Usability Criteria

WE MEASURE USABILITY by one stringent test and three loose tests.

The stringent test is called muscle event counting. A strategy for discovering the difference of ease between two products is to count the muscle group events needed by each product for a common set of operations or macro. An operation requiring one eye movement, a forearm movement, a finger movement and two voice phrases (for a speech interface) would count as five muscle events. Why is this significant? Each change of muscle group takes time, approximately one tenth second, and requires a shift of attention from the task at hand. The fewer muscle events there are, the less attention shifting done by the user and thus the greater perceived ease.

The first loose test is to throw away the instruction manual and see how far one can get without reference to the manual. Every situation in which the user does not have adequate information to carry out the task from whatever is otherwise presented by the product is considered, by definition, an instance of poor usability. This test normally brings howls of protest from vendor developer teams until we remind them that users do not bring manuals when traveling with their laptops. Note that needing to reference online help instead of the manual counts as additional muscle events.

The second loose test is a series of criteria. They are:

  • visibility of system status - especially with regard to what the system (speech recognizer in the case of voice interface) is currently doing
  • degree of match between user concepts and product conventions - e.g. no computer-eese language
  • presence and depth of emergency exits - e.g. undo, redo, don't do, please do because I need it very badly at this particular crucial moment even if the product doesn't think so
  • the ease with which various kinds of consecutive system misrecognition errors can be diagnosed and corrected. The prior mentioned "undo" criterion concerns user mistakes. This criterion concerns keystrokes as well as speech recognizer mistakes. Speech recognizer errors need characteristically different tools than user keystroke mistakes.
  • consistency - e.g. window shapes, colors, positioning, wording, button location, grouping of similar concepts
  • minimal need for user recall between one part of a dialog and another
  • provision for experienced users as well as beginners - e.g. shortcut key definition capability, diagnostic options, panic reset buttons
  • messages which indicate problems precisely in plain talk and recommend an implementable (as opposed to perfunctory) solution. If industry or trade terms must be present, they should be displayed with hyperlinks for jargon to accommodate the new user seeing this message for the first time.
  • elegance of design - a small number of objects do a large number of tasks (which is not the same as a small number of objects overloaded with optional, unrelated or temporally dependent choices)
  • error preventive design - e.g. each instance in which an "undo" might serve well is carefully engineered out so that the need to undo is reduced
  • "hint count" of manuals- e.g. hints, tips and sidebars in an instruction manual are red flags of either poor manual writing or poor product design. A product shouldn't need tips to work better, it should just work better all by itself if you follow normal instructions. Well-designed instructions and product functions don't need user cautions, hints, caveats, secondary explanations and tips. Presence of hints often indicates failure to attend to "error preventive design" criterion just mentioned.
  • time duration of operations - e.g. "easy" or frequently needed operations should take shorter time than "hard" operations
  • minimization of advertising, eye candy or other desiderata which competes for user attention or screen real estate during product tasks, especially product installation
  • on-line help which really helps

The third loose test is to examine whether a given product behavior is or is not an "eyebrow raiser", i.e. it did or did not cause a tester to jump back slightly in the chair and wonder, with eyebrows raised, what on earth the designer could have been thinking in order to make that particular design choice. Often such a product behavior turns out to be an outright bug on some level. Sometimes teams justify this sort of behavior by pointing out that it simplifies internal product programming. We have zero sympathy for that perspective. Sometimes it is justified by saying "the user will get used to that behavior." We have tolerance for that only if the weird product behavior speeds up learning the product or actual productivity and no alternative is available.

We then examine these usability weaknesses according to whether they are either frequent or one-time occurrences and whether they require Herculean user efforts to overcome. That leads to finally rating them as any of the three possibilities of "usability catastrophes", "annoyances" or merely "cosmetic issues".

If you have applications under development and wish to have an analysis performed along these lines please contact us.

More on bug testing...
More on expandability...

Reference: Alertbox 980503, Ten Usability Heuristics by Jakob Nielsen


 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




You are here::
home->testing->usability


Technology Review
What's Out There
Executive View
Developer View
FAQ
At This Site
Who We Are
Consulting Services

Other Stuff
How We Test
  Bugs
  Usability
  Expandability
Copyright © 1999-2012 eWyzard Inc.
Comments? Questions? Contact us.

Page Last Updated: 06/23/12
definite integral online calculator