Every year at HFI we update Putting Research into Practice with the interesting research that was published or presented in the previous year. In doing so, we survey current literature from a range of disciplines, including:
We look for papers that offer new (or any!) answers to perennial questions... that report provocative findings... that explore emerging trends (like Web 2.0)... and/or that foreshadow future directions in user experience design.
And each year, we summarize findings from the papers in this year's seminar in the December newsletter.
As in previous years, we catalog and index studies against their actual findings rather than distilling them into guidelines. This approach offers practitioners quick access to recent research citations to support and drive design decisions and to efficiently quell (some) inter-office debates.
Together with previous Annual Research Reviews, this update extends practitioners' just-in-time references (03 | 04 | 05| 06). Do note, when using these references it is important to consider some details of the study to ensure that the findings of the study generalize meaningfully to your situation.
If you only want the highlight, review this one:
Tohidi, Buxton, Baecker, and Sellen (2006): Testing more than one alternative design within UX testing changes the experience for participants. Participants have an anchor for comparison and will tend to be more critical.
And for fun â if you do, or have engaged in, e-commerce this holiday season...
NYTimes.com | The way we live now... Intimate Shopping
When new teams are forming or for early collaborations, face-to-face interactions lead to best performance. Over time, technology-mediated collaboration (e.g., quality video communication) tools provide a viable, effective collaboration structure. (Van der Kleij, Paashuis, and Schraagen, 2005)
Collecting data from kids requires creating kid variations on existing methods. For instance, to collect emotional responses, consider a smiley meter (smiley and sad faces). To collect relative satisfaction, consider a fun sorter (rank alternatives based on fun-ness) or an again-again table where participants indicate if they want to do an activity again and again.(Read and MacFarlane, 2006)
Automated summative testing may be an effective alternative to lab-based summative testing and could be successfully conducted remotely. The findings are not as comprehensive as testing moderated by a trained usability engineer observing the sessions.(West and Lehman, 2006)
Calling prototypes high or low fidelity is ambiguous because there are many dimensions that prototypes can be ranked on fidelity (e.g., visual refinement, depth and breadth of functionality). (McCurdy, Connors, Pyrzak, Kanefsky, and Vera, 2006)
Menu-driven interfaces are perceived as easier to use. Icon-based interfaces are perceived as more useful. (SaadĂ© and Otrakji, 2007)
ClearType fonts are easier to both scan and read than non-ClearType fonts. (selectable in XP from Control pane / Displays / Appearance / Effects) (Dillon, Kleinman, Choi, and Bias, 2006)
When it's possible to use either a speech menu or a touch screen, speech interactions work better for more complex tasks and users often prefer them. Touch interaction are more effective and efficient for simple tasks. (Lee and Lai, 2005)
Even hands-free cell phones interfere with driving performance in a simulator. Drivers brake more slowly and have significantly more rear-end collisions than people not talking on a mobile phone. (Strayer and Drews, 2004)
2-dimensional graphs are interpreted better than either 3-dimensional graphs or spreadsheets. Color data presentations are a bit easier to interpret than monochrome ones.(Keller, Gerjets, Sheiter, and Gorsaffsky, 2006)
Providing context â such as clear titles â helps users interpret and remember (encode) information. (Alba, Alexander, Hasher, and Caniglia, 1981)
It is important to establish trust with users from their very earliest experience with your site. This is particularly true in e-commerce, banking, medical and insurance where the first impression of trust has a lasting effect. (Lee and See, 2004)
On health Web sites, trust is a function of first impressions, content and look and feel. Consumers may be reluctant to provide personal information / register on health Web sites, even if they appear trustworthy. (Sillence, Briggs, Harris, and Fishwick, 2006)
If you are trying to catch somebody's attention on your site, consider:
(Hillstrom and Chai, 2006)
On e-commerce sites, consumers are more likely to be engaged by personalized content when it occurs early in the decision path than when it occurs later. Messages that alert consumers to missed opportunities are more effective than messages that tout personalized opportunities. (Ho and Tam, 2005)
Consumers will use video phones to: keep in touch, show items (e.g., when purchasing), and conduct business meetings. However, the barriers to effective use (e.g., ambient light and noise, difficulty multi-tasking, privacy) still present a significant challenge. (O'Hara, Black, and Lipson, 2006)
Mood matters. Consumers who were in a good mood spent more time browsing and less time to make a purchase than consumers who were in a poor mood. (Xia, 2002)
Despite the increasing use of technology, undergraduates still have a more positive attitude towards learning from books than computers. They prefer and expect to learn more from books. (Noyes and Garland, 2006)
Improving usability helps both older (55+) and younger users. Even so, older users have significantly more difficulty using the Web than younger ones. (Chadwick-Dias, McNulty, and Tullis, 2003)
Older adults (M=67.88 years) have a harder time searching for things on the Web than younger adults (M=20.88 years). This is largely because older individuals have less efficient search strategies. (Stronge, Rogers, and Fisk, 2006)
A user's beliefs about their own capabilities (self-efficacy) is a stronger predictor of frustration with computer challenges than age and gender. (Bessiere, Newhagen, Robinson, and Shneiderman, 2006)
User experience testing that pits alternative designs against each other provides participants an anchor for ratings. Participants tend to be more critical about their feedback when there is more than one design. (Tohidi, Buxton, Baecker, and Sellen, 2006)
Retrospective thinking aloud (collecting verbal reports after performance) is a valid and reliable technique; however there were omissions when users were struggling to complete tasks. (Guan, Lee, Cuddihy, and Ramey, 2006)
Eye-movement data adds to traditional usability testing data by showing where people look, the order in which they look, and how long they look. (Russell, 2005)
If you want naturalistic tests for mobile interfaces, having users walk on a treadmill is a good first step. However, having participants walk a defined path (in the real world) may provide more accurate performance times and better subjective measures because it will be a better simulation of the actual user experience. (Barnard, Yi, Jacko, and Sears, 2005)
Alba, J.W., Alexander, S.G., Hasher, L., and Caniglia, K. (1981). The Role Context in the Encoding of Information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Learning and Memory, vol. 7, No. 4, p 283-292.
