Descriere: Chestionare pentru evaluarea interacţiunii şi percepţiei utilizatorilor asupra unui produs software Destinatar: uz public Autor(i): Dan Dragu Data/Stare: 01.10.2015 / activ
Scop Documentul conţine informaţii despre metodele de evaluare a percepţiei utilizatorilor asupra produselor software. Principala sursă de informare o constituie cartea ”Quantifying the User Experience. Practical Statistics for User Research”, Jeff Sauro, James R. Lewis, Elsevier 2012.
Metode de evaluare a percepţiei
Informaţii generale Metodele de evaluare pot fi aplicate pe diverse categorii de produse software, independent de detaliile constructive. Principala metodă de evaluare este prin chestionarea utilizatorilor după ce aceştia au interacţionat cu aplicaţia supusă evaluării. Utilizatorii sunt obligaţi să evalueze o serie de afirmaţii, sau să răspundă la un set de întrebări. Afirmaţiile/întrebările sunt rezultatul unor selecţii efectuate în urma unor studii privind relevanţa. O evoluţie a acestora în timp este posibilă, dar puţin probabilă pentru că ar afecta baza de date la care se raportează. Relevanţa rezultatelor acestor sisteme de evaluare este dată de raportarea la valorile obţinute pentru alte aplicaţii, de-a lungul unei perioade mai mari de timp şi cu eşantioane mai numeroase de respondenţi. În cazul în care enunţurile sau întrebările au tonuri diferite (pozitiv/negativ), respondentul trebuie atenţionat asupra acestui fapt. Răspunsul utilizatorilor este în general selectat pe o scară de distribuţie Likert cu ancore bipolare. Sistemele de evaluare pot fi asociate unui scor general sau unor obiective concrete (ex: uşurinţa în utilizare, evaluare aspect vizual, evaluarea funcţionalităţilor de suport, etc). Este recomandat ca chestionarele să fie însoţite de întrebări suplimentare care să susţină clasificarea utilizatorilor demografic/psihosomatic/etc. Aceste chestionare pot fi utilizate atât pentru a evalua percepţia asupra unui produs, dar şi pentru a compara un produs dat cu altele din aceeaşi categorie (produse competitoare) sau variante diferite ale aceleiaşi produs. Notă: Atât întrebările cât şi unii termeni au fost păstraţi în limba engleză fiind forma validată de autorii acestora.
SUS (System Usability Scale)
Descriere Surse: numeroase. Lansat în 1986 de John Brooke, drepturi de autor Digital Equipment Corporation. Chestionarul este gratuit. Evaluarea se găseşte în lucrări publice. Respondentul trebuie să evalueze 10 enunţuri şi să selecteze o valoare pe o scară Likert în 5 puncte (1-5), cu ancorele „Strongly agree” şi „Strongly disagree”. Enunţurile alternează tonurile pozitive cu tonurile
negative. Punctajul se calculează astfel: pentru enunţurile 1,3,5,7,9 se scade un punct din poziţia selecţiei, pentru enunţurile 2,4,6,8,10 se scade din 5 poziţia selecţiei. Se face suma valorilor obţinute şi se înmulţeşte rezultatul cu 2.5. Domeniul de valori este între 0 şi 100. Corespondenţă între scorul SUS şi procente este dată de tabelul reprodus după ”Quantifying the User Experience. Practical Statistics for User Research”, Jeff Sauro, James R. Lewis, Elsevier 2012.
SUS % SUS % SUS % SUS % SUS %
5 0.3 40 6 67 47 74 70 85 97
10 0.4 45 8 68 50 75 73 90 99.8
15 0.7 50 13 69 53 76 77 95 99.9999
20 1 55 19 70 56 77 80 100 100
25 1.5 60 29 71 60 78 83
30 2 65 41 72 63 79 86
35 4 66 44 73 67 80 88
Referinţe:
- ” A Practical Guide to the System Usability Scale: Background, Benchmarks, & Best Practices”, Jeff Sauro, 2011
- Brooke, J., 1996. SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan, P., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.(Eds.), Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 189–194.
