Download PowerPoint-presentation

Faults can be corrected as they
are discovered during use
Users need to be studied
interacting with the website
under controlled conditions
Users are benevolent
in their judgements
of interfaces
Often users do
not report faults
Users do not
actively look
for problems
Problems at websites
discourage users from
returning
Leaving problems for
customers to find creates
poor customer relations
Many users blame themselves
for being incompetent rather
than the interface.
Good PR is about associating
positive feelings with your
company not negative ones
A commercial websites
revenue is proportional to
the number of visitors and
how often they visit
Users cannot define what
interface they want
Users are not
knowledgeable about
interface design
The easier the web site is to use the
more people will successfully use it,
return to it and recommend it
We have satisfied
customers so we do
not need user testing
Users accept problems as a
normal part of usage
Dissatisfied users seldom
complain if there is a
competitor with better
services, they just defect
Problems that
are tolerated will
still effect use
negatively
Competitors who
provide an interface
with fewer problems
will be preferable
Customers would
appreciate improved
service
Competitors who provide an
interface with fewer
problems will be preferable
Our web site
works just
as we want
it to
Users may
not want
what you
want
We know from application
software that users stick
with a product once they
have learnt how to use it
Our design is based on
a needs assessment
and years of customer
knowledge
Our designers are so
experienced that they
do not create
usability problems
Web users are
fickle
What users require of a web interface
to your services is different from
their service requirements and
traditional customer relations
Websites are usually free so,
users assess cost in goal
achievement time
Users have needs that
designers cannot foresee
Designers are user
themselves so they can
foresee users problems
Websites have a low
learning threshold so the
knowledge investment is
very low unlike dedicated
applications
Designers cannot discover
their own mistakes
An evaluation methodology
forces developers to look at
the interface from new
perspectives that are relevant
to the user
Developers cannot see
the development project
as a whole and therefore
will miss usability issues
The project manager is not
trained in usability
Usability is just about
using common sense
The project manager sees the
whole, and that will prevent
interface problems
The view of one manager is
not representative of users
Methods that involve designers
checking their own work are pointless
because they are continually
monitoring their results as they work
It is better not to
tamper with the
interface if it is
functional
Rectifying any
current problems
will just lead to
new ones
Finding one problem
can reveal a masked
problem that was
already there and may
be more serious.
If you know about a
problem it is
irresponsible not to
rectify it
If a masked problem is
worse than the problem that
masked it, then rectifying
the masking problem makes
the interface worse
Problems should be
sought after the
interface is finished
It is clearly more efficient to
fix all the problems in one go
than to keep going back and
delay releasing the web site
Problems can
only be found
once the web
pages are public
Development will be delayed by a
pre-release usability evaluation
Problems can be found more
easily later and fixed then
You cannot see problems
clearly until the interface is
finished
Nearly all methods can be applied
at early stages in development
before implementation
There are many
methods will
uncover problems
before users see
the interface
The earlier
problems are
found the less it
costs to fix them
Early testing will
delay
development and
release
It is cheaper if mistakes are
found early
The gain in quality
outweighs the loss due
to delays in
development release
Creating and changing a mock-up
is cheaper and than implementing
and changing code.
Is better to discover
problems before
implementation
Competitors who get
to market first gain an
advantage
It is not an advantage to
launch a product ahead of a a
competitor who follows with
a better product
We have a tested design
standard that we follow so
we don’t need to test the
interface again.
