Avoid misleading by quantitative responses on questionnaire: Traps in usability evaluation and the solutions

Introduction

Quantitative Usability was considered as a statistic way to evaluate system and service efficiency and usability. However, it’s easy to mislead by the quantitative feedback, like Darrell Huff’s “How to lie with statistics”(Huff, 2010), without validity benchmarks, quantitative usability methods are delicate and useless. I introduce both advantages and drawbacks in this article, emphasize the bias of quantitative usability data, and give the solution.

Advantages of Quantitative Usability

The main advantage of quantitative usability feedback is the statistical significance(Budiu, 2017), which means by quantitative feedback either from post-tasks or during the tasks would be more objective than qualitative research, for qualitative research is no assurance to keep the neutral of user. Another favorable is with the comparable large group of the tester, it’s easy to compare findings in a broad view, which could not make it by little samples qualitative usability test.(Erickson, 2017)

Hidden Danger

But not all quantitative responses are reliable, sometimes quantitative data even more tricky than the qualitative one. Performance and preference data are primarily quantitative, in other words, can develop benchmarks to quantify user performance and experience.

Normally, performance data are based on users’ actions, contains time; the number of errors; recovery from errors; success or failure at task completion; use of help; embedded assistance and so on(Barnum, 2010), depends on the task content. The performance data reminds a central way of determining whether users are accomplishing their goals and how fast or efficiently do they accomplish.(Sauro & Lewis, 2016)

It seems safe enough and easy to conduct in every usability tasks, but there are several concerns about apply performance data into analysis.

  1. quantitative usability is limited in few scales, the time, satisfaction and accomplishment may not represent the usability of the system and service, because unless surrounding with the specific aim of the usability test, statistical data would be useless.
  2. Another backflow is quantitative tendency may misleading people into a wrong field that covering the real matters of the problem.(Nielsen, 2004)

Preference data also was called user satisfaction, it based on user’s responses to questions on post-tasks,  the Likert Scale is one example of it. The preference data are more subjective and may tell the wrong story when using it improperly.

  1. Users tend to avoid extremes on the scale. Because of the error of central tendency, users tend to not choose the extreme two scores, even though they really want to.
  2. Users tend to rate the responses consistently. They prefer to stay close to one score throughout the whole test.
  3. The questionnaire setting time will largely influence the result. Participants with higher ratings after task completion than they did during the task, and the group which was asked to respond only after task completion responded with significantly higher ratings than the other group. (Teague &  De Jesus & Ueno, 2001)

Solutions

Set scope to metrics and questions with purpose will reduce the quantitative usability error in a big range. Some SUS questionnaire could alternate the statements between a positive statement and a negative statement in hopes to get the respondent to think about each statement and the appropriate of response. (Barnum, 2010); Change the order of post-questionnaire could solve the problem of responses consistently.

Also, triangulating the data from findings, compare both quantitative data(Questionnaire Responses) and qualitative data(Observations & Participants Comments)(Podems, 2017). Triangulation facilitates data validation through cross-verification from more than two sources. It increases the chances of controlling or at least evaluating some of the unsure or multiple causes that affect our results, tests the consistency of qualitative data and quantitative data results obtained through the different tasks. Triangulation is more than verification, and it can combine quantitative and qualitative results to deepen and broaden understanding. It can be used to generate innovations in the conceptual framework or to attempt to more fully describe or explain the richness and complexity of human behavior from multiple perspectives. (Cohen & Manion, 2002)

 

 

Three Types of Triangulating For Minimize Bias 

Data triangulation: involves data of time taken, test space, and users, most of them are quantitative data, which could
Investigator triangulation: involves multiple researchers in an investigation, investigator triangulation allows you to combine individual and group research options to help reduce bias such as peer pressure on the focus group; Getting sufficient coverage to remove the sample bias caused by omission.
Theory triangulation: involves using more than one theoretical scheme in the interpretation of the phenomenon. This triangulation could solve the problem of procedural bias, which means the participants are put under some kind of pressure to provide information. Interpret information in a various way will relief users.
Methodological triangulation: involves using more than one option to gather data, such as interviews, observations, questionnaires, and documents. Most of the Usability Test user this triangulation method to supplement user research. (Kennedy, 2009)

Conclusion

Quantitative and qualitative usability should complement each other iterative in one integrated usability test. Using the trends found in qualitative responses will help lay the foundation for quantitative matric setting. It is just as important to understand why and how as understand how much and how many in the usability test. Be careful about the traps in quantitative feedback, and try triangulation to refine the user testing. 

Continue reading

Design Critique: IOS 11 Lock-screen

Introduction:

I want to explain my experience by using new launched IOS 11 human interface lock-screen part, analysis the subtle changes of this time, and some specific user-friendly design and suggestion of IOS 11 lock-screen. My interactive device is iPhone 7plus. This blog only represents my self’s point of view, please offer any suggestion and judge me when you think it’s not appropriate.