Chestionar Forma originală cu tonuri alternante pozitiv/negativ:
1. I think that I would like to use this system frequently. 2. I found the system unnecessarily complex. 3. I thought the system was easy to use. 4. I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system. 5. I found the various functions in this system were well integrated. 6. I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system. 7. I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly. 8. I found the system very cumbersome to use. 9. I felt very confident using the system. 10. I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system.
Forma care conţine doar tonuri pozitive:
1. I think that I would like to use the website frequently. 2. I found the website to be simple. 3. I thought the website was easy to use. 4. I think that I could use the website without the support of a technical person. 5. I found the various functions in the website were well integrated. 6. I thought there was a lot of consistency in the website. 7. I would imagine that most people would learn to use the website very quickly. 8. I found the website very intuitive. 9. I felt very confident using the website. 10. I could use the website without having to learn anything new.
Descriere Sursa: http://www.suprq.com/, proprietar Jeff Sauro, chestionarul e gratuit, raportarea rezultatelor se face contra cost. Preţul este de 1999$. Chestionarul constă în 12 enunţuri şi o întrebare. Pentru enunţuri, respondentul trebuie să selecteze o valoare pe o scară Likert în 5 puncte (1-5), cu ancorele „Strongly disagree” şi „Strongly agree” . La întrebare, selecţia răspunsului se face pe o scară Likert în 11 puncte (0-10), cu ancorele „Not at all likely” şi „Extremely Likely”. Scorul se calculează însumând rezultatele de la cele 12 enunţuri cu ½ din răspunsul la întrebarea 13. Formula de calcul a procentului se obţine contra cost. Categorii: 1.Usability, 2. Credibility (Trust,Value,Comfort), 3.Loyalty, 4.Appearance
Chestionar Usability
1. This website is easy to use. 2. I am able to find what I need quickly on this website. 3. I enjoy using the website. 4. It is easy to navigate within the website.
Credibility (Trust, Value & Comfort)
5. I feel comfortable purchasing from this website. 6. This website keeps the promises it makes to me. 7. I can count on the information I get on this website. 8. I feel confident conducting business with this website. 9. The information on this website is valuable.
Appearance
10. I found the website to be attractive. 11. The website has a clean and simple presentation.
Loyalty
12. I will likely visit this website in the future. 13. How likely are you to recommend this website to a friend or colleague?
SUMI (Software Usability Measurement Inventory)
Descriere Sursa: http://sumi.ucc.ie/, proprietar Jurek Kirakowski, chestionarul e gratuit(http://sumi.ucc.ie/en/ ), raportarea rezultatelor se face contra cost. Preţul maxim este de 1300 Euro + TVA. Respondentul trebuie să aprecieze 50 de enunţuri alegând o variantă de răspuns dintre „Agree”, „Undecided” şi „Desigree”. Enunţurile au atât ton pozitiv cât şi ton negativ. Nu sunt indicaţii despre asocierea enunţurilor cu criteriile de evaluare. Pe lângă cele 50 de enunţuri respondentul trebuie să mai răspundă la 5 întrebări care susţin clasificarea utilizatorilor. Recomandă o bază de cel puţin 20 de respondenţi. Categorii:
- Efficiency (The degree to which the software helps users complete their work.);
- Affect (The general emotional reaction to the software.); - Helpfulness (The degree to which the software is self-explanatory, plus the adequacy of help
facilities and documentation.); - Control (The extent to which the user feels in control of the software.); - Learnability (The speed and facility with which users feel they mastered the system or learned to
use new features.). Referinţe iniţiale:
- Kirakowski, J., Corbett, M., 1993.” SUMI: The software usability measurement inventory”. Br. J. Educ. Technol.24, 210–212.
- McSweeney, R., 1992. SUMI: A Psychometric Approach to Software Evaluation (unpublished M.A. (Qual.) thesis in applied psychology). University College of Cork, Cork, Ireland. Also see: http://sumi.ucc.ie/sumipapp.html (accessed October 1, 2011).