A design standard is ensures
good practices that will
prevent usability problems
Usability problems can occur
even if good standard i used
a standard is general and
will not address specific
requirements the interface
must solve
Usability is not relevant to
the the prime purpose of
my website
If your purpose requires
people to visit your site and
gain benefit from their visit
then usability is an issue
Only the new part of the web
site will need testing because
existing parts have been
operational for long time
Interface solutions that work
for a small site may not
work for a larger site
The may well be problems in
the old part of the web site
that will propagate into the
design of the new part
Evaluation should also
cover the website as a
whole or as large units as
possible
Consistency across the entire
web site is important and will
not be detected when only a part
of the site is scrutinised
The view of a subset of the
interface is not the same
for designers as it is for
users
If part of your website is of
poor quality, it reflects on
the whole company
A test of templates and the
most frequently accessed
pages is sufficient
Templates regulate consistency with
layout problems but do not detect
inconsistency of content, textual
style, of problems in the
relationship between pages
Frequency of use is not
synonymous with the importance
of content to the user
User’s tasks tend to take them
across the system boundaries
perceived by developers
The problem of useful pages being
difficult to find will exclude them from
evaluation if frequency criteria are used.
Not all pages contain the
same errors
Users will see a task scenario as
a criterion for unity, whereas
developers will see database
dependency or server residence
as a criterion for unity
Lists of guide lines are most cost
effective because they do not
require experts to carry out
Lists of guide lines are freely
available
In order to be fully effective
without experts, guide lines need
to be specific to the domain.
Developing a domain specific
set of guidelines is expensive
and time consuming and does
require an expert
There are resources to use
one method thoroughly once
If we use guidelines in
development we do not need
to do usability evaluation
Usability should be
evaluated by various
methods throughout
development and after
Customer needs change
over time
It is better to do one method
well than several things halfheartedly
Using more methods
will confuse the
developers
The method offer different perspectives
all of which developers should have in
mind when they are working
The developers already have
too many aspects to keep
track of. Usability will detract
them from what they are
supposed to be doing
The cost of an evaluation
cannot be justified
There is no guarantee
that an evaluation will
lead to financial gain.
Boss cannot justify usability
costs to his superior
Quality gains are a competitive
advantage even if they are not
directly profitable
Expert can offer to meet
the superior or provide
written arguments.
Where sales or internal
operational efficiency are
involved, a cost/benefit
assessment can be made
Our company is only small
and so an evaluation would
not be profitable
There are cheaper methods
suitable for small companies
with small websites
The benefits of a good interface
are long-term improved PR
and/or long-term financial gain.
These gains outweigh the
disadvantages
Experience from similar
companies can be offered
as a motivation
Long term gains are of no
interest because changing
customer needs and web
content/services will have to
be revised before the benefit
of previous improvements
will take effect.
If users can’t use our website
that is their problem
The customer
is always right
The problems that users have
depend on their not being
good at using computers
There are resources to use
one method thoroughly once
the potential importance to your
company of a visitor to your
website or is not determined by
that customers ability to use an
interface
Using more methods
will confuse the
developers
Money or publicity from
hindered users has the same
value as money from
unhindered users
The interface should make the
users goals as easy as possible
to accomplish
If the user is hindered by the
interface it is the interface that is
inadequate not the user
Website content is more
important than usability
If the user cannot
find the content then
it has no value
Users will not appreciate a
good interface because they
won’t notice it.
A good interface should be
invisible to the user.
Usability is just the latest
methodology fad. It has
nothing knew to say or new
to offer
The fad with heuristic
evaluation will soon be over
because Nielsen’s method
was published over 7 years
ago.
7 years is the normal lifetime
of a development fad
Nielsen is inventor of
HE, it is risky to rely
on the work of one
researcher
The method has been adopted by many others
and well studied in relation to other methods
regarding the efficiency and quality of problem
identification in relation to cost, time, other
methods, resource, level of expertise etc.
The tenets of usability are
well researched in studies
within cognitive and
behavioural psychology
The result from heuristic
evaluation are not
representative of users
User testing is more
expensive than
heuristic evaluation
Pro
Pro
User testing finds more of
the serious errors than
heuristic evaluation
User testing is the most efficient
evaluation method to validate the
interface
In user testing, real users test
the interface with
characteristic use cases
Contra
Contra
Contra
Contra
Contra