Undo and erase events as indicators of usability problems

One approach to reducing the costs of usability testing is to facilitate the automatic detection of critical incidents: serious breakdowns in interaction that stand out during software use. This research evaluates the use of undo and erase events as indicators of critical incidents in Google SketchUp (a 3D-modeling application), measuring an indicator's usefulness by the numbers and types of usability problems discovered. We compared problems identified using undo and erase events to problems identified using the user-reported critical incident technique [Hartson and Castillo 1998]. In a within-subjects experiment with 35 participants, undo and erase episodes together revealed over 90% of the problems rated as severe, several of which would not have been discovered by self-report alone. Moreover, problems found by all three methods were rated as significantly more severe than those identified by only a subset of methods. These results suggest that undo and erase events will serve as useful complements to user-reported critical incidents for low cost usability evaluation of creation-oriented applications like SketchUp.

[1]  Marisa E. Campbell CHI 2004 , 2004, INTR.

[2]  Zhiwei Guan,et al.  The validity of the stimulated retrospective think-aloud method as measured by eye tracking , 2006, CHI.

[3]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems , 1993, INTERCHI.

[4]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Damaged Merchandise? A Review of Experiments That Compare Usability Evaluation Methods , 1998, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[5]  Robert C. Williges,et al.  The User Action Framework: A Theory-Based Foundation for Inspection and Classification of Usability Problems , 1999, HCI.

[6]  J. C. Flanagan Psychological Bulletin THE CRITICAL INCIDENT TECHNIQUE , 2022 .

[7]  Miranda G. Capra Contemporaneous versus Retrospective User-Reported Critical Incidents in Usability Evaluation , 2002 .

[8]  John T. Kelso,et al.  Remote evaluation: the network as an extension of the usability laboratory , 1996, CHI.

[9]  Gitte Lindgaard,et al.  Usability testing: what have we overlooked? , 2007, CHI.

[10]  Steven M. Belz,et al.  The user action framework: a reliable foundation for usability engineering support tools , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[11]  Virginia Tech,et al.  A Structured Process for Transforming Usability Data into Usability Information , 2007 .

[12]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  The evaluator effect in usability tests , 1998, CHI Conference Summary.

[13]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding computers and cognition , 1986 .

[14]  Jeffrey Rubin,et al.  Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests , 1994 .

[15]  Debora Shaw,et al.  Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests , 1996 .

[16]  Robert C. Williges,et al.  An Evaluation of Critical Incidents for Software Documentation Design , 1986 .

[17]  David F. Redmiles,et al.  An approach to large-scale collection of application usage data over the internet , 1998, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[18]  Gilbert Cockton,et al.  A Framework for Usability Problem Extraction , 1999, INTERACT.

[19]  Dennis R. Wixon,et al.  Using the RITE method to improve products; a definition and a case study , 2007 .

[20]  Paul P. Maglio,et al.  On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Comparative usability evaluation: critical incidents and critical threads , 1994, CHI '94.

[22]  L. Cronbach Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .

[23]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[24]  H. Rex Hartson,et al.  Remote evaluation for post-deployment usability improvement , 1998, AVI '98.

[25]  Ebba Þóra Hvannberg,et al.  Analysis of combinatorial user effect in international usability tests , 2004, CHI '04.

[26]  Jared M. Spool,et al.  Testing web sites: five users is nowhere near enough , 2001, CHI Extended Abstracts.