaluation of a system in different ways: Expert evaluation• is cheap,• offers a detailed system description,• helps to overcome obvious issues in a more expensive user evaluation. User evaluation• displays multiple aspects of the system, which an expert may overlook,• provides useful insights in time based efficiency, error count and task completion,• benefits from Think Aloud Protocols (although with concurrent TAP participants      continiously need reminders to verbalise their thoughts). In longitudinal studies, added value in iterative tests may be gained from fresh   participants in addition to the original ones. In between testing, it is advised to not let participants use a beta version of the   product for their own work.In both types of evaluation good communication and collaboration between develo-per and tester are crucial.Does it work? Applying formative evaluation methods to test the usability of the PAT WorkbenchFaculty of Arts Department of Communication & Information SciencesUser evaluation  Results of the first test show that participants were able to upload and search MIs. However, participants experienced problems during Task 3 - annotate an MI - with finding the annotation page (3a), as well as with saving and viewing their annotations (3b).MethodsIntroductionManon van ‘t Hul h.c.m.van.t.hul@student.rug.nl Ielka van der Sluis i.f.van.der.sluis@rug.nlConclusionResultsExpert review: Cognitive walkthrough The cognitive walkthrough did not pose as many problems as the heuristic inspection. The top tasks were easy to accomplish by the user. The main problem was a lack of feed-back or visibility of feedback and guidance for the user.During Test 2 participants had encountered only a few problems while executing the tasks. However, overall satisfac-tion had decreased. From the interviews it became apparent that working with a system while it was being develo-ped influenced the participants workload and quality of work.References Hevner, A. R. (2007). A three cycle view of design science research. Scanavian Journal of Information Sys-tems, 19(2), 4. Nielsen, J. (1995, January 1st). 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Visibility of system statusUser control and freedomAesthetic and minimalist designtotal severity score number of issuesFigure 1: Key usability problems from heuristic inspection. Figure 2: Problems during tasks from cogntive walkthrough.32%21%47%Task 1: Upload MI Task 2: Search MI Task 3: Annotate MIFigure 3: Amount of errors Test 1. Figure 4: Time based efficiency Test 1.Figure 5: Satisfaction from Test 1 to Test 2.7058,870,456,3505560657075SUS UMUXFigure 6: Reactions from participants during interview Test 2.A big problem was that the system did not work properlyToo many updates and waiting for functionalitiesI still had to do the annotation in Excel, this was double work0,330,733,571,9500,511,522,533,54TBE in goals/sec.Task 1: Upload MI Task 2: Search MITask3a: Find annotation page Task 3b: Save annotation  Will the user know  what to do? No, unclarities about  compulsory fields and  input. Does the user know  he did the right thing? No, there is no  feedback when filling in the fields.Task 1: Upload MI  Will the user know  what to do? Yes, clearly visible  button.   Does the user know  he did the right thing?   No, successfulness of    action is not indicated.Step 8 Click on button ‘save’.Step 7Fill out metadata on form  Will the user know  what to do? Yes, there is a  clearly visible  button.  Does the user know  he did the right thing?   No, successfulness  of the action is  unclear.  Will the user know  what to do? No, the results tab  does not stand out  enough.  Does the user know  he did the right thing?   Yes, results opened  in new page.Step 6Click on button ‘Search’Step 7Click on tab ‘result’Task 2: Search MI

Does it work?:Applying formative evaluation methods to test the usability of the PAT Workbench

How do different usability evaluation methods, focussed on experts and users, contribute to the evaluation of a system during an iterative design process? The PAT Workbench was used as a case to test usability methods. This is a tool that was developed at the department of Communication and Information Sciences of the University of Groningen, to store, annotate, retrieve and view multimodal instructions (MIs). MIs are instructions that consists of text and pictures. The goal of the PAT Workbench is to create a corpus of annotated MIs for further research.The framework used for this process was the design re-search cylce (Hevner, 2007