Barnard, L., Yi, J.S., Jacko, J.A., Sears, A. (2005). An empirical comparison of use-in-motion evaluation scenarios for mobile computing devices. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62. pp 487-520.
Bessiere, K., Newhagen, J., Robinson, J., and Shneiderman, B. (2006). A Model for Computer Frustration. Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 22, pages 941 â 961.
Chadwick-Dias, A., McNulty, M., and Tullis, T. (2003). Web Usability and Age: How Design Changes Can Improve Performance. ACM Conference on Universal Usability, 1-58113-701-X/03/0011.
Copas, G. M. (2003). Can Internet Shoppers be Described by Personality Traits. Usability News, 5.1.
Corritore, C.L., Kracher, B., and Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). On-line Trust: Concepts, Evolving Themes. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 58, pp. 737-758.
Dillon, A., Kleinman, L., Choi, G.O., and Bias, R. (2006). Visual Search and Reading Tasks Using ClearType and Regular Displays: Two Experiments. CHI 2006 Proceedings: Visualization and Search. April 22-27, pp. 503-511.
Escalas, J.E., (2004). Narrative Processing: Building Consumer Connections to Brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (1&2), 168-180.
Guan, Z., Lee, S., Cuddihy, E., and Ramey, J.(2006). The Validity of the Simulated Retrospective Think-Aloud Method as Measured by Eye Tracking. CHI 2006 Proceedings, Usability Methods, April 22-27, 2006. MontrĂ©al, QuĂ©bec, Canada.
Hillstrom, A.P. and Chai, Y-C. (2006). Factors that Guide or Disrupt Attentive Visual Processing. Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp. 648-656.
Ho, S.Y. and Tam, K.Y. (2005). An Empirical Examination of the Effects of Web Personalization at Different Stages of Decision Making. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1), 95-112. 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Keller, T., Gerjets, P., Sheiter, K., and Gorsaffsky, B. (2006). Information Visualizations for Knowledge Acquisition: The Impact of Dimensionality and Color Coding. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp 43 - 65.
Korgaonkar, P. and Wolin, L.D. (2002). Web Usage, Advertising and Shopping: Relationship Patterns. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 12(2), pp. 191-204.
Lee, K.M. and Lai, J. (2005). Speech Versus Touch: A Comparative Study of the Use of Speech and DTMF Keypad for Navigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 19(3), 343-360.
Lee, J.D., and See, K.A. (2004). Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), pp. 50-80.
Lightner, N. J. (2003). What Users Want in E-Commerce Design: Effects of Age, Education and Income. Ergonomics, 46(1), pp. 153-168.
McCurdy, M., Connors C., Pyrzak, G., Kanefsky, B., and Vera, A. (2006). Breaking the Fidelity Barrier: Example of a Mixed-Fidelity Success. CHI 2006 Proceedings, April 22-27, 2006, MontrĂ©al, QuĂ©bec, Canada p. 1233-1242.
Noyes, J. and Garland, K. (2006). Explaining Students' Attitudes Toward Books and Computers. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol 22, issue 3, pages 351-363, May 2006.
O'Hara, K. (2004). Curb Cuts on the Information Highway: Older Adults and the Internet. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13(4), pp. 423-445.
Ranganathan, C. and Ganapathy, S. (2002). Key Dimensions of Business- to- Consumer Web Sites. Information & Management, 39, pp. 357-465.
