Usability Testing and Cultural Analysis

This assignment reflects on the process of usability testing and cultural analysis conducted for a website redesign. It details the methodologies used, including user observation and 'thinking aloud' protocols. The document highlights challenges faced, such as handling unexpected user queries, and emphasizes the importance of understanding target users through cultural analysis. Specific observations from user testing sessions are shared, demonstrating the value of direct user feedback in informing design decisions.

Abstract
Usability appertains towards the “quality of the connection in terms of
parameters as an example time taken to perform tasks, number of issues
made, and the the opportunity to become a competent user”. Alternatively,
Usability “is a quality attribute that could assess how quick user interfaces
must be use. The word “usability” also refers to processes for improving
ease-of-use inside the design process. The particular usability evaluation
degree is an effective method by which a system development team may
establish the positive and also negative aspects of it is prototype releases,
that the required changes prior to the system is delivered to the purpose
users.
Introduction
A person interface (UI) will be the intersection of product or service and user.
Typically the coin slot along with selection buttons on the vending machine
or perhaps complex, the variety of buttons/commands inside a computer
application, the particular steering wheel, gas your pedal, brake pedal, and
also diagnostic lights on the car are all types of user interfaces.
Nevertheless, the term user interface is normally used in relation to
schooling interface. In this circumstance, a user interface is understood to
be, “The aspects of a pc system or plan which can be seen (or heard or
otherwise perceived) by the human end user, and the commands along with
mechanisms the user employs to control its functioning and input info. ” This

task will focus on pc interfaces, specifically people websites. (Computing,
2009)
Jakob Nielsen, probably the most famous usability specialist, asserts that
functionality consists of five parts: learnability, efficiency, memorability,
minimization of mistakes, and satisfaction. (Nielsen, Usability Engineering,
1993) The ideal website could be immediately clear in order to new users,
impart them with the information they need quickly, easy to use even after
very long breaks away from the web page, error-free, and provide a fantastic
experience for the end user. Unfortunately, few (if any) interfaces tend to be
perfect. Websites in many cases are poorly laid-out, generating navigation
counter-intuitive. Programs often have poorly branded buttons or cloudy
prompts. New customers often get confused simply by unclear layout, and
also returning users are often frustrated by awkward or maybe cumbersome
ways of getting into data. To prevent these kinds of problems, interfaces
must be designed for usability. “Usability is … their education to which
people (users) can perform a set of needed tasks. It is the merchandise of
several, occasionally conflicting design objectives. ” (Brinck, Gergle, & Wood,
2002).
Background
There are distinct approaches to understanding functionality. One of the
more predominant versions, advocated by well-known usability expert Jacob

black Nielson, takes a great engineering approach to this issue. In this
model, you will find rules to follow along with tests to perform. Files from
usability lab tests are analyzed and also based on that, the actual interface is
tweaked. Contrasting the anatomist method is a ethnical approach. In this
type the emphasis is usually on understanding the end user. Whereas the
executive approach uses a few fairly interchangeable people, the cultural
strategy differentiates users. Although both methods may be used to design
and assess a site, the ethnic approach lacks typically the clear testing
strategy that the engineering technique has. In this part I outline Nielsen’s
“Discount Usability Testing” methods, perhaps the most in-demand approach
for the architectural approach to usability examining, cultural usability, along
with introduce Sargent Producing and its website.
Viewpoints on Usability
Wonderful is a measure of exactly how easy an software is to use. Typically,
user friendliness evaluations are held separate from posts of utility, precisely
how effective a product will be, a characteristic normally more influenced
with what the user interface is actually connected to than the user interface
itself. Nielsen specifies usability as being consists of five components:
o Learnability: How easy would it be for users to achieve basic tasks the
very first time they encounter the planning?
o Efficiency: Once people have learned the design, how fast can they
perform responsibilities?

