Psychology
Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/2270
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Item Users' spatial abilities affect interface usability outcomes(2011) Campbell, Susan; Norman, Kent L; Psychology; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)The usability of a system depends both on inherent characteristics of the system and on its users. This paper argues that a major source of differences among users is variations in spatial ability, but that variations in different types of spatial ability affect components of usability differently. In two experiments, I investigated a simple model of the relationships of spatial visualization ability, spatial orientation ability, and spatial working memory with the usability constructs of efficiency and effectiveness. Both experiments used Wikipedia search as a representative information search task. The first experiment used a desktop computer interface, and the second experiment used a pair of mobile devices with widely different screen sizes. Better spatial orientation ability corresponded to faster performance on efficiency across devices. Better spatial visualization ability corresponded to slower performance on larger screens, but faster performance on smaller screens. Better spatial visualization ability also predicted better effectiveness in both experiments. These results suggest that spatial ability is a useful way to characterize users and to improve usability testing, and that its effects vary in systematic ways depending on characteristics of the tested interface and on which metrics are chosen.Item Usability Testing Of An Internet Form For The 2004 Overseas Enumeration Test: Iterative Testing Using Think-Aloud And Retrospective Report Methods(Laboratory for Automation Psychology and Decision Processes, University of Maryland, College Park, MD., 2004-06) Norman, Kent L.; Murphy, ElizabethAn Internet form for the U. S. Census Bureau’s 2004 Overseas Enumeration Test was evaluated in two rounds of usability testing. Participants were assigned to one of two conditions: Think-Aloud, in which they talked about what they were doing; or Retrospective-Report, in which they completed the form and then talked about their experience while viewing a recording. Participants also completed follow-up tasks. Sessions were video taped and logged. Round 1 testing identified 28 usability issues. Round 2 testing found that 13 of the issues had been resolved following design changes made to the interface. Round 2 testing identified 21 new and continuing usability issues. Results suggest that changes made to the interface increased the likelihood that respondents would be able to successfully complete the form. Task completion times in the think-aloud condition were only slightly longer than they were in the retrospective condition, while retrospective reports required a substantial amount of added time.