Read, J. and MacFarlane, S. (2006). Using the Fun Toolkit and Other Survey Methods to Gather Opinions in Child Computer Interaction. ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 1-59593-316-6/06/07.
Roto, V., Popescu, A., Koivisto, A., and Vartiainen, E. (2006). Minimap â A Web Page Visualization Method for Mobile Phones. CHI 2006, April 22â27, 2006, MontrĂ©al, QuĂ©bec, Canada. ACM 1-59593-178.
Russell, M. (2005). Using Eye-Tracking Data to Understand First Impressions of a Website. Usability News 7.1.
SaadĂ©, R.G. and Otrakji, C.A. (2007). First Impressions Last a Lifetime: Effect of Interface Type on Disorientation and Cognitive Load. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 23, No. 1, p 525 â 535.
Shor, M. and Oliver, R.L. (2006). Price Discrimination Through Online Couponing: Impact on Likelihood of Purchase and Profitability. Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 27, No. 3, pages 423 â 440.
Sillence, E., Briggs, P., Harris, P. and Fishwick, L. (2006). A Framework for Understanding Trust Factors in Web-based Health Advice.Â International Journal of Human-Computers Studies, Volume 64, Issue 8, pages 697-713.
Strayer, D., and Drews, F. (2004). Profiles in Driver Distraction: Effects of Cell Phone Conversations on Younger and Older Drivers. Human Factors, 46(4), pp. 640-649.
Stronge, A.A., Rogers, W.A., Fisk, A.D. (2006). Web based Information Search and Retrieval: Effects of Strategy Use and Age on Search Success. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Vol. 48, No. 3, pp 434- 446.
Tohidi, M., Buxton, W., Baecker, R., and Sellen, A. (2006). Getting the Right Design and the Design Right: Testing Many is Better Than One. CHI 2006 Proceedings.Â Usability Methods.Â April 22-27, 2006.Â MontrĂ©al, QuĂ©bec, Canada.
Van der Kleij, R., Paashuis, R, and Schraagen, J.M. (2005). On the Passage of Time: Temporal Differences in Video-mediated and Face-to-face Interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62, pp 521-542.
West, R. and Lehman, K.R. (2006). Automated Summative Usability Studies: An Empirical Evaluation. CHI 2006 Proceedings, April 22-27, 2006, MontrĂ©al, QuĂ©bec, Canada pp. 631-639.
Xia, L. (2002). Affect as Information: The Role of Affect in Consumer Online Behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 29, pp. 93â99.
The paper on testing multiple design alternatives is intriguing but it also raises a lot of questions. Usability testing's primary purpose and strength have always been about observing how successful people are in using a tool. Asking them how easy it is to use something is notoriously unreliable. The paper seems to put a disproportional weight in comments.
Also, people will learn about the non-interaction based aspects of a task while they perform them. Things like verbiage, capabilities, domain knowledge, even getting a better understanding of what's being asked of them. What they learn on the first task (first design alternative) affects their confidence and knowledge when performing the second and third tasks (other design alternatives). I couldn't find how this bias was addressed.
Lastly, I'm surprised that the authors were expecting solid design suggestions from the participants. As they state themselves, usability tests produce findings: what works, what doesn't, perhaps why. You still need an interaction designer to translate these into solid design improvements.
Response from Kath Straub:
Ah... your observations are quite sharp and insightful... and certainly ones that serious practitioners should be considering, addressing, and adjusting for in their own work. After all, usability testing should be a form of controlled experimentation... If only applied research could be well designed laboratory research....
But the pendulum does swing both ways. At what point do we worry that controlled, balanced experimentation shifts us away from ecological validity in our findings? After all, as I explore a site (in my real world), I do get exposure to it... and that exposure has an impact on how I execute subsequent tasks.
To arrive at a (reasonable?) local minima, it's important that practitioners understand and apply rigorous scientific method to their testing designs. That is your point, right? And we agree on this point. I would be curious to know what proportion of the active user experience practitioners today have taken (and still remember the key points from) their experimental design course(s)?
That said, the point of the paper â at least the one we are hoping practitioners will take away â is that testing multiple designs (against each other) can yield a very different outcome than testing a single design (against itself?).
Sign up to get our Newsletter delivered straight to your inbox
HFI may use âcookiesâ or âweb beaconsâ to track how Users use the Website. A cookie is a piece of software that a web server can store on Usersâ PCs and use to identify Users should they visit the Website again. Users may adjust their web browser software if they do not wish to accept cookies. To withdraw your consent after accepting a cookie, delete the cookie from your computer.
HFI believes that every User should know how it utilizes the information collected from Users. The Website is not directed at children under 13 years of age, and HFI does not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from children under 13 years of age online. Please note that the Website may contain links to other websites. These linked sites may not be operated or controlled by HFI. HFI is not responsible for the privacy practices of these or any other websites, and you access these websites entirely at your own risk. HFI recommends that you review the privacy practices of any other websites that you choose to visit.