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

   University of GroningenDoes it work?Van't Hul, Manon; van der Sluis, IelkaIMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionFinal author's version (accepted by publisher, after peer review)Publication date:2017Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Van't Hul, M., & van der Sluis, I. (2017). Does it work? Applying formative evaluation methods to test theusability of the PAT Workbench. Poster session presented at TABU Dag , Groningen, Netherlands.CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 16-07-2023Research question  How do different usability evaluation methods, focussed on experts and users, contribute to the evaluation of a system during an iterative design process?  The PAT Workbench was used as a case  to test usability methods.  This is a tool that was developed at the de-partment of Communication and Information Sciences of the University of Groningen, to store, annotate, retrieve and view multimodal instructions (MIs). MIs are instructions that consists of text and pictures. The goal of the PAT Workbench is to create a corpus of annotated MIs for further research. The framework used for this process was the design re-search cylce (Hevner, 2007).Design research cycleExpert review• Functional analysis• Heuristic inspection• Cognitive walkthrough w.r.t. PAT’s top tasks  (upload MI, search MI and annotate MI User evaluation Two tests with real users, students enrolled in the master course on multimodal instructions in Communication and Information Sciences.• Test 1 at beginning of course, with 9 users • Test 2 after seven weeks, with 4 users• Three top tasks while thinking aloud• A questionnaire after each task • Two general usability questionnaires • Interview with the participants.Expert review: Heuristic inspection This inspection was based on the 10 heuristic principles by Nielsen (1995). Results showed that, given the three top tasks, the two most severe usability problems were ‘visibility of system status’ (e.g. lack of feedback to the user, available information and functions were not clear) and ‘consistency and web standards’ (e.g. clickable links styled as text, site behaved not as expected).An iterative design process allows for the use of various evaluation methods, which contribute to the evaluation of a system in different ways: Expert evaluation• is cheap,• offers a detailed system description,• helps to overcome obvious issues in a more expensive user evaluation. User evaluation• displays multiple aspects of the system, which an expert may overlook,• provides useful insights in time based efficiency, error count and task completion,• benefits from Think Aloud Protocols (although with concurrent TAP participants      continiously need reminders to verbalise their thoughts). In longitudinal studies, added value in iterative tests may be gained from fresh   participants in addition to the original ones. In between testing, it is advised to not let participants use a beta version of the   product for their own work.In both types of evaluation good communication and collaboration between develo-per and tester are crucial.Does it work? Applying formative evaluation methods to test the usability of the PAT WorkbenchFaculty of Arts Department of Communication & Information SciencesUser evaluation  Results of the first test show that participants were able to upload and search MIs. However, participants experienced problems during Task 3 - annotate an MI - with finding the annotation page (3a), as well as with saving and viewing their annotations (3b).MethodsIntroductionManon van ‘t Hul h.c.m.van.t.hul@student.rug.nl Ielka van der Sluis i.f.van.der.sluis@rug.nlConclusionResultsExpert review: Cognitive walkthrough The cognitive walkthrough did not pose as many problems as the heuristic inspection. The top tasks were easy to accomplish by the user. The main problem was a lack of feed-back or visibility of feedback and guidance for the user.During Test 2 participants had encountered only a few problems while executing the tasks. However, overall satisfac-tion had decreased. From the interviews it became apparent that working with a system while it was being develo-ped influenced the participants workload and quality of work.References Hevner, A. R. (2007). A three cycle view of design science research. Scanavian Journal of Information Sys-tems, 19(2), 4. Nielsen, J. (1995, January 1st). 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Visibility of system statusUser control and freedomAesthetic and minimalist designtotal severity score number of issuesFigure 1: Key usability problems from heuristic inspection. Figure 2: Problems during tasks from cogntive walkthrough.32%21%47%Task 1: Upload MI Task 2: Search MI Task 3: Annotate MIFigure 3: Amount of errors Test 1. Figure 4: Time based efficiency Test 1.Figure 5: Satisfaction from Test 1 to Test 2.7058,870,456,3505560657075SUS UMUXFigure 6: Reactions from participants during interview Test 2.A big problem was that the system did not work properlyToo many updates and waiting for functionalitiesI still had to do the annotation in Excel, this was double work0,330,733,571,9500,511,522,533,54TBE in goals/sec.Task 1: Upload MI Task 2: Search MITask3a: Find annotation page Task 3b: Save annotation  Will the user know  what to do? No, unclarities about  compulsory fields and  input. Does the user know  he did the right thing? No, there is no  feedback when filling in the fields.Task 1: Upload MI  Will the user know  what to do? Yes, clearly visible  button.   Does the user know  he did the right thing?   No, successfulness of    action is not indicated.Step 8 Click on button ‘save’.Step 7Fill out metadata on form  Will the user know  what to do? Yes, there is a  clearly visible  button.  Does the user know  he did the right thing?   No, successfulness  of the action is  unclear.  Will the user know  what to do? No, the results tab  does not stand out  enough.  Does the user know  he did the right thing?   Yes, results opened  in new page.Step 6Click on button ‘Search’Step 7Click on tab ‘result’Task 2: Search MI

