Remote asynchronous usability testing is characterized by both a spatial and temporal separation of users and evaluators. This has the potential both to reduce practical problems with securing user attendance and to allow direct involvement of users in usability testing. In this paper, we report from an empirical study where we systematically compared three methods for remote asynchronous usability testing: user-reported critical incidents, forum-based online reporting and discussion, and diary-based longitudinal user reporting. In addition, conventional laboratory-based think-aloud testing was included as a benchmark for the remote methods. The results show that each remote asynchronous method supports identification of a considerable number of usability problems. Although this is only about half of the problems identified with the conventional method, it requires significantly less time. This makes remote asynchronous methods an appealing possibility for usability testing in many software projects.
%0 Conference Paper
%1 bruun_let_2009
%A Bruun, Anders
%A Gull, Peter
%A Hofmeister, Lene
%A Stage, Jan
%B Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems
%C Boston, MA, USA
%D 2009
%I ACM
%K asynchronous empirical mobile remote study, testing testing, usability
%P 1619--1628
%R 10.1145/1518701.1518948
%T Let your users do the testing: a comparison of three remote asynchronous usability testing methods
%U http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1518948&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=91844979&CFTOKEN=39423047
%X Remote asynchronous usability testing is characterized by both a spatial and temporal separation of users and evaluators. This has the potential both to reduce practical problems with securing user attendance and to allow direct involvement of users in usability testing. In this paper, we report from an empirical study where we systematically compared three methods for remote asynchronous usability testing: user-reported critical incidents, forum-based online reporting and discussion, and diary-based longitudinal user reporting. In addition, conventional laboratory-based think-aloud testing was included as a benchmark for the remote methods. The results show that each remote asynchronous method supports identification of a considerable number of usability problems. Although this is only about half of the problems identified with the conventional method, it requires significantly less time. This makes remote asynchronous methods an appealing possibility for usability testing in many software projects.
%@ 978-1-60558-246-7
@inproceedings{bruun_let_2009,
abstract = {Remote asynchronous usability testing is characterized by both a spatial and temporal separation of users and evaluators. This has the potential both to reduce practical problems with securing user attendance and to allow direct involvement of users in usability testing. In this paper, we report from an empirical study where we systematically compared three methods for remote asynchronous usability testing: user-reported critical incidents, forum-based online reporting and discussion, and diary-based longitudinal user reporting. In addition, conventional laboratory-based think-aloud testing was included as a benchmark for the remote methods. The results show that each remote asynchronous method supports identification of a considerable number of usability problems. Although this is only about half of the problems identified with the conventional method, it requires significantly less time. This makes remote asynchronous methods an appealing possibility for usability testing in many software projects.},
added-at = {2012-02-24T12:38:24.000+0100},
address = {Boston, {MA}, {USA}},
author = {Bruun, Anders and Gull, Peter and Hofmeister, Lene and Stage, Jan},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2cd8b6c6792f7dad2eedc3a062eb720c3/ewomant},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems},
doi = {10.1145/1518701.1518948},
interhash = {13e5f5c9fce7482013e0a5aba919492a},
intrahash = {cd8b6c6792f7dad2eedc3a062eb720c3},
isbn = {978-1-60558-246-7},
keywords = {asynchronous empirical mobile remote study, testing testing, usability},
pages = {1619--1628},
publisher = {{ACM}},
shorttitle = {Let your users do the testing},
timestamp = {2012-02-24T12:38:25.000+0100},
title = {Let your users do the testing: a comparison of three remote asynchronous usability testing methods},
url = {http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1518948&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=91844979&CFTOKEN=39423047},
year = 2009
}