Running the usability test - Revision history

Jjh: /* User performance */

2008-01-13T18:29:36Z

‎User performance

Jjh: /* Session programme */

2008-01-13T17:51:58Z

‎Session programme

Jjh: /* Low participation */

2008-01-13T17:51:24Z

‎Low participation

Jjh at 17:51, 13 January 2008

2008-01-13T17:51:07Z

Jjh: first stab

2007-09-21T17:15:56Z

first stab

New page

On 13 April we set up the software on a number of machines at NIACRO. As this was the
Thursday before Easter Friday, many trainees did not turn up for the session. We were left with
one ex-offender in the morning, and one ex-offender and one non-offender in the afternoon. As
they were at different stages of the NIACRO training, their familiarity with computers and the
Internet differed.
For each session we ran through the steps listed in the test protocol. In brief these were:
1. Welcome and introduction.
2. Pre-test questionnaire (on skills)
3. Test the map-based computer interface.
4. Post-test questionnaire (on 3)
5. Spend up to 15 min. filling in the
conventional paper questionnaire as send
out by PBNI.
6. Post-test questionnaire (on 5)
7. Group discussion on usability of 3 and 5.
We had to help them at times. One needed help entering the comments on the map, otherwise
there were few difficulties with the map. All needed help in reading the consultation
questionnaire (at times it used phrases that were more complicated than the language used in
tabloid newspapers), and two had difficulties filling it in (one only ticked the boxes, the other
had to get a research assistant to write down the free text answers).
As only three people turned up before Easter, we left copies of the forms and instructions at
NIACRO, so that other trainees could be offered the chance to test the software after Easter. But
not one trainee did so. A possible explanation is that non-offenders don't know anything about
probation offices, and probationers are less willing to help the PBNI (or do not trust that their
comments will be anonymous). 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.

←Older revision		Revision as of 18:29, 13 January 2008
Line 20:		Line 20:

	===User performance===		===User performance===
−	We had to help the ex-offenders at times. For example, one needed help entering the comments on the map. Otherwise, there were few difficulties with the map. All needed help in reading the consultation questionnaire (at times it used phrases that were more complicated than the language used in tabloid newspapers), and two had difficulties filling it in (one only ticked the boxes, the other had to get a research assistant to write down the free text answers).	+	We had to help the ex-offenders at times. For example, one needed help entering the comments on the map. Otherwise, there were few difficulties with the map. All needed help in reading the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/annex-a-questionnaire.pdf consultation questionnaire] (at times it used phrases that were more complicated than the language used in tabloid newspapers), and two had difficulties filling it in (one only ticked the boxes, the other had to get a research assistant to write down the free text answers).

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ===Session programme===
 For each session we ran through the steps listed in the test protocol. In brief these were:
-. Welcome and introduction.
+# Welcome and introduction.
-. Pre-test questionnaire (on skills)
+# Pre-test questionnaire (on skills)
-. Test the map-based computer interface.
+# Test the map-based computer interface.
-. Post-test questionnaire (on 3)
+# Post-test questionnaire (on 3)
-. Spend up to 15 min. filling in the conventional paper questionnaire as send out by PBNI.
+# Spend up to 15 min. filling in the conventional paper questionnaire as send out by [http://www.niacro.co.uk/ PBNI].
-. Post-test questionnaire (on 5)
+# Post-test questionnaire (on 5)
-. Group discussion on usability of 3 and 5.
+# Group discussion on usability of 3 and 5.
 ===Low participation===

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ===Low participation===
-On 13 April we set up the software on a number of machines at NIACRO.
+On 13 April we set up the software on a number of machines at [http://www.niacro.co.uk/ NIACRO].
 As this was the Thursday before Easter Friday, many trainees did not turn up for the session. We were left with one ex-offender in the morning, and one ex-offender and one non-offender in the afternoon. As they were at different stages of the [http://www.niacro.co.uk/ NIACRO] training, their familiarity with computers and the Internet differed.
 As only three people turned up before Easter, we left copies of the forms and instructions at
-NIACRO, so that other trainees could be offered the chance to test the software after Easter. But not one trainee did so.
+[http://www.niacro.co.uk/ NIACRO] , so that other trainees could be offered the chance to test the software after Easter. But not one trainee did so.
 A possible explanation is that non-offenders do not know anything about probation offices, and probationers are less willing to help the [http://www.pbni.org.uk/ PBNI] (or do not trust that their comments will be anonymous). 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.