Comparison of CTA and Textual Feedback in Usability Testing for Malaysian Users

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaperResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Usability moderators found that the concurrent think-aloud (CTA) method has some cultural limitation that impacts usability testing with Malaysian users. This gives rise to proposing a new method called textual feedback. The research question is to determine whether there are any differences in terms of usability defects found by employing the new method. Due to the high power distance, it is hypothesized that the CTA method may not be sufficient and hence a textual feedback method is recommended instead. Hence, the objective of this study is to determine if there are any differences in usability defects from the concurrent think-aloud (CTA) method (Condition 2) and textual feedback method (Condition 1) within the same group of Malaysian users. A pair-wise t-test was used, whereby users were subjected to performing usability task using both methods. Results reveal that we can reject the null hypothesis of "no difference" in feedback and therefore conclude that textual feedback reported significantly more usability defects than CTA, as the difference is positive t(208) = 4.791, p=0.01.
Usability moderators found that the concurrent think-aloud (CTA) method has some cultural limitation that impacts usability testing with Malaysian users. This gives rise to proposing a new method called textual feedback. The research question is to determine whether there are any differences in terms of usability defects found by employing the new method. Due to the high power distance, it is hypothesized that the CTA method may not be sufficient and hence a textual feedback method is recommended instead. Hence, the objective of this study is to determine if there are any differences in usability defects from the concurrent think-aloud (CTA) method (Condition 2) and textual feedback method (Condition 1) within the same group of Malaysian users. A pair-wise t-test was used, whereby users were subjected to performing usability task using both methods. Results reveal that we can reject the null hypothesis of "no difference" in feedback and therefore conclude that textual feedback reported significantly more usability defects than CTA, as the difference is positive t(208) = 4.791, p=0.01.

Conference

ConferenceThe ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI 2015
Number33
CountryKorea, Republic of
City Seoul
Period18/04/201523/04/2015
Internet address

Keywords

    Cite this

    Sivaji, A., Clemmensen, T., & Nielsen, S. F. (2015). Comparison of CTA and Textual Feedback in Usability Testing for Malaysian Users. Paper presented at The ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI 2015, Seoul, Korea, Republic of.
    Sivaji, Ashok ; Clemmensen, Torkil ; Nielsen, Søren Feodor. / Comparison of CTA and Textual Feedback in Usability Testing for Malaysian Users. Paper presented at The ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI 2015, Seoul, Korea, Republic of.6 p.
    @conference{1343b48f6f654affb6610e117f92428e,
    title = "Comparison of CTA and Textual Feedback in Usability Testing for Malaysian Users",
    abstract = "Usability moderators found that the concurrent think-aloud (CTA) method has some cultural limitation that impacts usability testing with Malaysian users. This gives rise to proposing a new method called textual feedback. The research question is to determine whether there are any differences in terms of usability defects found by employing the new method. Due to the high power distance, it is hypothesized that the CTA method may not be sufficient and hence a textual feedback method is recommended instead. Hence, the objective of this study is to determine if there are any differences in usability defects from the concurrent think-aloud (CTA) method (Condition 2) and textual feedback method (Condition 1) within the same group of Malaysian users. A pair-wise t-test was used, whereby users were subjected to performing usability task using both methods. Results reveal that we can reject the null hypothesis of {"}no difference{"} in feedback and therefore conclude that textual feedback reported significantly more usability defects than CTA, as the difference is positive t(208) = 4.791, p=0.01.",
    keywords = "Human-centered computing, Human computer interaction (HCI), HCI design and evaluation methods, Usability testing",
    author = "Ashok Sivaji and Torkil Clemmensen and Nielsen, {S{\o}ren Feodor}",
    year = "2015",
    language = "English",
    note = "null ; Conference date: 18-04-2015 Through 23-04-2015",
    url = "http://chi2015.acm.org/",

    }

    Sivaji, A, Clemmensen, T & Nielsen, SF 2015, 'Comparison of CTA and Textual Feedback in Usability Testing for Malaysian Users' Paper presented at, Seoul, Korea, Republic of, 18/04/2015 - 23/04/2015, .

    Comparison of CTA and Textual Feedback in Usability Testing for Malaysian Users. / Sivaji, Ashok; Clemmensen, Torkil; Nielsen, Søren Feodor.

    2015. Paper presented at The ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI 2015, Seoul, Korea, Republic of.

    Research output: Contribution to conferencePaperResearchpeer-review

    TY - CONF

    T1 - Comparison of CTA and Textual Feedback in Usability Testing for Malaysian Users

    AU - Sivaji,Ashok

    AU - Clemmensen,Torkil

    AU - Nielsen,Søren Feodor

    PY - 2015

    Y1 - 2015

    N2 - Usability moderators found that the concurrent think-aloud (CTA) method has some cultural limitation that impacts usability testing with Malaysian users. This gives rise to proposing a new method called textual feedback. The research question is to determine whether there are any differences in terms of usability defects found by employing the new method. Due to the high power distance, it is hypothesized that the CTA method may not be sufficient and hence a textual feedback method is recommended instead. Hence, the objective of this study is to determine if there are any differences in usability defects from the concurrent think-aloud (CTA) method (Condition 2) and textual feedback method (Condition 1) within the same group of Malaysian users. A pair-wise t-test was used, whereby users were subjected to performing usability task using both methods. Results reveal that we can reject the null hypothesis of "no difference" in feedback and therefore conclude that textual feedback reported significantly more usability defects than CTA, as the difference is positive t(208) = 4.791, p=0.01.

    AB - Usability moderators found that the concurrent think-aloud (CTA) method has some cultural limitation that impacts usability testing with Malaysian users. This gives rise to proposing a new method called textual feedback. The research question is to determine whether there are any differences in terms of usability defects found by employing the new method. Due to the high power distance, it is hypothesized that the CTA method may not be sufficient and hence a textual feedback method is recommended instead. Hence, the objective of this study is to determine if there are any differences in usability defects from the concurrent think-aloud (CTA) method (Condition 2) and textual feedback method (Condition 1) within the same group of Malaysian users. A pair-wise t-test was used, whereby users were subjected to performing usability task using both methods. Results reveal that we can reject the null hypothesis of "no difference" in feedback and therefore conclude that textual feedback reported significantly more usability defects than CTA, as the difference is positive t(208) = 4.791, p=0.01.

    KW - Human-centered computing

    KW - Human computer interaction (HCI)

    KW - HCI design and evaluation methods

    KW - Usability testing

    M3 - Paper

    ER -

    Sivaji A, Clemmensen T, Nielsen SF. Comparison of CTA and Textual Feedback in Usability Testing for Malaysian Users. 2015. Paper presented at The ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI 2015, Seoul, Korea, Republic of.