Heuristic Walkthroughs: Finding the Problems Without the Noise

Sears, Andrew

doi:10.1207/s15327590ijhc0903_2

Cited by 185 publications

(172 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

166

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[6][7][8] It has been shown however that if the researcher minimizes interventions in the process of verbalizing and reminds participants to keep talking when they stop verbalizing their thoughts, the ongoing cognitive processes are no more disturbed than by other knowledge acquisition techniques. 9,10 Some researchers have stated that it is likely to reveal more issues than just exploring peopleÕs perceptions of a system. 11 The method has been widely adopted by information communications technology and engineering as a way of assessing usability of computer programmes and expert systems.…”

Section: Usability Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the usability of methods of public reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK Yellow Card Scheme

Anderson

Gifford

Avery

et al. 2011

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this study, which was part of the first independent evaluation of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to the Yellow Card Scheme, was to observe the three reporting systems (paper, internet and telephone) Ôin useÕ in a simulated setting to identify aspects which facilitated or hindered reporting.Methods Forty adult participants were recruited from the general public using posters in pharmacies and a press article, and from a pool of volunteer simulated patients maintained by University of Nottingham medical and pharmacy schools. The participants, in seven groups that met at different times, were asked to Ôthink aloud,Õ as they were individually observed completing the reporting process for the paper and internet system, highlighting their thoughts and any issues encountered. They were asked to talk about their experience of reporting immediately after they had reported by telephone. Data from the field notes were analysed thematically and supplemented with relevant information from digital audio recordings.Conclusions Usability testing using the Ôthink aloudÕ approach worked well and identified areas of the Yellow Card reporting system which could be improved. Whilst the three methods of reporting available to the public are all reasonably Ôfit for purposeÕ, there were many suggestions identified for improving ease of completion and data quality, especially for the internet system.

show abstract

Section: Usability Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the usability of methods of public reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK Yellow Card Scheme

Anderson

Gifford

Avery

et al. 2011

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We used a heuristic walkthrough (Sears 1997) -an expert-based method that combines a heuristic evaluation (Nielsen & Molich 1990) with elements of a cognitive walkthrough (Wharton et al 1994) -to test usability. The heuristic walkthrough is conducted in two steps: In a first, task-oriented evaluation a usability expert uses typical usage scenarios to explore the product from a user`s point of view.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design Guidelines for Coffee Vending Machines

Schneidermeier

Burghardt

Wolff

2013

Design, User Experience, and Usability. Web, Mobile, and Product Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Basically, guidelines do not address some problems at the high levels like the structural complexity of pages or color combinations for website components. Further shortcomings of accessibility standards and conformance reviews can be found from here [53][54][55][56]. However, despite the mentioned problems, WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 aim at being universal accessibility standards [57].…”

Section:  Selection Of Accessibility Standards And/or Guidelines Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…AWAEMs can be estimated or compared on the basis of a general quality scope that usually contains a set of quality criteria such as coverage, completeness, correctness, specificity, effectiveness, validity, efficiency, usefulness [84][85][86][87][88], inter-reliability and intra-reliability, capacity and others. These are the necessary indicators of software quality, which are also considered in this article to give an in-depth overview and actually highlight strengths and weaknesses of the opted tools.…”

Section: Findings From the Utilization Evaluation And Comparisomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Towards Automated Web Accessibility Evaluation: A Comparative Study

Abduganiev¹

2017

IJITCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-With each passing day, the Web is becoming increasingly important in our lives. Hence, the need of making it more accessible to everyone, especially for the disabled and elderly spurred a great interest in automated tools, the total registered number of which has been continuously increasing and reached from forty-five software bids in 2014 to ninety-three in 2017. The purpose of this empirical research is to assess and compare eight popular and free online automated Web accessibility evaluation tools (AWAETs) such as AChecker, Cynthia Says, EIII Checker, MAUVE, SortSite, TAW, Tenon and WAVE with regard to the WCAG 2.0 conformance. As a result, significant differences were observed in terms of tool's coverage (a maximum of 32.4%), completeness (ranges between 10% and 59%), correctness (an average of 70.7%), specificity (reaches 32%), inter-reliability (lies between 1.56% and 18.32%) and intra-reliability (the acceptable score), validity, efficiency and capacity. These eight criteria can help to determine a new role played by modern AWAETs as dependent methods in Web accessibility evaluation. Moreover, consequences of relying on AWAETs alone are quantified and concluded that applying such approaches is a great mistake since subjective and less frequent objective success criteria (SC) failed to be automated. However, using a good combination of AWAETs is highly recommended as overall results in all the mentioned quality criteria are maximized and tools could definitely validate and complete each other. Ultimately, integrating automated methods with the others is ideal and preferably at an early stage of the website development life cycle. The study also provides potential accessibility barriers that make websites inaccessible, challenges AWAETs are currently facing, nineteen pros and fourteen cons and fifteen improvement recommendations for the existing and next generation of AWAETs. Fundamentally, achieving the objectives of this study was possible due to the elaboration and implementation of a new five-phased methodology named as -5PhM-for-AWAEMs‖ for successful selection, evaluation and/or comparison of AWAEMs. In addition to providing detailed descriptions of the estimation process, this methodology represents eleven key criteria for effective selection of suitable AWAEMs and necessary numbers of web pages and expert evaluators for acceptable, normal or ideal assessment.

show abstract

Heuristic Walkthroughs: Finding the Problems Without the Noise

Cited by 185 publications

References 6 publications

Assessing the usability of methods of public reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK Yellow Card Scheme

Assessing the usability of methods of public reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK Yellow Card Scheme

Design Guidelines for Coffee Vending Machines

Towards Automated Web Accessibility Evaluation: A Comparative Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About