Chestionar Enunţuri
1. This software responds too slowly to inputs. 2. I would recommend this software to my colleagues. 3. The instructions and prompts are helpful. 4. This software has at some time stopped unexpectedly. 5. Learning to operate this software initially is full of problems. 6. I sometimes don't know what to do next with this software. 7. I enjoy the time I spend using this software. 8. I find that the help information given by this software is not very useful. 9. If this software stops it is not easy to restart it. 10. It takes too long to learn the software functions. 11. I sometimes wonder if I am using the right function. 12. Working with this software is satisfying. 13. The way that system information is presented is clear and understandable. 14. I feel safer if I use only a few familiar functions. 15. The software documentation is very informative. 16. This software seems to disrupt the way I normally like to arrange my work. 17. Working with this software is mentally stimulating. 18. There is never enough information on the screen when it's needed. 19. I feel in command of this software when I am using it. 20. I prefer to stick to the functions that I know best. 21. I think this software is inconsistent. 22. I would not like to use this software every day. 23. I can understand and act on the information provided by this software. 24. This software is awkward when I want to do something which is not standard. 25. There is too much to read before you can use the software. 26. Tasks can be performed in a straight forward manner using this software. 27. Using this software is frustrating. 28. The software has helped me overcome any problems I have had in using it. 29. The speed of this software is fast enough. 30. I keep having to go back to look at the guides. 31. It is obvious that user needs have been fully taken into consideration. 32. There have been times in using this software when I have felt quite tense. 33. The organisation of the menus seems quite logical.
34. The software allows the user to be economic of keystrokes. 35. Learning how to use new functions is difficult. 36. There are too many steps required to get something to work. 37. I think this software has sometimes given me a headache. 38. Error messages are not adequate. 39. It is easy to make the software do exactly what you want. 40. I will never learn to use all that is offered in this software. 41. The software hasn't always done what I was expecting. 42. The software presents itself in a very attractive way. 43. Either the amount or quality of the help information varies across the system. 44. It is relatively easy to move from one part of a task to another. 45. It is easy to forget how to do things with this software. 46. This software occasionally behaves in a way which can't be understood. 47. This software is really very awkward. 48. It is easy to see at a glance what the options are at each stage. 49. Getting data files in and out of the system is not easy. 50. I have to look for assistance most times when I use this software.
Întrebări suplimentare:
1. What, in general, do you use this software for? 2. How important for you is the kind of software you have just been rating?
a. Extremely important b. Important c. Not very important d. Not important at all
3. How would you rate your software skills and knowledge? a. Very experienced and technical b. I'm good but not very technical c. I can cope with most software d. I find most software difficult to use
4. What do you think is the best aspect of this software, and why? 5. What do you think needs most improvement, and why?
WAMMI (Website Analysis and MeasureMent Inventory)
Descriere Sursa: http://www.wammi.com, proprietar Jurek Kirakowski şi Nigel Claridge, chestionarul e gratuit(http://www.wammi.com/samples/index.html ), raportarea rezultatelor se face contra cost. Preţul se solicită la proprietari (250 EURO/test, până la 30 de repondenţi pentru studii comparate cu competiţia). Respondentul trebuie să evalueze 20 de enunţuri, respondentul trebuie să selecteze o valoare pe o scară Likert în 5 puncte (1-5), cu ancorele „Strongly agree” şi „Strongly disagree” (invers faţă de recomandările de bună practică). Recomandă între 40 şi 200 de respondenţi. Nu sunt indicaţii despre asocierea enunţurilor cu criteriile de evaluare. Rezultatele evaluării includ, pe lângă scorurile pentru fiecare categorie, şi un scor global GUS (Global Usability Score). Categorii:
- Attractiveness: An Attractive site is visually pleasant, and also offers much of direct interest to the respondents, whether it be functionality or information.
- Controllability: If a site scores well on Controllability the respondents most probably feel they can navigate around it with ease and do the things they want to do. Poor usually means a poorly organised site that disrupts the way they normally expect to do things.
- Efficiency: When respondents give a high Efficiency rating they feel they can quickly locate and do what is of interest to them in a effective and economical manner. They feel that the web site responds (possibly, the pages load) at a reasonable speed.
- Helpfulness: A site which is high on Helpfulness corresponds with the respondents' expectations about its content and structure. A site low on Helpfulness can be misleading about its layout and content.
- Learnability: When Learnability is high, respondents feel they are able to start using the site with the minimum of introductions. Everything is easy to understand from the start. When Learnability is low, respondents feel that the site may be using concepts or terminology which are unfamiliar. More explanations are needed.