o Memorability: When people return to the design over time of not
utilizing it, how easily do they reestablish proficiency?
o Issues: How many errors perform users make, precisely how severe are
all these errors, and how quickly can they recover from typically the
errors?
o Satisfaction: Precisely how pleasant is it to make use of the design?
(Nielsen, Functionality 101: Introduction to Usability)
Usability Engineering
Customer interfaces should be as easy and natural as you possibly can.
Users should be provided all the information they need, without more. The
program should have commands as well as options in a sensible progression.
Additionally, gate design choices should correctly convey the information
from the system. This frequently involves grouping or perhaps color-coding
objects so that their relationship will be intuitive. Objects next to each other
on the display screen are assumed to get related, as are materials colored
the same or maybe boxed together.
Extremity should speak typically the users’ language. Consumer interfaces
are often produced by highly technical folks familiar with the product and
also used by less specialized people who will know small about the product
initially. Commands and possibilities should be named to the extent as to
make sense in their eyes. Help files in which allow users to look should use a
good amount of synonyms so consumers can find answers with their

questions. Error communications in particular tend to be perplexing to users,
because they often reflect some sort of technical problem that this user
would not know. Error message ought to be understandable by the clients
and contain suggestions about how to recover from typically the error. It is
also crucial that the underlying metaphors in the design match up the way
the user might think of the system; collections and associations inside the
software should complement how users imagine it, not the way the
information is actually kept.
Web Interfaces
This kind of project specifically refers to web interfaces. Besides general
usability regulations, web interfaces get their own specific worries. Loading
times vs users’ attention covers play a much more part in web site layout.
Nielsen states, “Currently, the minimum aim for response period should be
to get internet pages to users within no more than ten mere seconds,
because that is the limitation of people’s power to keep their interest
focused while patiently waiting.” Users generally have an alternative in
terms of web sites, making it a lot harder to keep customers and their
attention. Since loading times will often be more of a technical worry (files
sizes, bandwidth, etc . ) instead of a design consideration will have them
outside of the scope of the project. Additionally, internet sites have other
targets to meet. These include specialized restrictions from the need to run
in a web browser or having to exhibit properly on just about any monitor.

Additionally web sites must deal with the actual implications of “Jakob’s Law
of Internet Customer Experience”. The concept states that, however wildly
popular an online site may become, the sum of users’ time on additional
websites will still be much larger than their moment on that one website.
Therefore, web sites should be careful to adhere to the particular
conventions and targets created by other sites to keep up usability.
(Loranger and Nielsen, 2006)
Ethnic Usability When commencing the creation or maybe redesign of a
website or a user interface generally speaking, it is important to understand
the consumers (or potential users) of the interface. Founder must understand
who have the customers are, the things they want and need, and even what
sort of hardware/software they are serves to access your merchandise.
(Brinck, Gergle, and also Wood, 2002) Ethnical usability focuses on the
particular users’ understanding of the item and the context installed it in.
Any kind of “cultural artifact” could be analyzed using the a few elements of
the group of “Circuit involving Culture”. (Melles, 2008) Huatong Sun believes
that engineering ways to usability tend to just look at the production along
with consumption aspects. By simply ignoring the other about three
components to tradition someone blindly next an engineering method would
not fully understand the actual underlying product way to the customer and
the situation they put it within. Sun also states that these engineering types
treat the tradition as unchanging. Much better protect act up transforming

the interface probably will change the other aspects of culture and therefore
the traditions itself.
Discount Wonderful Engineering
In several regarding Nielsen’s books, he or she recommends a Discount User
friendliness Engineering approach regarding testing an user interface. While
running a large-scale usability study using hundred of people may be a
daunting process from both a moment and budget viewpoint, running a small
user friendliness study with a few to six consumers is very reasonable to
perform. Furthermore, Nielsen statements, a small usability try things out
will catch virtually all problems a larger you might. These claims derive from
the data from a number of usability tests.
Heuristic Evaluation
Heuristic review is a process exactly where people (ideally user friendliness
experts) look through users interface for probable design problems. In
contrast to many of the other user friendliness methods here, this procedure
does not involve customers or simulated customers of the product. The idea
instead involves user friendliness experts (or an individual playing the
function of one) forthcoming through the system employing a predetermined
list of regulations. These experts search for places where the rules tend to be
broken or exactly where they believe there are style flaws. The design