English

University of Groningen Research Database

  
 University of Groningen
Does it work?
Van't Hul, Manon; van der Sluis, Ielka
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Final author's version (accepted by publisher, after peer review)
Publication date:
2017
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Van't Hul, M., & van der Sluis, I. (2017). Does it work? Applying formative evaluation methods to test the
usability of the PAT Workbench. Poster session presented at TABU Dag, Groningen, Netherlands.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the
author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the
number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Download date: 21-05-2019
Research question  
How do different usability evaluation methods, focussed 
on experts and users, contribute to the evaluation of a 
system during an iterative design process? 
 
The PAT Workbench was used as a case  to test usability 
methods.  This is a tool that was developed at the de-
partment of Communication and Information Sciences of 
the University of Groningen, to store, annotate, retrieve 
and view multimodal instructions (MIs). 
MIs are instructions that consists of text and 
pictures. The goal of the PAT Workbench is to create a 
corpus of annotated MIs for further research. 
The framework used for this process was the design re-
search cylce (Hevner, 2007).
Design research cycle
Expert review
• Functional analysis
• Heuristic inspection
• Cognitive walkthrough w.r.t. PAT’s top tasks  
(upload MI, search MI and annotate MI 
User evaluation 
Two tests with real users, students enrolled in the master 
course on multimodal instructions in Communication and 
Information Sciences.
• Test 1 at beginning of course, with 9 users 
• Test 2 after seven weeks, with 4 users
• Three top tasks while thinking aloud
• A questionnaire after each task 
• Two general usability questionnaires 
• Interview with the participants.
Expert review: Heuristic inspection 
This inspection was based on the 10 heuristic principles by Nielsen (1995). Results showed that, given the three top tasks, the two most severe usability problems were ‘visibility of system 
status’ (e.g. lack of feedback to the user, available information and functions were not clear) and ‘consistency and web standards’ (e.g. clickable links styled as text, site behaved not as expected).
An iterative design process allows for the use of various evaluation methods, which 
contribute to the evaluation of a system in different ways: 
Expert evaluation
• is cheap,
• offers a detailed system description,
• helps to overcome obvious issues in a more expensive user evaluation. 
User evaluation
• displays multiple aspects of the system, which an expert may overlook,
• provides useful insights in time based efficiency, error count and task completion,
• benefits from Think Aloud Protocols (although with concurrent TAP participants    
  continiously need reminders to verbalise their thoughts). 
In longitudinal studies, added value in iterative tests may be gained from fresh 
  participants in addition to the original ones. 
In between testing, it is advised to not let participants use a beta version of the 
  product for their own work.
In both types of evaluation good communication and collaboration between develo-
per and tester are crucial.
Does it work? 
Applying formative evaluation methods to test the usability of the PAT Workbench
Faculty of Arts Department of Communication & Information Sciences
User evaluation  
Results of the first test show that participants were able to upload and search MIs. However, participants 
experienced problems during Task 3 - annotate an MI - with finding the annotation page (3a), as well as with saving 
and viewing their annotations (3b).
Methods
Introduction
Manon van ‘t Hul h.c.m.van.t.hul@student.rug.nl 
Ielka van der Sluis i.f.van.der.sluis@rug.nl
Conclusion
Results
Expert review: Cognitive walkthrough 
The cognitive walkthrough did not pose as 
many problems as the heuristic inspection. 
The top tasks were easy to accomplish by the 
user. The main problem was a lack of feed-
back or visibility of feedback and guidance 
for the user.
During Test 2 participants had encountered only a few problems while executing the tasks. However, overall satisfac-
tion had decreased. From the interviews it became apparent that working with a system while it was being develo-
ped influenced the participants workload and quality of work.
References 
Hevner, A. R. (2007). A three cycle view of design science research. Scanavian Journal of Information Sys-
tems, 19(2), 4. 
Nielsen, J. (1995, January 1st). 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. Retrieved from https://
www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Visibility of system status
User control and freedom
Aesthetic and minimalist design
total severity score number of issues
Figure 1: Key usability problems from heuristic inspection. Figure 2: Problems during tasks from cogntive walkthrough.
32%
21%
47%
Task 1: Upload MI Task 2: Search MI Task 3: Annotate MI
Figure 3: Amount of errors Test 1. Figure 4: Time based efficiency Test 1.
Figure 5: Satisfaction from Test 1 to Test 2.
70
58,8
70,4
56,3
50
55
60
65
70
75
SUS UMUX
Figure 6: Reactions from participants during interview Test 2.
A big problem was that 
the system did not work 
properly
Too many 
updates and 
waiting for 
functionalities
I still had to do the annotation in 
Excel, this was double work
0,33
0,73
3,57
1,95
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
TBE in goals/sec.
Task 1: Upload MI Task 2: Search MI
Task3a: Find annotation page Task 3b: Save annotation
 
