A cognitive walkthrough of Autopsy Forensic Browser

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to review the usability of the Autopsy Forensic Browser in order to improve future versions of this, or similar, tools.Design/methodology/approachThe software Autopsy Forensic Browser was analysed for usability using a cognitive walkthrough approach.FindingsThe results of the evaluation indicate that there are many areas where usability could be improved and these are classified into areas of eight overlapping areas. Examples from each area are presented, with suggestions as to methods to alleviate them.Research limitations/implicationsThe review is limited by the use of the “expert evaluator” approach rather than using a user‐based evaluation. This would tend to mean that some of the usability errors would be “false positives”, while some usability issues were not uncovered. A user‐based evaluation could be a future project.Practical implicationsUsability could be improved of the Autopsy Forensic Browser and developers of such systems should engage with the usability and interaction design community to enhance their software. It would be helpful for users, if future versions of the software take account of the findings of the paper.Originality/valueThis is one of the first reviews of the usability of forensic analysis software and the first for the Autopsy Forensic Browser system. The value is the findings suggest practical ways to enhance usability, which will impact on the effectiveness of investigators.

Guidelines for usable cybersecurity: Past and present

“…These approaches are, user studies and expert-based evaluations [29,30]. In the first of these methods, a representative sample of users is recruited to participate in experiments to test a system's usability.…”

“…In this area, cognitive walkthroughs (where evaluators step through a system looking for areas that may negatively affect usability) and heuristic evaluations (testing a system against a set of usability rules) are two of the most prevalent methods [30]. Further examples of the use of heuristic evaluations are apparent in [33] where the authors assess a personal firewall according to HCI-S criteria, and in [34] where the evaluation of security tool alerts is based on preset security usability rules.…”

“…Further examples of the use of heuristic evaluations are apparent in [33] where the authors assess a personal firewall according to HCI-S criteria, and in [34] where the evaluation of security tool alerts is based on preset security usability rules. A perfect example and discourse of the cognitive walkthrough technique is supplied in [30] as the article examines the usability of forensic analysis cybersecurity software. Expert-based methods such as cognitive walkthrough have also been used alongside user studies to enhance evaluations.…”

“…One of the first points to note is that as user studies employ potential system users (and therefore are more likely to replicate actual user behaviour), they are typically regarded as the ideal evaluation method [30]. Furthermore, user studies such as observations, interviews and questionnaires provide rich sources of data that can be analysed in detail for insight and further guidance.…”

“…Furthermore, user studies such as observations, interviews and questionnaires provide rich sources of data that can be analysed in detail for insight and further guidance. The drawback with these methods however, is that they can be time-consuming and expensive [30]. Necessary tasks include finding willing participants, setting up experiments and data gathering tools and software (may also require purchasing software applications and systems or renting usability labs), and finally, conducting the analysis of the qualitative and/or quantitative data collected.…”