guidelines that the usability gurus use can be a precise list designed by the
corporation, required by the buyer, popular in the industry, or perhaps it can
simply be more robust general design regulations.
Scenarios
While heuristics give good advice with regard to things to avoid along with
general rules to check out, it is often an effective examination the planned
route users take with an interface. The circumstance approach is a good
approach to test out a offered layout or technique in an interface. “A
scenario brings out extra functional requirements along with ideas for the
user interface… ideas you will not have thought of from your abstract
consideration on the design. ” (Cockton, 2001)The intended route is
sketched from a computer or in some recoverable format and note control
cards. The test user is actually walked through the meant flow and are
usually comment. On paper, the actual linking process might be created by
demarking backlinks and having individual pages for new web pages.
Dropdown options may be written on a be aware card and demonstrated
when the user decides the appropriate menu. Customers may be asked that
they would proceed from your certain mock-up website or asked no matter if
something is clear. In line with the user’s feedback and also confusions,
changes might be made to organization or even layout to make clear or
improve the design and style. (Plaisant & Shneiderman, 2010 )
Customer and Task Paying attention

Heuristics and cases are excellent tools regarding initially planning a format.
When it comes time to determine and evaluate the software, user and
activity observation is the essential usability test. In this test, the
experimenter observes a test consumer trying to complete a activity or
series of jobs given to him/her. The actual success of the end user is
documented like any difficulties they will encountered along the way. Within
this method users get very little, if just about any coaching. The
experimenter running the test can there be to explain the examining process
and describe unclear tasks, to not provide help throughout testing. In this
form of testing, much more command is given to the customer than in a
situation. A scenario can be a guide taking a person on a tour, requesting
how you like the walk. User task declaration is telling an individual where
they want to wind up and watching that trails they get.
Simplified Thinking Out loud
Like user process observation, a simple thinking aloud technique involves
gauging examination users’ interactions using the product. However in this
process the test is not dedicated to time to complete a process or success
pace. Instead the test entails a test user browsing through through the
system, quite possibly to complete a certain activity, possibly just while
using the interface out. The consumer is encouraged to “think out loud”,
vocalizing their thoughts since they navigate. The user describes why they

carry out each action, the way they are looking for, etc . Anything at all
confusing or annoying to the user ought to be remarked upon too.
Between Subject versus Within Subject Examining
For all the testing strategies involving actual examination users, the tests
can be done either among subject or inside subject. The variation involves
how the check process deals with contrasting two different termed. Between
subject tests uses different people for each type of tests. The benefit to this
is the fact that users are not a lot more familiar with the topic issue and site
when dealing with the second interface compared to they were when they
thought about the first. This type of tests is to prevent a precise bias in favor
of the next or subsequent barrier being tested. Drawback to this approach
could be that the difference in talents between users is not really adjusted
for. Intended for large number of users this may not be important as the
abilities or perhaps users in every single group will have a tendency to equal
out.
A Case Study
The particular Sergeant Manufacturing Web site This project may focus on
one web site as an example. The website picked is that of my boss, Sargent

Manufacturing, the door hardware organization. It was chosen as one
example for two reasons. The important reason was the suggestions I
received coming from customers complaining on the site. Users often times
have great difficulty locating the documentation and solutions to their
questions on this access control goods. Secondly, I wanted to utilize a
website and organization that I was thoroughly familiar with so I might better
understand the targets of the company and also the needs of the buyers.
Methodology This venture demonstrated a Nielsen-style discount usability
analysis and reviewed it is effectiveness by contrasting the final product on
the pre-study website. To do that, I recognized those tests along with
approaches best suited just for this particular website plus the limitations.
After I made a decision the general tests, I actually finalized the details of
each one step. Some of these actions had to be performed in the certain
order while they were conditional on the results of the previous phase.
Others I could manage concurrently. The ultimate objective was to better
comprehend usability and user friendliness testing by following this
technique. The final product has been intended to be a more functional
website for the novice end-user of Sargent’s access control goods. A
flowchart in the usability testing system is shown inside Figure 4 Technique
Flowchart; the following portions describe the details.

