[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    TR: Usability measurement tool ?
From:       "Brisset, Nicolas" <Nicolas.Brisset () eurocopter ! com>
Date:       2007-01-03 14:13:01
Message-ID: 5FB77C9EB8044848B6CBFCACE171006320F336 () sma2900 ! cr ! eurocopter ! corp
[Download RAW message or body]

Second attempt after a "Your message to kde-usability awaits moderator approval" \
reply...

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Brisset, Nicolas 
Envoyé : vendredi 20 octobre 2006 11:57
À : 'kde-usability@kde.org'
Cc : 'dev@gioelebarabucci.com'; 'kst@kde.org'
Objet : Usability measurement tool ?

Hi,

I'm using and helping improve the kst plotting tool and I realize I often make \
comments about the number of clicks / mouse travel / time required to accomplish a \
given task to try and convince people to change things. The keyboard may of course \
also be involved... I have the feeling that it should be possible to evaluate a more \
                or less obective "cost" for some actions based on:
- number of clicks
- number of dialogs the eye has to scan correlated with their complexity (number of \
                widgets ?)
- number of inputs made
- distance travelled by the mouse
- keyboard/mouse focus changes (let go the mouse to use the keyboard is "expensive")
- cost of keyboard accelerators used (is there a sort of measure for the \
accessibility of keyboard sequences, including modifier keys... and taking into \
account internationalization as some keys are more or less accessible according the \
                keyboard layout ?)
- "pauses" (no user action) during a sequence, probably indicating trouble finding \
                something
- ...

I was wondering whether the approach outlined above has already been formalized \
somehow and whether there exist programs (or plans to develop one) that can measure \
this ? I know usability exercises often involve observing users doing the task, but \
this requires quite a complex setup and the logistics effort makes it hard to extend \
that to many users. An automated tool may help gather more data easily and decide \
when there are debates. Also note that the advantage of the approach is that you \
don't necessarily need to implement a feature to test it as you can find most values \
(even roughly) using paper/.ui mockups. I started out thinking that kodo might be \
extended for that purpose (hence the CC:), but I realize it may be a bit too much :-) \
I also believe that the previous quantitative measures need to have different weights \
for different user profiles (typically those with accessibility problems, but not \
only), which can certainly be handled easily.

Note that I'm new to usability. Even though I have interest and apparently a good \
feeling for it I have never taken courses nor gone further than reading a couple of \
Alertbox columns (more Web-oriented, though). So please pardon me if my ideas are \
stupid and don't hesitate to give feedback :-)

Nicolas
_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]