In What’s new in IOS 11, we could find out the basic changes. I will critique these items and some extra design beside it.

 

 

Goals for Lock-screen:

Depends on 7 stages of action as design aids, I first write down my behavior goals of using lock-screen.

  • Allow users quick and intuitive view information (primary notification and recently notifications; time)
  • Satisfy basic functions of widgets for users (central control; time control; light value and mode; screen lock; camera; flashlight; weather; news…)
  • Keep privacy and safety (second step of use, flashlight)
  • Emergency reflection (search; call)

 

Wireframe of Lock-screen Usage:

 

I draw a wireframe from the interaction of lock-screen.

From the wireframe, we could know the affordances of lock-screen. I will explain depends on these six parts of using lock-screen.

 

Welcome Part

When I first click the Home button, I could see the welcome page. This part satisfies my request for time information, priority notifications.

Great Design: The signifier of setting icon which is the part I like shows where should I track if I choose not update immediately. This also gives users a knowledge of the world (external information) in a memorable way.

 

The little lock sign also could be a signifier for showing the current condition of this page.

On the bottom of this page shows navigation points of lock-screen, lock-screen mainly has 3 pages, the color density of middle dot shows I am on the middle page. This part gives me a good conceptual model of where I am and what could I do. At the same time, the feedback of dot color changing and page changing would confirm my thought.

Suggestions:

The primary notification’s description seems too much for me, I probably will not read them.

At first, I did not notice I could use the camera in this way, I think the visibility of navigation part still could enhance, maybe use low-value dark color in the icon or subtle change the size or shape of camera symbol.

Notification & Info Part

If I sweep left, I will enter the notification and information part, which shows me the blocks of information I want to read: Calendar; News; Weather…

Great Design

I notice the change from IOS10 to IOS11, in the bottom of this section it was no navigation dots which could cause an error of loss activation, users may do not understand how to back to welcome page. This changing give users more guidance.

 

When I scroll down, I could see a button for edit information sections. I believe this corresponding to logical constraints that if I even do not see information from lock-screen, I will not necessarily change the information structure. So, this part of the design well to meet the needs of users, without causing additional confusion.

If I choose to search information, one constraint is I need to unlock the page to see. It satisfies the privacy of users. The instruction of use touch ID (use icon)or Password is very clear. Also, I like the emergency part, since, in urge time, users may not have time or capability to unlock screen.

Suggestion:

One confusion for me is if I could not get any answer by using search in lock-screen, why it has search section? For me, I suggest deleting this part.

 

Central Control Part

If I scroll up from welcome page, I will get into central control section, this part serves users some basic widgets like camera, flashlight, screen light value, sound value, music, wifi, modes…

Good Design:

The change of central control from IOS6, now I think it’s very successful, especially for the light, sound value part, I remember when I first use changed type of central control, I could directly control it by scroll up and down, I think this is because a good conceptual model and good mapping.

At the same time, when I finish using this part, the up arrow is clearly telling me how to do, a good conceptual model and mapping again.

Suggestion:

The whole part is elegant and simple, easy to look. However, I think the “screen mirroring” is the section I merely use, If I could change the position of central control page like change app position in the main page, I will be glad to do that.

 

Camera

Sweep right, enter the camera page.

As I just said, the icon of the camera is not very clear, someone may open camera in lock-screen from central control part, I would say this is a good plan to reverse the errors and make it easy to correct. 


Suggestion:

I think the camera part needs to consider again. normally, the designer could cultivate users to use this function, but there is a huge flaw is users do not know how to come back to welcome page. Naturally, I will choose scroll left to come back(since when I in notification & info page, I scroll right to come back, that could be knowledge of my head which taught by used IOS),  but I fail, in this way, changed the choice of camera types. I think on the left downside of camera page, should set a button for coming back.

Earlier Notification

If unlock the screen, enter the main screen, then scroll down, users could see the earlier notification page. Sweep left shows two options: View and clear, people could clear single notification by scroll left. Scroll right means open the information page.

Great Design:

I create a prototype of earlier notification page, in the front part is primary notification which also shows in welcome part. Then, we could see a gap separate primary notification to earlier notification part, using the little delete icon, users could delete information by time(specific day). I think the feedback of vibrate of iPhone is obvious.

Suggestions:

The “View” and “Open” option seems same, users may confuse about why shows two options when sweep left. My suggestion is get rid of “View”, constrain people from errors.

 

Summary:

Overall, IOS11 is user-friendly and concise. However, for gesture constrain and give people conceptual model in camera and notification part, still have much space to improve. Maybe create more naturally gesture ways, give feedback like: try…. encourage user use external knowledge.