Figuring out Different Users Since the objective of this task was to see how
the actual access control part of the website works for any certain niche
associated with users, I initial had to identify the particular characteristics of
those customers. I decided that I would simply be focusing on end-users
regarding access control items that are not part of the locking mechanism or
access manage field. That said, Required to have at least a number of
familiarity with who more was using the web-site. Knowing that information
place the current design in to perspective. To learn regarding these users I
had to talk with them. Assuming that individuals who use the web site are
also likely to call up the company, the ones that accessibility this particular
part of the web site will often talk to me or perhaps other application
technical engineers at the company. We interviewed them casually to see
who they may have encountered visiting the web-site. As part of the normal
portion of my job My spouse and i mentally would manage common
problems men and women had with the web site. In addition to my own
expertise, I asked the other software engineers for information in regards to
the needs of these diverse user niches, precisely what information they visit
the site looking for and trouble they come across trying to find it.
Hiring Testers To perform lots of the approaches I defined n the previous
area, I needed several check users. As this task was not officially paid by the
company, I used to be not able to use genuine users. However , considering
that my target specific niche market to test this site along with consisted of

end users who will be not lock gurus, it was not too difficult to get reasonable
test consumers. To simulate individuals who are appointed to systems I
utilized friends and co-workers. The obvious benefit to the approach was a
heightened willingness for them to aid in the process. Additionally , I had
been familiar with their technological knowledge and could as a result ensure
that I screened with both technically efficient and non-proficient people.
Based on this information, I got able to put those with comparable technical
ranges into the two categories: initial and renovate testers.
Employing typically the Discount Usability Tests Approach to determine the
down sides with the current web page design and to test the proposed
changes, we followed Nielsen’s lower price usability testing process. Figure 4
exhibits the process I got.
Initial Heuristic Analysis I began which has a heuristic evaluation about the
initial site to look for the expected stumbling prevents or problems for
consumers. In addition to Nielsen’s heuristics, I used Shneiderman’s “Golden
Rules”. While discussed in the Background segment, the rules are often
much like Nielsen’s, but We felt it was crucial and helpful to incorporate
another perspective for this step. I leaped through each number of rules
separately along with noted all the periods the initial site penniless a rule.
Later on, each problem has been assigned a value coming from 0 to several.

A “0” might indicate a break of the rule that would not actually cause just
about any loss of usability; some sort of “4” indicated something seriously
crippled the internet site to the point of being totally unusable. A total report
was created under each methods based on the amount of usability “bugs”
and the severity.
User and also Task Observation
After the heuristic evaluation was completed, it was a chance to some live
end user testing. I had 3 volunteers run through end user task observation
along with thinking aloud workouts. For the user process observation, I
offered each user having a different situation (see Appendix 1 intended for
exact scenarios). These kinds of scenarios were true situations actual
customers had been in and have had failed to find the things they needed on
the site. The exam users were given a similar background information a real
end user would have and received a question to answer. Three different
scenarios concerned three different items. This was intentionally carried out
as to involve a lot of site. They also included finding three a variety of
information. (One concerned finding a programming guideline, one involved
discovering an ordering list, and one involved examining feature lists). Yet
again, this was done to much better test the site. A couple of them did not
call for technically savvy consumers. The third one do. This was not done to
check the site with consumers of different technical capability. To do that I