Chestionar Enunţuri
1. This website has much that is of interest to me. 2. It is difficult to move around this website. 3. I can quickly find what I want on this website. 4. This website seems logical to me. 5. This website needs more introductory explanations. 6. The pages on this website are very attractive. 7. I feel in control when I'm using this website. 8. This website is too slow. 9. This website helps me find what I am looking for. 10. Learning to find my way around this website is a problem. 11. I don't like using this website. 12. I can easily contact the people I want to on this website. 13. I feel efficient when I'm using this website. 14. It is difficult to tell if this website has what I want. 15. Using this website for the first time is easy. 16. This website has some annoying features. 17. Remembering where I am on this website is difficult. 18. Using this website is a waste of time. 19. I get what I expect when I click on things on this website. 20. Everything on this website is easy to understand.
Întrebări suplimentare
1. Gender? a. Male b. Female
2. What is your age? 3. What are your main reasons for visiting this website?
-------------------------------- 1. What do you think is the best feature of this website, and why? 2. What feature of this website do you think should be improved, and why? 3. How important for you is the kind of site you have just been rating?
a. Extremely important b. I would need it sometimes c. Not very important
d. I would never need it 4. How would you rate your internet skills?
a. Expert level b. I’m fairly good c. Average d. I’m fairly unskilled
PSSUQ (Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire)
Descriere Numeroase surse. Chestionarul este gratuit şi a fost iniţial dezvoltat de IBM. Versiunea curentă are 16 enunţuri, respondentul trebuie să selecteze o valoare pe o scară Likert în 7 puncte (1-7), cu ancorele „Strongly agree” şi „Strongly disagree” sau să selecteze opţiunea „Not apply”. Rezultatul final este suma punctelor selecţiilor. Există variante în care punctarea este inversată. Categorii: overall (1-16); system quality (1-6); information quality(7-12); interface quality (13-16). Text introductiv recomandat înainte de completarea chestionarului: ” This questionnaire gives you an opportunity to tell us your reactions to the system you used. Your responses will help us understand what aspects of the system you are particularly concerned about and the aspects that satisfy you. To as great an extent as possible, think about all the tasks that you have done with the system while you answer these questions. Please read each statement and indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the statement. If a statement does not apply to you, circle NA. Please write comments to elaborate on your answers. After you have completed this questionnaire, I’ll go over your answers with you to make sure I understand all of your responses. Thank you!” Referinţe iniţiale:
- Lewis, J.R., 1992. Psychometric evaluation of the Post-Study system usability questionnaire: The PSSUQ. In:Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting. Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 1259–1263.
- Lewis, J.R., 1993. Multipoint scales: Mean and median differences and observed significance levels. Int. J.Hum. Comput. Interact. 5, 382–392.
- Lewis, J.R., 1995. IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 7, 57–78.
- Lewis, J.R., 1999. Tradeoffs in the design of the IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires. In: Proceedings of HCI International 1999. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 1023–1027.
- Lewis, J.R., 2002. Psychometric evaluation of the PSSUQ using data from five years of usability studies. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 14, 463–488.
Chestionar
1. Overall, I am satisfied with how easy it is to use this system. 2. It was simple to use this system. 3. I was able to complete the tasks and scenarios quickly using this system. 4. I felt comfortable using this system. 5. It was easy to learn to use this system. 6. I believe I could become productive quickly using this system. 7. The system gave error messages that clearly told me how to fix problems. 8. Whenever I made a mistake using the system, I could recover easily and quickly.
9. The information (such as online help, on-screen messages and other documentation) provided with this system was clear.
10. It was easy to find the information I needed. 11. The information was effective in helping me complete the tasks and scenarios. 12. The organization of information on the system screens was clear. 13. The interface* of this system was pleasant. 14. I liked using the interface of this system. 15. This system has all the functions and capabilities I expect it to have. 16. Overall, I am satisfied with this system.
*The “interface” includes those items that you use to interact with the system. For example, some components of the interface are the keyboard, the mouse, the microphone, and the screens (including their graphics and language).
