No abstract

Usability has become an imperative aspect of survival on the web, thus, it has always been considered as a crucial aspect of web design. This paper presents the results of a study that compared two think-aloud usability testing methods: the concurrent think-aloud and the retrospective think-aloud methods. Data from task performance, testing experience, and usability problems were collected from 40 participants equally distributed between the two think-aloud conditions. The results found that while the thinking aloud method had no impact on task performance and participants testing experience, participants using the concurrent think-aloud method detected a larger number of minor problems with the test interface than participants using the retrospective think-aloud method. These findings suggest a reason for preferring the concurrent think-aloud method to the retrospective one. Think-aloud protocols. Usability testing. User studies.

This paper presents the results of a study that compared three think-aloud methods: concurrent think-aloud, retrospective think-aloud, and a hybrid method. The three methods were compared through an evaluation of a library website, which involved four points of comparison: task performance, participants' experiences, usability problems discovered, and the cost of employing the methods. The results revealed that the concurrent method outperformed both the retrospective and the hybrid methods in facilitating successful usability testing. It detected higher numbers of usability problems than the retrospective method, and produced output comparable to that of the hybrid method. The method received average to positive ratings from its users, and no reactivity was observed. Lastly, this method required much less time on the evaluator's part than did the other two methods, which involved double the testing and analysis time.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Hospital websites offer the potential to improve healthcare service delivery. They can provide up-to-date information and services to patients, at low cost and regardless of their level of abilities. This, in turn, can reduce overcrowding in hospitals and reduce spread of disease, especially in circumstances like the current COVID-19 pandemic. It is, therefore, imperative for designers to ensure the accessibility of hospital websites to the widest possible range of people. This study aims to evaluate the accessibility of the websites of topranked hospitals in Saudi Arabia using AChecker. The sample included the websites of the top ten hospitals from each of the public and private sectors. The results show that only 20% of the evaluated websites conformed fully to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. No significant difference was found in terms of the accessibility compliance between the websites of the public and private hospitals. The most frequently observed accessibility errors were related to the structure of information, non-text content, labels and instructions, headings, and keyboard access. The study concludes that Saudi hospitals are not doing an adequate job of meeting accessibility guidelines, thereby denying many of their web customers the ability to fully use their websites.