simply may have enlisted users of numerous abilities, but provided them all
nontechnical info to find. Instead it was done to test exactly how well
technical data was presented whilst requiring all of the check users to be
therefore qualified.
Simplified Considering Aloud
After the process observation had been done, the user and I might do some
simplified considering aloud. Thinking out loud affects the the right time of
completing a job, so users have been asked to perform this particular part
after the customer task observation. We'd discuss different parts of the
internet site as well as the site generally speaking. They would weigh
throughout on what they enjoyed and what they considered could be
improved. The aim here was to realize why they are performing every single
action, to look for what sort of customer would want to make use of the site
and what misunderstandings they may have concerning the site. Common
parts of confusion or discomfort were noted to allow them to be remedied
within the redesign.
Scenarios
Based upon my results through the first three actions, I composed a listing of
usability problems from your current site. The particular goal was and then
to modify the site to be able to remove as many of the problems as possible.
Using this information I develop a basic layout in the new site within html.
The overall build up was done approximately and one product has been done

in detail. I actually used this for the reason that basis for a circumstance run
through with a end user from the initial activity observation testing. In this
phase I walked the consumer through parts of the internet site, explaining
anything that has been missing. I elicited feedback on the purposed redesign
and questioned her how she'd interact with it.
Heuristic Evaluation of Upgrade Once I lastly settled on a style, I performed
some sort of heuristic evaluation associated with my proposed renovation to
compare against the initial version. Once again, the planning rules used had
been a combination of the ones specified by Nielsen’s Usability Anatomist
and Shneiderman’s creating the User Interface. With regard to comparison’s
sake, I actually stuck with the 0-4 grading scheme referred to earlier.
User and also Task Observation involving Redesign
When the declaration process was repetitive with my consist of redesign, I
used same situations, very same tasks, but distinct users. The problem using
re-using the same check users for the fresh design would have also been
that they would be more capable with the products than ever before. This
could most likely make them significantly faster on a next attempt, even
employing a modified interface. Moreover, by using different consumers, it
added the particular variability of the capacity of the test end user, which in
smaller sample sizes, may be significant. Following Nielsen’s
recommendations, I applied at least three analyze users for each layout.

Compare, Repeat as required
When the proposed upgrade was done becoming analyzed for user
friendliness the results were in comparison with the findings in the testing of
the first site. Had the actual redesign failed to create adequate
improvement, the procedure could be repeated to make an even better
style. This recursive method is the way it could typically be done inside a
corporate setting also. One of the major advantages to the discount
wonderful study method is the low cost and effort to complete one provides
for multiple iterations being run if necessary.
Functionality Problems with the Initial Web site
I picked the particular Sargent website in this project because that i knew of
that there were quite a few problems with it. Prior to I could begin improving
the site, I had to comprehend what all these troubles were. After I
experienced heuristically evaluated the web site and found potential
troubles, I ran consumer testing to observe reasonable failures of the web
site. These two groups were being then combined with each other as a list of
style issues to be cured in the redesign in the site.
One of the biggest downfalls of the site may be the very audience it seems
like to be aimed at. Grammar and information match far more what an
expert would likely understand of the item instead of an end consumer.

Industry terms are generally not explained (e. h., cylindrical, mortise, quit,
"access control, and so forth ), leaving a end-user surfing the internet site to
guess by means of context or analysis each term while they come across
them. Taking a look at the main page on your own, under the “Products” and
also “Solutions” columns, there are actually ten terms which a customer
from outside of the industry would be improbable to know (highlighted inside
pink in Number 5). These back links are the primary method of navigating
the site. With no knowledge of these terms, the buyer must follow a guess-
and-check method for finding information concerning their product; non-e of
these terms have a very hover-over definition.
They have an underlying organization issue with information on the site. At
present, users have to pick the door hardware variety just to get basic
information concerning the product lines. The two heuristic testing along
with user task research brought this problem to be able to light. The best
sort of this would be finding the listing. Sargent catalogs can describe all the
alternatives and features for example product line. All three entrance
hardware types are usually contained in the one contract. For example, there
is a versus. G1. 5 list. There is not a versus. G1. 5 mortise catalog. Yet (as
shown in Find 6 and Number 7), to find the listing, a customer would have to
pick either bored, mortise, or exit within the product line and then the
particular download catalog choice from that sub-type. In addition , many of
the features are indifferent across all three kinds of door hardware. There is
not any place for information popular among the entire product line. An