 Will the user know 
 what to do?
 No, unclarities about 
 compulsory fields and 
 input.
 Does the user know 
 he did the right thing?
 No, there is no 
 feedback when filling
 in the fields.
Task 1: Upload MI
 
 Will the user know 
 what to do?
 Yes, clearly visible 
 button.
 
 
 Does the user know 
 he did the right thing? 
 
 No, successfulness of   
 action is not indicated.
Step 8
 
Click on 
button 
‘save’.
Step 7
Fill out 
metadata 
on form
 
 Will the user know 
 what to do?
 Yes, there is a 
 clearly visible 
 button.
 
 Does the user know 
 he did the right thing? 
 
 No, successfulness 
 of the action is 
 unclear.
 
 Will the user know 
 what to do?
 No, the results tab 
 does not stand out 
 enough.
 
 Does the user know 
 he did the right thing? 
 
 Yes, results opened 
 in new page.
Step 6
Click on 
button 
‘Search’
Step 7
Click on 
tab 
‘result’
Task 2: Search MI


   University of GroningenDoes it work?Van't Hul, Manon; van der Sluis, IelkaIMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.Document VersionFinal author's version (accepted by publisher, after peer review)Publication date:2017Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research databaseCitation for published version (APA):Van't Hul, M., & van der Sluis, I. (2017). Does it work? Applying formative evaluation methods to test theusability of the PAT Workbench. Poster session presented at TABU Dag , Groningen, Netherlands.CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-amendment.Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.Download date: 01-11-2023Research question  How do different usability evaluation methods, focussed on experts and users, contribute to the evaluation of a system during an iterative design process?  The PAT Workbench was used as a case  to test usability methods.  This is a tool that was developed at the de-partment of Communication and Information Sciences of the University of Groningen, to store, annotate, retrieve and view multimodal instructions (MIs). MIs are instructions that consists of text and pictures. The goal of the PAT Workbench is to create a corpus of annotated MIs for further research. The framework used for this process was the design re-search cylce (Hevner, 2007).Design research cycleExpert review• Functional analysis• Heuristic inspection• Cognitive walkthrough w.r.t. PAT’s top tasks  (upload MI, search MI and annotate MI User evaluation Two tests with real users, students enrolled in the master course on multimodal instructions in Communication and Information Sciences.• Test 1 at beginning of course, with 9 users • Test 2 after seven weeks, with 4 users• Three top tasks while thinking aloud• A questionnaire after each task • Two general usability questionnaires • Interview with the participants.Expert review: Heuristic inspection This inspection was based on the 10 heuristic principles by Nielsen (1995). Results showed that, given the three top tasks, the two most severe usability problems were ‘visibility of system status’ (e.g. lack of feedback to the user, available information and functions were not clear) and ‘consistency and web standards’ (e.g. clickable links styled as text, site behaved not as expected).An iterative design process allows for the use of various evaluation methods, which contribute to the evaluation of a system in different ways: Expert evaluation• is cheap,• offers a detailed system description,• helps to overcome obvious issues in a more expensive user evaluation. User evaluation• displays multiple aspects of the system, which an expert may overlook,• provides useful insights in time based efficiency, error count and task completion,• benefits from Think Aloud Protocols (although with