Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publication date | 2015 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Publication status | Published - 2015 |
| Event | The ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI 2015 - Seoul, Korea, Republic of Duration: 18 Apr 2015 → 23 Apr 2015 Conference number: 33 http://chi2015.acm.org/ |
Conference
| Conference | The ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI 2015 |
|---|---|
| Number | 33 |
| Country | Korea, Republic of |
| City | Seoul |
| Period | 18/04/2015 → 23/04/2015 |
| Internet address |
Cite this
}
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 conference › Paper › Research › peer-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 -