Assignment One: Argument Against The Current Interface Desig

Assignmentone Argument Against The Current Interface Design Of A Popu

Assignmentone Argument Against The Current Interface Design Of A Popu

Assignment: One argument against the current interface design of a popular word processor program (such as Microsoft Word 2013) is that it has all the functional menu items appearing together which cause the interface to be too complex. This complexity results in a confusing and frustrating experience for novice users. An alternative design is to provide different levels of functional complexity, so users can choose the level that is suitable for them, then advance to higher level as they get familiar with the tool, thus feel more comfortable and learn more efficiently. You are asked to conduct usability testing to compare these two designs. Write a three-page paper explaining which type of usability testing should be used for this situation.

List some general principles of subject selection in usability testing. How should you select subjects for this case?

Paper For Above instruction

The usability testing of different interface designs for a popular word processor, such as Microsoft Word 2013, necessitates a strategic approach to accurately assess user experience and effectiveness. Given the scenario, the primary focus is to compare the existing complex interface with an alternative layered design that offers adjustable levels of functionality. To achieve this, a combination of formative and summative usability testing methods is advisable, emphasizing both the identification of user issues during the design process and the evaluation of overall performance post-implementation.

Choice of Usability Testing Methods

Repeatedly, formative usability testing is recommended during the early stages of interface development. This approach involves conducting observations, interviews, and think-aloud protocols with representative users to gather qualitative insights into how they navigate and interpret the interface. The goal is to identify specific usability problems, such as confusion caused by the crowded menu layout, and to iteratively refine the design. Such testing is particularly suitable when comparing a complex interface with a layered, adjustable one because it allows designers to understand user behavior dynamically and adjust features accordingly.

On the other hand, summative usability testing should be employed after the refinement stages to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the new design versus the original. This testing involves quantitative measures such as task completion time, error rates, and user satisfaction scores, often utilizing controlled experiments or A/B testing setups. For example, users could be asked to complete a set of common tasks using both interfaces, and their performance and preferences are statistically analyzed to determine which design better supports user goals.

Principles of Subject Selection in Usability Testing

Selecting appropriate subjects is critical to obtaining valid and generalizable results. Several principles guide effective subject selection:

1. Representativeness: Subjects should reflect the target user population in terms of demographics, skill levels, and familiarity with similar software. For a word processor, this includes novice users, intermediate users, and advanced users, spanning various professional backgrounds.

2. Diversity: Ensuring diversity in age, educational background, and technical proficiency helps in identifying usability issues across a broad spectrum of users, preventing biases towards a particular subgroup.

3. Task Relevance: Participants should possess or be trained in performing common tasks that reflect real-world usage scenarios to generate meaningful insights.

4. Sample Size: A manageable number of participants (typically 5-15 per user group in qualitative testing) is sufficient to uncover major usability problems, according to Nielsen’s heuristic, but larger samples may be needed for quantitative analysis.

Subject Selection for the Current Context

For testing interface complexity, subjects should include novice users who are unacquainted with advanced features and experienced users who are familiar with the software’s capabilities. This stratification ensures that the testing captures how different user groups perceive and handle interface complexity. Recruitment can be achieved through community colleges, professional training programs, or online user panels. Pre-test questionnaires can screen participants based on their prior experience with word processors, ensuring a balanced representation of skill levels.

In sum, a mixed-method approach utilizing formative and summative testing complemented by thoughtful subject selection, following the principles of representativeness and task relevance, is essential for comprehensively evaluating the efficacy of the new interface design against the existing complex menu layout. This strategy ensures that user preferences, performance, and learning curves are accurately measured, ultimately contributing to an interface that enhances usability and user satisfaction.

References

• Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann.
• Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests. Wiley Publishing.
• Dumas, J. S., & Redish, J. C. (1993). A Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Intellect Books.
• Krug, S. (2014). Don’t Make Me Think, Revisited: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability. New Riders.
• ISO 9241-210:2010. Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems.
• Jones, A., & Ravid, G. (2018). From User Tasks to Interface Functionality: Using Usability Testing to Improve User Interface Design. Human-Computer Interaction Review.
• Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M., Jacobs, S., & Elmqvist, N. (2016). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Pearson.
• Seffah, A., Donyaei, M., Kline, R., & Plaisant, C. (2014). Usability Evaluation and Measurement. In Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 215-255). Springer.
• Harrison, S., & Rieman, J. (2011). User-Centered Design Process. In Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Wiley.
• Bevan, N. (2009). Bias in usability evaluation: The effects of experience, testing method and user variables. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67(8), 634-650.