启发式评估(Heuristic Evaluation )的一点介绍

原创 2006年05月18日 08:57:00

 

Heuristic evaluation
Summary
Heuristic evaluation is a form of usability inspection where usability specialists judge whether each element of a user interface follows a list of established usability heuristics. Expert evaluation is similar, but does not use specific heuristics.

Usually two to three analysts evaluate the system with reference to established guidelines or principles, noting down their observations and often ranking them in order of severity. The analysts are usually experts in human factors or HCI, but others, less experienced have also been shown to report valid problems.

A heuristic or expert evaluation can be conducted at various stages of the development lifecycle, although it is preferable to have already performed some form of context analysis to help the experts focus on the circumstances of actual or intended product usage.

Benefits
The method provides quick and relatively cheap feedback to designers. The results generate good ideas for improving the user interface. The development team will also receive a good estimate of how much the user interface can be improved.
There is a general acceptance that the design feedback provided by the method is valid and useful. It can also be obtained early on in the design process, whilst checking conformity to established guidelines helps to promote compatibility with similar systems.
It is beneficial to carry out a heuristic evaluation on early prototypes before actual users are brought in to help with further testing.
Usability problems found are normally restricted to aspects of the interface that are reasonably easy to demonstrate: use of colours, lay-out and information structuring, consistency of the terminology, consistency of the interaction mechanisms. It is generally agreed that problems found by inspection methods and by performance measures overlap to some degree, although both approaches will find problems not found by the other.
The method can seem overly critical as designers may only get feedback on the problematic aspects of the interface as the method is normally not used for the identification of the 'good' aspects.
Method
This method is to identify usability problems based on established human factors principles. The method will provide recommendations for design improvements. However, as the method relies on experts, the output will naturally emphasise interface functionality and design rather than the properties of the interaction between an actual user and the product.

Planning
The panel of experts must be established in good time for the evaluation. The material and the equipment for the demonstration should also be in place. All analysts need to have sufficient time to become familiar with the product in question along with intended task scenarios. They should operate by an agreed set of evaluative criteria.

Running
The experts should be aware of any relevant contextual information relating to the intended user group, tasks and usage of the product. A heuristics briefing can be held to ensure agreement on a relevant set of criteria for the evaluation although this might be omitted if the experts are familiar with the method and operate by a known set of criteria.

The experts then work with the system preferably using mock tasks and record their observations as a list of problems. If two or more experts are assessing the system, they should not communicate with one another until the assessment is complete. After the assessment period, the analysts can collate the problem lists and the individual items can be rated for severity and/or safety criticality.

Reporting
A list of identified problems, which may be prioritised with regard to severity and/or safety criticality is produced.

In terms of summative output the number of found problems, the estimated proportion of found problems compared to the theoretical total, and the estimated number of new problems expected to be found by including a specified number of new experts in the evaluation can also be provided.

A report detailing the identified problems is written and fed back to the development team. The report should clearly define the ranking scheme used if the problem lists have been prioritised.

More Information
Nielsen, Jakob. How to Conduct a Heuristic Evaluation

Variations
Three to five experts are recommended for a thorough evaluation. A quick review by one expert (often without reference to specific heuristics) is usual before a user-based evaluation to identify potential problems.

If usability experts are not available, other project members can be trained to use the method, which is useful in sensitising project members to usability issues.

Background Reading
Bias, R.G. and Mayhew, D.J. (Eds.). Cost justifying usability. Academic Press, 1994, pp.251-254.

Nielsen, J. (1992). Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. Proc. ACM CHI'92 (Monterey, CA, 3-7 May), pp. 373-380.

Nielsen, J. & Landauer, T. K. (1993). A Mathematical Model of Finding of Usability Problems. Proc. INTERCHI '93 (Amsterdam NL 24-29 April),

启发式测试策略模型(Heuristic Test Strategy Model,简称HTSM)

http://www.cnblogs.com/liangshi/archive/2012/02/23/2364947.html 启发式测试策略模型(Heuristic Test Strategy...

关于treap启发式合并的一点脑洞(以bzoj2809为例)

首先我直到bzoj2809正解应该是可并堆,之所以写treap启发式合并单纯只是因为这个脑洞… 首先我们有两个treap,分别是 A 和 B ,它们的节点数分别为 n 和 m (n...

启发式算法(Heuristic Algorithm)

启发式算法(Heuristic Algorithm)有不同的定义:一种定义为,一个基于直观或经验的构造的算法,对优化问题的实例能给出可接受的计算成本(计算时间、占用空间等)内,给出一个近似最优解,该近...

01-Java基础-函数(启发式定义

  • 2015年12月26日 13:52
  • 49.03MB
  • 下载

8数码启发式搜索

  • 2014年06月16日 15:05
  • 7KB
  • 下载

BZOJ2733 永无乡 [启发式合并]

Problem 2733. – [HNOI2012]永无乡2733: [HNOI2012]永无乡Time Limit: 10 Sec  Memory Limit: 128 MBSubmit: 3578...

【楼天城男人八题】【树分治|Treap+启发式合并】POJ1741 Tree

题面在这里待我先膜拜一下楼教主……首先这题是很明显的树分治 想说点什么却发现已经没什么好说了然后我们来看另一种解法:平衡树乱搞 这里用的是Treap实现对于每个节点,用Treap记录该子树每个节点...
  • linkfqy
  • linkfqy
  • 2017年07月09日 20:05
  • 1628
内容举报
返回顶部
收藏助手
不良信息举报
您举报文章:启发式评估(Heuristic Evaluation )的一点介绍
举报原因:
原因补充:

(最多只允许输入30个字)