individual using the website should read up on all three sorts to learn
common capabilities.
Reflections on Functionality Testing
In addition to studying the general rules regarding usability and how to ideal
design an program, this project has been also meant to be reward in the
usability screening process. I have gathered my observations along with
thoughts on the different approaches employed in each step on the testing
process in addition , on the larger issues highly relevant to this type of
testing.
Heuristics
When I was doing the work heuristic evaluation I came across I was taking
the inappropriate approach. Rather than making use of the rules to find
difficulties, I wanted to find items that I thought were issues and then see
which usually rules they out of cash. With that approach, the actual
heuristics don’t truly add anything easily just use them while justification for
what We already believed. Which method would be more close to the
“thinking aloud” approach with me becoming the tester?
Another concern I had had been for the large big difference in scores among
one set of guidelines and also the other. It makes sense which heuristics

written by a pair of different people at distinct times would cause different
ratings for a similar site, but I think the scores might at least be deeper.
The heuristics My spouse and i used were simply because they were from a
fact usability experts and get often cited; nonetheless they were general
user friendliness rules. Websites almost certainly should have their own
recommendations to take into account the differences in between a website
and a license request. Regardless, the technique is the same even though
these might not have already been the ideal guidelines to check out, it’s
hard to believe they are not valid.
Situations
Scenarios were very useful in the beginning stages associated with my
redesign. That caught large troubles without requiring too much perform
building the test technique. I used hard html pages, nevertheless I could just
have effortlessly drawn pages to exhibit the user how the web site would
work. Had We waited until I have user task statement, I would have had to
remodel the site, possibly several times. For any future examining I would
definitely hire a scenario approach.
End user Task Observation

Basically were to do this type of tests again, I would decide in advance how
to handle conditions with user queries and users attempting something
unexpected. I had bring users into a testing room as opposed to testing
equipment to be able to users. The examining room would have one of the
ways glass or a universal remote monitor, allowing us not to hover near to
the user, and I would likely employ video recorders for both the screen as
well as the test user’s deal with.
Simplified Thinking Out loud
Having the user process observation group and then perform simplified
considering aloud on the site produced a lot of sense. Through retracing their
methods and explaining prospect process they put into practice, I benefitted
via seeing how the customer thinks, without having to use more testers,
indication more forms, plan more appointments, and so on
Cultural Usability Examining
Without the well-defined tests methods that executive usability does, ethnic
usability makes it tough objectively rate a pair of different interfaces. That
provide the no subjective the right time and data centered results of the
architectural approach. That said, typically the cultural usability technique
was key in knowing the users of this software. Failing to do so is possibly the
biggest failure from the initial site. Many problems trace back in this
misunderstanding associated with audience.

Reference
[1] Brinck, T., Gergle, D., & Wood, S. D. (2002). Designing Websites that Work: Usability for the Web. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
[2] Cockton, G. &. (n.d.). Why and When Five Test Users aren’t Enough.
[3] Computing, F. O.-l. (2009). www.dictionary.com. Retrieved August 31, 2009, from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/user interface
[4] Jordan, P. W. (1994). What is Usability. In S. Robertson, Contemporary Ergonomics (pp. 454-458).
London: Taylor & Fancis.
[5] Loranger, H., & Nielsen, J. (2006). Prioritzing Web Usability. Berkley, CA: New Riders.
[6] Melles, G. (2008). The Circuit of Culture and D/discource Analysis for Design Research. Melbourne,
Australia: Swinburn University of Technology.

[7] Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing Web Usability. New Riders Publishing.
Nielsen, J. (n.d.). Usability 101: Introduction to Usability. Alertbox ,
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html.
[8] Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Plaisant, C., & Shneiderman, B. (2010 ). Designing the user Interface. Addison Wesley.
[9] Sun, H. (2002). Exploring Cultural Usability. Reflections on Communication , 319-330.