PUTQ (Purdue Usability Testing Questionnaire)
Descriere Numeroase surse. Alcătuit din 100 de întrebări. Respondentul trebuie să selecteze o valoare pe o scară Likert în 7 puncte (1-7), cu ancorele „Bad” şi „Good” sau să selecteze opţiunea „Not apply”. Text introductiv recomandat înainte de completarea chestionarului: „Both the questionnaire and answer sheets are reproducible without permission provided this footnote is included in all copies used. Reproduced by permission from Han X. Lin, Yee-Yin Choong,and Gavriel Salvendy, „A proposed index of usability: a method for comparing the relative usability of different software systems”, Behaviour & Information Technology , 1997, Vol. 16, No. 4/5, 267 – 278.” Categorii: 1.Compatibility, 2.Consistency; 3. Flexibility; 4.Learnability; 5.Minimal action; 6. Minimal memory load; 7.Perceptual limitation; 8.User guidance.
Chestionar 1. Compatibility
1. Is the control of cursor compatible with movement? 2. Are the results of control entry compatible with user expectations ? 3. Is the control matched to user skill? 4. Are the coding compatible with familiar conventions? 5. Is the wording familiar?
2. Consistency 6. Is the assignment of colour codes conventional? 7. Is the coding consistent across displays, menu options? 8. Is the cursor placement consistent? 9. Is the display format consistent? 10. Is the feedback consistent? 11. Is the format within data fields consistent? 12. Is the label format consistent? 13. Is the label location consistent? 14. Is the labelling itself consistent? 15. Is the display orientation consistent? (panning vs. scrolling.) 16. Are the user actions required consistent? 17. Is the wording consistent across displays? 18. Is the data display consistent with entry requirements?
19. Is the data display consistent with user conventions? 20. Are symbols for graphic data standard? 21. Is the option wording consitent with command language? 22. Is the wording consistent with user guidance?
3. Flexibility 23. Does it have by-passing menu selection with command entry? 24. Does it have direct manipulation capability? 25. Is the design for data entry flexible? 26. Can the display be controlled by user flexibly? 27. Does it provide flexible sequence control? 28. Does it provide flexible user guidance? 29. Are the menu options dependent on context? 30. Can user name displays and elements according to their needs? 31. Does it provide good training for different users? 32. Are users allowed to customize windows? 33. Can users assign command names? 34. Does it provide user selection of data for display? 35. Does it handle user-specified windows? 36. Does it provide zooming for display expansion?
4. Learnability 37. Does it provide clarity of wording? 38. Is the data grouping reasonable for easy learning? 39. Is the command language layered? 40. Is the grouping of menu options logical? 41. Is the ordering of menu options logical? 42. Are the command names meaningful? 43. Does it provide no-penalty learning?
5. Minimal action 44. Does it provide combined entry of related data? 45. Will the required data be entered only once? 46. Does it provide default values? 47. Is the shifting among windows easy? 48. Does it provide function keys for frequent control entries? 49. Does it provide global search and replace capability? 50. Is the menu selection by pointing? (primary means of sequence control) 51. Is the menu selection by keyed entry? (secondary means of control entry) 52. Does it require minimal cursor positioning? 53. Does it require minimal steps in sequential menu selection? 54. Does it require minimal user control actions? 55. Is the return to higher-level menus required only one simple key action? 56. Is the return to general menu required only one simple key action?
6. Minimal memory load 57. How are abbreviations and acronyms used? 58. Does it provide aids for entering heirachic data? 59. Is the guidance information always available? 60. Does it provide hierarchic menus for sequential selection? 61. Are selected data highlighted? 62. Does it provide index of commands? 63. Does it provide index of data? 64. Does it indicate current position in menu structure?
65. Are data items kept short? 66. Are the letter codes for menu selection designed carefully? 67. Are long data items partitioned? 68. Are prior answers recapitulated? 69. Are upper and lower case equivalent? 70. Does it use short codes rather than long ones? 71. Does it provide supplementary verbal labels for icons?
