Probation Board of Northern Ireland - Revision history

Jjh: /* Discussion */

2008-01-13T18:37:44Z

‎Discussion

Jjh: /* Usability test results */

2008-01-13T18:30:34Z

‎Usability test results

Jjh: /* Running the usability test */

2008-01-13T18:30:04Z

‎Running the usability test

Jjh: /* Designing a usability test */

2008-01-13T18:28:10Z

‎Designing a usability test

Jjh: /* Usability test results */

2008-01-13T18:21:56Z

‎Usability test results

Jjh: /* Running the usability test */

2008-01-13T17:55:47Z

‎Running the usability test

Jjh at 17:53, 13 January 2008

2008-01-13T17:53:44Z

Jjh at 17:53, 13 January 2008

2008-01-13T17:53:14Z

Jjh: /* Designing a usability test */

2008-01-13T17:52:46Z

‎Designing a usability test

Jjh: /* Designing a usability test */

2008-01-13T17:46:53Z

‎Designing a usability test

←Older revision		Revision as of 18:37, 13 January 2008
Line 64:		Line 64:

	===[[Discussion]]===		===[[Discussion]]===
		+	This case has shown it is possible to design interfaces that reduce the cognitive burden on consultees, compared to traditional questionnaires. This is consistent with a commonly stated principle of human-computer interface design: ''making the interface consistent with the ways the user thinks about the problem''.
		+
		+	Nevertheless, even our map still requires some literacy. sers need to be able to recognise place names and then type in short comments. For a less literate consultee the interface needs to provide information through more photographs and sound.
		+
		+	Although computer maps have been used in consultations on planning issues for over a decade, few consulting bodies have used them in small consultations, because of the cost of preparing the Geographic Information Systems (GIS). But now that lowcost GIS is easily available, from Google maps to the open source GRASS toolkit, such techniques are becoming more feasible. There have even been computer games (See demgames) designed to support e-democracy.

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 ===[[Usability test results]]===
-Using the test protocol, we compared the innovative map-based e-consultation technique with the conventional paper questionnaire.
+Using the test protocol, we compared the innovative map-based e-consultation technique with the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/annex-a-questionnaire.pdf conventional paper questionnaire].
-The web map was better than the paper questionnaire on all but one criterion. The exception was the organization of information on the page.
+The web map was better than the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/annex-a-questionnaire.pdf paper questionnaire] on all but one criterion. The exception was the organization of information on the page.
-During the tests, there were frequent complaints about the paper questionnaire. Q5 was particularly hard to grasp. It reads like a university or A-level examination question.  However, even when answering the simpler questions, the testers discussed what the questions mean before attempting to answer.
+During the tests, there were frequent complaints about the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/annex-a-questionnaire.pdf paper questionnaire]. Q5 was particularly hard to grasp. It reads like a university or A-level examination question.  However, even when answering the simpler questions, the testers discussed what the questions mean before attempting to answer.
 In contrast, there were few problems when using the on-line map. In the discussion afterwards, they expressed their satisfaction with the map interface, and how easy it was to use.
 ===[[Discussion]]===

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 We are looking at ways of following up this preliminary study by designing geographical tasks that young offenders would perceive as more interesting and less threatening.
-For those who participated, only limited assistance was requried.  For example, help entering the comments on the map or reading the consultation questionnaire . Otherwise, there were few difficulties encountered.
+For those who participated, only limited assistance was requried.  For example, help entering the comments on the map or reading the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/annex-a-questionnaire.pdf consultation questionnaire]. Otherwise, there were few difficulties encountered.
 ===[[Usability test results]]===

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ===[[Designing a usability test]]===
 This stage involved designing a usability test of an e-consultation interface for ex-offenders.  The map-based interface was compared with the conventional paper
-questionnaire produced by the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI].
+questionnaire, [http://www.pbni.org.uk/annex-a-questionnaire.pdf viewable online], produced by the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI].
 In partnership with the [http://www.niacro.co.uk/ Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO)], we recruited a selection of ex-offenders to test the system on 13 April 2006, during a regular IT class within prison.

←Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 13 January 2008
Line 55:		Line 55:

	===[[Usability test results]]===		===[[Usability test results]]===
		+	Using the test protocol, we compared the innovative map-based e-consultation technique with the conventional paper questionnaire.
		+
		+	The web map was better than the paper questionnaire on all but one criterion. The exception was the organization of information on the page.
		+
		+	During the tests, there were frequent complaints about the paper questionnaire. Q5 was particularly hard to grasp. It reads like a university or A-level examination question. However, even when answering the simpler questions, the testers discussed what the questions mean before attempting to answer.
		+
		+	In contrast, there were few problems when using the on-line map. In the discussion afterwards, they expressed their satisfaction with the map interface, and how easy it was to use.

	===[[Discussion]]===		===[[Discussion]]===

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 In partnership with the [http://www.niacro.co.uk/ Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO)], we recruited a selection of ex-offenders to test the system on 13 April 2006, during a regular IT class within prison.
 We designed a sequence of tasks that started with simple familiarization with the map-based
 site, then got progressively more involved as the testers gained confidence, until they were

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:53, 13 January 2008
Line 40:		Line 40:
	We compared this with how much of the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI] questionnaire could be filled in within 15 minutes.		We compared this with how much of the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI] questionnaire could be filled in within 15 minutes.

−	~~====[[Designing a usability test\|Collecting test data Collecting test data]]====~~
	We set up [http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia.asp?CMP=KgoogleCStmhome Camtasia Studio], a computer activity recorder, on one PC. This software produced a video of the screen, including the position of the mouse at any time, and what the tester saw.		We set up [http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia.asp?CMP=KgoogleCStmhome Camtasia Studio], a computer activity recorder, on one PC. This software produced a video of the screen, including the position of the mouse at any time, and what the tester saw.

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:52, 13 January 2008
Line 31:		Line 31:
	questionnaire produced by the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI].		questionnaire produced by the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI].

−	~~====[Designing a usability test\|Selecting the testers Selecting the testers]====~~
	In partnership with the [http://www.niacro.co.uk/ Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO)], we recruited a selection of ex-offenders to test the system on 13 April 2006, during a regular IT class within prison.		In partnership with the [http://www.niacro.co.uk/ Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO)], we recruited a selection of ex-offenders to test the system on 13 April 2006, during a regular IT class within prison.

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ===[[Designing a usability test]]===
-Designing a usability test of an e-consultation interface for ex-offenders
+This stage involved designing a usability test of an e-consultation interface for ex-offenders.  The map-based interface was compared with the conventional paper
 ====[Designing a usability test|Selecting the testers Selecting the testers]====
 ====[[Designing a usability test|Collecting test data Collecting test data]]====
 ===[[Running the usability test]]===