HFI is based, and this website is hosted, in the United States of America. If User is from the European Union or other regions of the world with laws governing data collection and use that may differ from U.S. law and User is registering an account on the Website, visiting the Website, purchasing products or services from HFI or the Website, or otherwise using the Website, please note that any personally identifiable information that User provides to HFI will be transferred to the United States. Any such personally identifiable information provided will be processed and stored in the United States by HFI or a service provider acting on its behalf. By providing your personally identifiable information, User hereby specifically and expressly consents to such transfer and processing and the uses and disclosures set forth herein.
In the course of its business, HFI may perform expert reviews, usability testing, and other consulting work where personal privacy is a concern. HFI believes in the importance of protecting personal information, and may use measures to provide this protection, including, but not limited to, using consent forms for participants or âdummyâ test data.
HFI may use personally identifiable information collected through the Website for the specific purposes for which the information was collected, to process purchases and sales of products or services offered via the Website if any, to contact Users regarding products and services offered by HFI, its parent, subsidiary and other related companies in order to otherwise to enhance Usersâ experience with HFI. HFI may also use information collected through the Website for research regarding the effectiveness of the Website and the business planning, marketing, advertising and sales efforts of HFI. HFI does not sell any User information under any circumstances.
HFI may disclose personally identifiable information collected from Users to its parent, subsidiary and other related companies to use the information for the purposes outlined above, as necessary to provide the services offered by HFI and to provide the Website itself, and for the specific purposes for which the information was collected. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information at the request of law enforcement or governmental agencies or in response to subpoenas, court orders or other legal process, to establish, protect or exercise HFIâs legal or other rights or to defend against a legal claim or as otherwise required or allowed by law. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information in order to protect the rights, property or safety of a User or any other person. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information to investigate or prevent a violation by User of any contractual or other relationship with HFI or the perpetration of any illegal or harmful activity. HFI may also disclose aggregate, anonymous data based on information collected from Users to investors and potential partners. Finally, HFI may disclose or transfer personally identifiable information collected from Users in connection with or in contemplation of a sale of its assets or business or a merger, consolidation or other reorganization of its business.
If a User includes such Userâs personally identifiable information as part of the User posting to the Website, such information may be made available to any parties using the Website. HFI does not edit or otherwise remove such information from User information before it is posted on the Website. If a User does not wish to have such Userâs personally identifiable information made available in this manner, such User must remove any such information before posting. HFI is not liable for any damages caused or incurred due to personally identifiable information made available in the foregoing manners. For example, a User posts on an HFI-administered forum would be considered Personal Information as provided by User and subject to the terms of this section.
Information about Users that is maintained on HFIâs systems or those of its service providers is protected using industry standard security measures. However, no security measures are perfect or impenetrable, and HFI cannot guarantee that the information submitted to, maintained on or transmitted from its systems will be completely secure. HFI is not responsible for the circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures relating to the Website by any Users or third parties.
Human Factors International, Inc.
PO Box 2020
1680 highway 1, STE 3600
Fairfield IA 52556
HFI reserves the right to cancel any course up to 14 (fourteen) days prior to the first day of the course. Registrants will be promptly notified and will receive a full refund or be transferred to the equivalent class of their choice within a 12-month period. HFI is not responsible for travel expenses or any costs that may be incurred as a result of cancellations.
$100 processing fee if cancelling within two weeks of course start date.
4 Pack + Exam registration: Rs. 10,000 per participant processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the course (4 Pack-CUA/CXA) registration before three weeks from the course start date. No refund or carry forward of the course fees if cancelling or transferring the course registration within three weeks before the course start date.
Individual Modules: Rs. 3,000 per participant âper moduleâ processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the course (any Individual HFI course) registration before three weeks from the course start date. No refund or carry forward of the course fees if cancelling or transferring the course registration within three weeks before the course start date.
Exam: Rs. 3,000 per participant processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the pre agreed CUA/CXA exam date before three weeks from the examination date. No refund or carry forward of the exam fees if requesting/cancelling or transferring the CUA/CXA exam within three weeks before the examination date.
There will be no audio or video recording allowed in class. Students who have any disability that might affect their performance in this class are encouraged to speak with the instructor at the beginning of the class.
The course and training materials and all other handouts provided by HFI during the course are published, copyrighted works proprietary and owned exclusively by HFI. The course participant does not acquire title nor ownership rights in any of these materials. Further the course participant agrees not to reproduce, modify, and/or convert to electronic format (i.e., softcopy) any of the materials received from or provided by HFI. The materials provided in the class are for the sole use of the class participant. HFI does not provide the materials in electronic format to the participants in public or onsite courses.