7. Perceptual limitation 72. Does it provide coding by data category? 73. Is the abbreviation distinctive? 74. Is the cursor distinctive? 75. Are display elements distinctive? 76. Is the format for user guidance distinctive? 77. Do the commands have distinctive meanings? 78. Is the spelling distinctive for commands? 79. Does it provide easily distinguished colours? 80. Is the active window indicated? 81. Are items paired for direct comparison? 82. Is the number of spoken messages limited? 83. Does it provide lists for related items? 84. Are menus distinct from other displayed information? 85. Is the colour coding redundant? 86. Does it provide visually distinctive data fields? 87. Are groups of information demarcated? 88. Is the screen density reasonable?
8. User guidance 89. System feedback: How helpful is the error message? 90. Does it provide CANCEL option? 91. Are erroneous entries displayed? 92. Does it provide explicit entry of corrections? 93. Does it provide feedback for control entries? 94. Is HELP provided? 95. Is completion of processing indicated? 96. Are repeated errors indicated? 97. Are error messages non-disruptiv e/informative? 98. Does it provide RESTART option? 99. Does it provide UNDO to reverse control actions? 100. Is the sequence control user initiated?
QUIS (Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction)
Detalii Sursa: www.lap.umd.edu/QUIS/, proprietar University of Maryland, Office of Technology Commercialization, atât întrebările cât şi evaluarea răspunsurilor sunt contra cost. Versiunea comercială costă 750$. Versiunea curentă este QUIS 7. Are 2 variante (una mai scurtă de 41 de enunţuri şi una extinsă de 122 enunţuri), dar oferă chestionare adaptate aplicaţiei ce urmează să fie evaluată. Respondentul trebuie să
evalueze enunţurile pe o scară Likert în 10 puncte (0-9), sau să selecteze „NA” (not apply). Ancorele bipolare sunt specifice fiecărui enunţ. Detalii: 2 versiuni: scurtă – 41 întrebări, extinsă – 122 întrebări. Răspuns pe scara Likert cu 9 puncte (nu are valoare de mijloc) + NA. Versiunea comercială: 750$. Categorii: (1) screen, (2) terminology and system information, (3) learning, (4) system capabilities, (5) technical manuals and on-line help, (6) on-line tutorials, (7) multimedia, (8) teleconferencing, and (9) software installation. Referinţe: Chin, J.P., Diehl, V.A., Norman, K.L., 1988. „Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human–computer interface.”, In: Proceedings of CHI 1988. ACM, Washington, DC, pp. 213–218.;
Chestionar EXEMPLU 1 User evaluation of Interactive Computer System (exemplu extras din „The UX Book: Process and Guidelines for Ensuring a Quality User Experience”, Rex Hartson,Pardha S. Pyla; William Kaufmann, Inc; 2012):
1. Terminology relates to task domain (distantly/closely); 2. Instructions describing tasks (confusing/clear); 3. Instructions are consistent (never/always); 4. Operations relate to tasks (distantly/closely); 5. Informative feedback (never/always); 6. Display layouts simplify tasks (never/always); 7. Sequence of displays (confusing/clear); 8. Error messages are helpful (never/always); 9. Error correction (confusing/clear); 10. Learning the operation (difficult/easy); 11. Human memory limitations (overhelmed/are respected); 12. Exploration of features (discouraged/encouraged); 13. Overall reactions (terrible/wonderfull, frustrating/satisfying, unintersting/interesting,
dull/stimulating, difficult/easy) Sursă nesigură
1. Overall reactions to the software (terrible/wonderful, difficult/easy, frustrating/satisfying, inadequate power/adequate power, dull/stimulating, rigid/flexible).
2. Screen a. Characters on the computer screen (hard to read/easy to read); b. Highlighting on the screen simplifies task (not at all/very much); c. Organization of information on screen (confusing/very clear); d. Sequence of screens (confusing/very clear);
3. Terminology and system information a. Use of terms throughout system (inconsistent/consistent); b. Computer terminology is related to the task you are doing (never/always); c. Position of messages on screen (inconsistent/consistent); d. Messages on screen which prompt user for input (confusing/clear); e. Computer keeps you informed about what it is doing (never/always);
f. Error messages (unhelpful/helpful). 4. Learning
a. Learning to operate the system (difficult/easy); b. Exploring new features by trial and error (difficult/easy); c. Remembering names and use of commands (difficult/easy); d. Tasks can be performed in a straight-forward manner (never/always); e. Help messages on the screen (unhelpful/helpful); f. Supplemental reference materials (confusing/clear);
5. System capabilities a. System speed ( too slow/fast enough); b. System reliability (unreliable/reliable); c. System tends to be noisy/quiet; d. Correcting your mistakes (difficult/easy); e. Experienced and inexperienced users' needs are taken into consideration (never/always);
6. Usability and UI a. Use of colors and sounds (poor/good); b. System feedback (poor/good); c. System response to errors (awkward/gracious); d. System messages and reports (poor/good); e. System clutter and UI “noise” (poor/good).
