Concurrent Think-Aloud Verbalizations and Usability Problems

The concurrent think-aloud protocol—in which participants verbalize their thoughts when performing tasks—is a widely employed approach in usability testing. Despite its value, analyzing think-aloud sessions can be onerous because it often entails assessing all of a user's verbalizations. This has motivated previous research on developing categories to segment verbalizations into manageable units of analysis. However, the way in which a category might relate to usability problems is currently unclear. In this research, we sought to address this gap in our understanding. We also studied how speech features might relate to usability problems. Through two studies, this research demonstrates that certain patterns of verbalizations are more telling of usability problems than others and that these patterns are robust to different types of test products (i.e., physical devices and digital systems), access to different types of information (i.e., video and audio modality), and the presence or absence of a visualization of verbalizations. The implication is that the verbalization and speech patterns can potentially reduce the time and effort required for analysis by enabling evaluators to focus more on the important aspects of a user's verbalizations. The patterns could also potentially be used to inform the design of systems to automatically detect when in the recorded think-aloud sessions users experience problems.

[1]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Chapter 4 – The Usability Engineering Lifecycle , 1993 .

[2]  Paul Boersma,et al.  Praat: doing phonetics by computer , 2003 .

[3]  Asbjørn Følstad,et al.  Work-Domain Experts as Evaluators: Usability Inspection of Domain-Specific Work-Support Systems , 2007, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[4]  Eric Gilbert,et al.  VADER: A Parsimonious Rule-Based Model for Sentiment Analysis of Social Media Text , 2014, ICWSM.

[5]  Helen Petrie,et al.  The effect of global instructions on think-aloud testing , 2013, CHI.

[6]  M. Gribaudo,et al.  2002 , 2001, Cell and Tissue Research.

[7]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  What Do Thinking-Aloud Participants Say? A Comparison of Moderated and Unmoderated Usability Sessions , 2015, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[8]  Victoria A. Bowers Concurrent versus Retrospective Verbal Protocol for Comparing Window Usability , 1990 .

[9]  Masahiro Hori,et al.  Investigation of Indirect Oral Operation Method for Think Aloud Usability Testing , 2011, HCI.

[10]  Jonathan W. Schooler,et al.  Why do words hurt? Content, process, and criterion shift accounts of verbal overshadowing , 2008 .

[11]  Leo Lentz,et al.  Combining Concurrent Think-Aloud Protocols and Eye-Tracking Observations: An Analysis of Verbalizations and Silences , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[12]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  The Evaluator Effect: A Chilling Fact About Usability Evaluation Methods , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[13]  Andreas Sonderegger,et al.  The influence of age in usability testing. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.

[14]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking , 2002, Cognition.

[15]  Obead Alhadreti,et al.  Rethinking Thinking Aloud: A Comparison of Three Think-Aloud Protocols , 2018, CHI.

[16]  Blair Nonnecke,et al.  Think aloud: effects and validity , 2012, SIGDOC '12.

[17]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  What you get is what you see: revisiting the evaluator effect in usability tests , 2014, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[18]  Tingting Zhao,et al.  Dual Verbal Elicitation: The Complementary Use of Concurrent and Retrospective Reporting Within a Usability Test , 2013, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[19]  E. Charters The Use of Think-aloud Methods in Qualitative Research An Introduction to Think-aloud Methods , 2003 .

[20]  L. Miles,et al.  2000 , 2000, RDH.

[21]  E. Krahmer,et al.  Thinking about thinking aloud: a comparison of two verbal protocols for usability testing , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[22]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Honest Signals - How They Shape Our World , 2008 .

[23]  Tingting Zhao,et al.  Keep talking: an analysis of participant utterances gathered using two concurrent think-aloud methods , 2010, NordiCHI.

[24]  Mats Fredrikson,et al.  In a Nervous Voice: Acoustic Analysis and Perception of Anxiety in Social Phobics’ Speech , 2008 .

[25]  Lynne Cooke,et al.  Assessing Concurrent Think-Aloud Protocol as a Usability Test Method: A Technical Communication Approach , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[26]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[27]  Richard B. Wright,et al.  Method Bias and Concurrent Verbal Protocol in Software Usability Testing , 1992 .

[28]  Pam J. Mayhew,et al.  To Intervene or Not to Intervene:An Investigation of Three Think-Aloud Protocols in Usability Testing , 2017 .

[29]  Ted Boren,et al.  Thinking aloud: reconciling theory and practice , 2000 .

[30]  Mark C. Fox,et al.  Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods. , 2011, Psychological bulletin.

[31]  J. J. Franks,et al.  Effort toward comprehension: Elaboration or “aha”? , 1979 .

[32]  Ted Boren,et al.  Thinking aloud: reconciling theory and practice , 2000 .

[33]  Qingxin Shi,et al.  A field study of the relationship and communication between Chinese evaluators and users in thinking aloud usability tests , 2008, NordiCHI.

[34]  Kasper Hornbæk,et al.  What do usability evaluators do in practice?: an explorative study of think-aloud testing , 2006, DIS '06.

[35]  S. Tirkkonen-Condit,et al.  Think-Aloud Protocols , 2006 .

[36]  J Turnbull Keep talking. , 1995, Nursing times.

[37]  S. L. Sporer,et al.  Paraverbal indicators of deception: a meta‐analytic synthesis , 2006 .

[38]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  Scrutinising usability evaluation: does thinking aloud affect behaviour and mental workload? , 2009, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[39]  Tingting Zhao,et al.  Look Who's Talking: Evaluating the Utility of Interventions During an Interactive Think-Aloud , 2016, Interact. Comput..

[40]  Erica L. Olmsted-Hawala,et al.  Think-aloud protocols: Analyzing three different think-aloud protocols with counts of verbalized frustrations in a usability study of an information-rich Web site , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Professional Comunication Conference.

[41]  L. R. Peterson,et al.  Concurrent verbal activity. , 1969 .

[42]  Tingting Zhao,et al.  The impact of two different think-aloud instructions in a usability test: a case of just following orders? , 2014, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[43]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Understanding , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[44]  Malcolm P. Atkinson,et al.  Comparison of evaluation methods using structured usability problem reports , 1997, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[45]  AsbjØRn F⊘lstad,et al.  Work-Domain Experts as Evaluators: Usability Inspection of Domain-Specific Work-Support Systems , 2007 .

[46]  Florence March,et al.  2016 , 2016, Affair of the Heart.

[47]  Clare-Marie Karat,et al.  Comparison of empirical testing and walkthrough methods in user interface evaluation , 1992, CHI.

[48]  Gerhard P. Deffner,et al.  Evaluation of Concurrent Thinking Aloud Using Eye-tracking Data , 1990 .

[49]  David W. Biers,et al.  Retrospective versus Concurrent Thinking-Out-Loud in Usability Testing , 1993 .

[50]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[51]  Martin Porcheron,et al.  Measuring the effect of think aloud protocols on workload using fNIRS , 2014, CHI.

[52]  Tingting Zhao,et al.  Exploring Think-Alouds in Usability Testing: An International Survey , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[53]  Menno D. T. de Jong,et al.  Employing think-aloud protocols and constructive interaction to test the usability of online library catalogues: a methodological comparison , 2004, Interact. Comput..