concurrent TAP participants      continiously need reminders to verbalise their thoughts). In longitudinal studies, added value in iterative tests may be gained from fresh   participants in addition to the original ones. In between testing, it is advised to not let participants use a beta version of the   product for their own work.In both types of evaluation good communication and collaboration between develo-per and tester are crucial.Does it work? Applying formative evaluation methods to test the usability of the PAT WorkbenchFaculty of Arts Department of Communication & Information SciencesUser evaluation  Results of the first test show that participants were able to upload and search MIs. However, participants experienced problems during Task 3 - annotate an MI - with finding the annotation page (3a), as well as with saving and viewing their annotations (3b).MethodsIntroductionManon van ‘t Hul h.c.m.van.t.hul@student.rug.nl Ielka van der Sluis i.f.van.der.sluis@rug.nlConclusionResultsExpert review: Cognitive walkthrough The cognitive walkthrough did not pose as many problems as the heuristic inspection. The top tasks were easy to accomplish by the user. The main problem was a lack of feed-back or visibility of feedback and guidance for the user.During Test 2 participants had encountered only a few problems while executing the tasks. However, overall satisfac-tion had decreased. From the interviews it became apparent that working with a system while it was being develo-ped influenced the participants workload and quality of work.References Hevner, A. R. (2007). A three cycle view of design science research. Scanavian Journal of Information Sys-tems, 19(2), 4. Nielsen, J. (1995, January 1st). 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Visibility of system statusUser control and freedomAesthetic and minimalist designtotal severity score number of issuesFigure 1: Key usability problems from heuristic inspection. Figure 2: Problems during tasks from cogntive walkthrough.32%21%47%Task 1: Upload MI Task 2: Search MI Task 3: Annotate MIFigure 3: Amount of errors Test 1. Figure 4: Time based efficiency Test 1.Figure 5: Satisfaction from Test 1 to Test 2.7058,870,456,3505560657075SUS UMUXFigure 6: Reactions from participants during interview Test 2.A big problem was that the system did not work properlyToo many updates and waiting for functionalitiesI still had to do the annotation in Excel, this was double work0,330,733,571,9500,511,522,533,54TBE in goals/sec.Task 1: Upload MI Task 2: Search MITask3a: Find annotation page Task 3b: Save annotation  Will the user know  what to do? No, unclarities about  compulsory fields and  input. Does the user know  he did the right thing? No, there is no  feedback when filling in the fields.Task 1: Upload MI  Will the user know  what to do? Yes, clearly visible  button.   Does the user know  he did the right thing?   No, successfulness of    action is not indicated.Step 8 Click on button ‘save’.Step 7Fill out metadata on form  Will the user know  what to do? Yes, there is a  clearly visible  button.  Does the user know  he did the right thing?   No, successfulness  of the action is  unclear.  Will the user know  what to do? No, the results tab  does not stand out  enough.  Does the user know  he did the right thing?   Yes, results opened  in new page.Step 6Click on button ‘Search’Step 7Click on tab ‘result’Task 2: Search MI

Does it work?:Applying formative evaluation methods to test the usability of the PAT Workbench

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NARCIS

University of Groningen

ARTS repository - University of Groningen

University of Groningen Research Database

ARTS repository - University of Groningen