AttrakDiff
Descriere Sursa: http://attrakdiff.de, proprietar User Interface Design GmbH (principal autor Marc Hassenzahl). Metoda de evaluare este în general cunoscută sub numele de “Hedonic Quality Measurement/Estimation” şi constă în selecţia unui opţiuni pe o scară Likert cu mai multe perechi de ancore. Criteriul evaluat este de cele mai multe ori identificat de respondent în funcţie de perechea de ancore asociate. După completarea chestionarului AttrakDiff emite un raport specific. Acest raport poate fi particularizat contra cost pentru cerinţe specifice.
PUEU/TAM (Perceived Usefulness and Ease of Use/Technology Acceptance Model)
Descriere Gratuit. Numeroase surse. Sistem propus de Fred D. Davis în 1989. Este mai cunoscut sub numele de Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Modelul a fost ulterior actualizat cu versiunile TAM 2 (2000, Venkatesh & Davis) şi TAM 3 (2003, Venkatesh et al.). Respondentul trebuie să selecteze o valoare pe o scară Likert în 7 puncte (1-7), cu ancorele „likely” şi „unlikely”. Referinţe iniţiale:
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M. G.; Davis, G. B.; Davis, F. D. (2003), "User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view", MIS Quarterly 27 (3): 425–478
- Davis, F. D. (1989) Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13:3, 319-340.
Chestionar TAM1 Perceived usefulness
1. Using the system in my job would enable me to accomplish tasks more quickly. 2. Using the system would improve my job performance. 3. Using the system in my job would increase my productity. 4. Using the system would enhance my effectiveness on the job. 5. Using the system would make it easier to do my job. 6. I would find the system useful in my job.
Perceived ease of use 7. Learning to operate the system would be easy for me. 8. I would find it easy to get the system to do what I want it to do. 9. My interaction with the system would be clear and understandable. 10. I would find the system to be flexible to interact with. 11. It would be easy for me to become skillful at using the system. 12. I would find the system easy to use.
TAM3 (UTAUT – Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology) Performance expectancy
1. I would find the system useful in my job. 2. Using the system enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly. 3. Using the system increases my productivity. 4. If I use the system, I will increase my chances of getting a raise.
Effort expectancy 5. My interaction with the system would be clear and understandable. 6. It would be easy for me to become skillful at using the system. 7. I would find the system easy to use. 8. Learning to operate the system is easy for me.
Attitude toward using technology 9. Using the system is a bad/good idea. 10. The system makes work more interesting. 11. Working with the system is fun. 12. I like working with the system.
Social influence 13. People who influence my behavior think that I should use the system.
14. People who are important to me think that I should use the system. 15. The senior management of this business has been helpful in the use of the system. 16. In general, the organization has supported the use of the system.
Facilitating conditions 17. I have the resources necessary to use the system. 18. I have the knowledge necessary to use the system. 19. The system is not compatible with other systems I use. 20. A specific person (or group) is available for assistance with system difficulties.
Self-efficacy I could complete a job or task using the system…
21. ... if there was no one around to tell me what to do as I go. 22. ... if I could call someone for help if I got stuck. 23. ... if I had a lot of time to complete the job for which the software was provided. 24. ... if I had just the built-in help facility for assistance.
Anxiety 25. I feel apprehensive about using the system. 26. It scares me to think that I could lose a lot of information using the system by hitting
the wrong key. 27. I hesitate to use the system for fear of making mistakes I cannot correct. 28. The system is somewhat intimidating to me.
Behavioral intention to use the system 29. I intend to use the system in the next <n> months. 30. I predict I would use the system in the next <n> months. 31. I plan to use the system in the next <n> months.
