View this PageEdit this PageAttachments to this PageHistory of this PageHomeRecent ChangesSearch the SwikiHelp Guide
Hotspots: Admin Pages | Turn-in Site |
Current Links: Cases Final Project Summer 2007

UI Evaluation

The goal of this milestone was to evaluate the group selected by our Professor; walk through and find things that should be changed about their design and graphical user interface.


Sample Usability Evaluation Plan
Usability Evaluation Plan
Between the three evaluation techniques (Heuristic evaluation, cognitive walkthrough and think aloud protocol analysis), we chose to go with the heuristic evaluation. We took the Xerox Heuristic Evaluation model and modified the tested fields to best suit the expectations of a Course Management System based off what has been seen so far in the class presentations. Our group has also been put under a lot of strain trying to keep on schedule with the code and the workload of filling out a heuristic evaluation sheet would be rather light in comparison to the other techniques. We feel the fields specified in our evaluation are fair and also reflect what we expect our own system to meet. In application, our group will separate, perform the evaluations of the system, re-convene, grade the system based on the percentage of ‘yes’s received to the total questions and submit the average grade of our evaluations.


This is the sample Design Review
Usability Report
        The system seems fairly usable but not always intuitive. For example, the University Administrator Model has a large array of buttons next to each list box which are not always listed in a consistent vertical order (Remove and Assign are not always third and fourth respectively). The method of assigning professors and students to courses is awkward since both professor and student are both highlighted while assigning one or the other to a course. We’re also unsure why catalog entries are available to be made in the course edit screen. We would also suggest putting checks in place for the creation dialog boxes. We were able to create empty faculty, students and courses. We would also advise removing error messages when canceling out of create or edit boxes. It was nice to see some form of color scheme and we would advise applying it to the Student and Professor model screens. We’d advise looking over sections 5-7 of our team’s evaluation review for more specifics
.
Evaluating The System
        Between the three evaluation techniques (Heuristic evaluation, cognitive walkthrough and think-aloud protocol analysis), we chose to go with the heuristic evaluation. We took the Xerox Heuristic Evaluation model and modified the tested fields to best suit the expectations of a Course Management System based off what has been seen so far in the class presentations. We feel the fields specified in our evaluation are fair and also reflect what we expect our own system to meet. In application, our group will separate, perform the evaluations of the system, re-convene, grade the system based on the percentage of ‘yes’s received to the total questions and submit the average grade of our evaluations.

Recommendations
1. Separate the operation of adding students or faculty to courses into a course-oriented screen that adds faculty/students. Alternatively, create a user-oriented screen which assigns courses to said users. The Administrator model screen is too cluttered and unintuitive. Grouping actions or operations into groups would make the system easier to navigate and administer.
2. All data entry dialogues need to be checked for validity. For example, ID fields should require integers, and name fields should have some string and also should not already be in the system.
3. Appropriate handling of error messages. Cancel buttons should not display an error every time they are pressed. Error messages should be consistent ("No Faculty selected. . . silly", "No Faculty Selected", "No Course selected. . .").
4. For actions that do not provide the user with any response, provide appropriate feedback through dialog boxes as to whether the action failed or succeeded. For example, when assigning a faculty or student to a course, no visual cue is provided. There should also be checks in place so that any attempt to assign a professor to the same course twice does not cause a critical error.



Heuristic Evaluation
We handed out Evaluations of the other groups GUI. This was one of the evaluations done by one of our members.
1a.gif
2a.gif
3a.gif
4a.gif
5a.gif
6a.gif
7a.gif
8a.gif
9a.gif

Link to this Page