research for video testing

some of the research I conducted for video testing assignment:

The testing script I used is based upon Steve’s Krug’s testing script recommendations (Krug 2006,146-155). I also downloaded a sample script and video release form from his web site sensible.com (Krug, 2007) and used both with some minor adjustments in my testing sessions. I did not copy either of these scripts word for word and made some changes, for example, I did not want to ask users “what would you click on first” (Krug 2006, 150) as I felt that may alter their use of the site as it would be better to just observe what they just naturally click on before any tasks are asked of them.

Steve Krug (Krug 2006, 144) recommends “Get it “ testing and “key task testing”, the first is about whether the participant gets what the site is about and how it is organized and works etc. The second concerns asking the user to perform a task and watching how they perform the task. I used both of his recommendations in this video testing assignment. In fact nearly all of my research for this assignment came from Krug’s book “Don’t make me think” (Krug, 2006). With the following exception:

The idea behind the following recommendations is to maximize verbal contribution along with the physical tasks users perform, although some usability experts recommend not to place too much emphasis on user comments, Isabelle Peyrichoux’ article proposes a method to minimize the risks (Peyrichoux, 2007). She believes that to just focus on the physical tasks can produce misleading and limited results and instead we should also apply the following 10 recommendations:

Be aware of your own judgements and projections
Be genuine and transparent
Adapt to each user. Do not ask users adapt to you
Be conscious of the way users are interacting with you
Get users to speak about their own experiences
Notice when users are censoring their own comments
Get user to speak in terms of problems, not solutions
Ask “why” and dig deeper
Make objective and precise observations
Allow users to be spontaneous and follow their flow


I tried to apply all of the above during my testing, it is not always easy to remember them in the heat of the moment. I found it hard to know when users are censoring comments, one user asked if “it was okay to swear”? even though her comment makes her thoughts obvious it is not always so easy to know what users are really thinking as they may be too polite to voice their thoughts.

Peyrichoux, P. (2007) When observing users is not enough: 10 Guidelines for getting more out of user’s verbal comments,
Retrieved from: http://www.uxmatters.com/MT/archives/000183.phpApril 3, 2007.

Krug, S. (2006) Don’t Make Me Think, A common sense approach to Web Usability, Second Edition, New Riders Publishing, Berkeley, California USA.

Krug, S. (2007) Advanced Common Sense
Retrieved from: http://www.sensible.com/
March 28, 2007.

so long...

Wow. I haven't blogged for over twenty days! Too busy getting video testing assignment finished, nearly finished just a few things to edit fill in in my report.

Completed last test yesterday the participant is a friend who I noticed was really holding back during her session and then it came out (halfway through second site) that she thought I had designed the sites she was viewing! After it was explained that I hadn't created them she relaxed and was more vocal with her opinions. Prior to this she had been pulling faces and making me laugh, all unprofessional! Need to use strangers next time, on second thought; serious strangers. But a bit of fun is good as long as it is not directed at the testers abilities but at the sites or yourself, for after all we are testing the site not the user (Krug, 2006).

I used camstudio (http://www.camstudio.org/ ) a screen desktop recorder with a microphone I plugged in and this worked well. The quality a bit shoddy sometimes but it's still okay to view. Only thing is you miss some of the participants facial expressions which often say more than their words.

Usabilty testing is a great eye opener to how people use the web. You realise that what appears obvious to me is not to others and how little of the technology behind some sites is realised or even noticed by testing participants. I guess due to confidentiality I cannot go into specifics here, but in general I noticed the following:

• none of my participants seemed to realise what flash and text only versions were.
• unless links are really obvious they don't tend to find them.
• they can get frustrated and give up quite easily.
• whether they blame themselves or the site design, the result is the same, they give up and probably wont bother with the site ever again.
• noise is a bad thing.
• aesthetically, opinions vary.
• I notice how much participants relied upon images to key them into what a site is about, some will gather a view of the site from images and stick to that view regardless of what any text says.
• Their opinion as to what the site is about can change throughout the session, depending on what they notice around the site.
• even things right in front of participants on the screen can be missed if they are not obvious and well headed.
• if sections are not explained well (and explanation read) users can assume all kinds of different things as to where they are and what they are in.
• I (we) ended up in Jakob Nielsen's usability website during one session so you never know where these tests will take you.

I really enjoyed the teating experience and the insights gained, Steve Krug is right, people don't want to think (Krug, 2006). I felt I lacked professionalism during the testing, mainly due to using friends and family in the sessions. I'll know better next time.

Been too busy with assignment and not posted any research here but been putting it all in my assignment. This post has excerpts from assignment research:

1. One of the problems I have with becoming a web designer is building a portfolio and I found this guy on the net http://www.briterwebdesign.com/ who is giving away free websites in order to build a name for himself. Could be an idea!

2. Questionnaire results are in and below (from assignment) summarises them:

I received 10 responses 7 from business providers and 3 from other organisations. Two of the business’ providers had websites, only 1 had a site for other reasons, the main reason to have a business site was to attract more work, most were in the market for some of the services listed, most want the site updated for them but quite a lot would update themselves if they felt able to. I was expecting people to think a website would be expensive as a general misconception but the responses here were as varied as the market itself, nearly all have no idea how much internet advertising would cost and when looking for a web designer the main criteria is experience, know what they are doing with quality of previous work. Two of the respondents with non-business sites required the designer to be local as their sites (which they already have) need constant updates.

I noticed I could offer update services along with the added value of training the site owner to update the site themselves, and also marketing an advertising service with a dollar value attached might motive some people to purchase the product as they would go from having no idea of the price to gaining product knowledge that may or may not appeal to them. Advertising is not something I had planned to provide but it may be a viable service to provide if businesses are in the market for it, definitely something I would need to research and consider offering.

I did not ask any usability style questions like “how often do you use the internet” as I conducted one earlier in the unit and realised how varied users are some people can use the internet fluently others cannot and I need to design with the assumption people know very little and even if they do I still need to design with the motto “don’t make me think” (Krug, 2006). I plan on a simple site anyway, no flash to download or sounds, nothing complicated just a good basic site that is easy to use.Most businesses did not have websites and I noticed they might purchase a site if they believed it would increase sales and I assume a business would weigh up site cost against the sales it generates. I would need to give a potential business a good idea of what a site could do for their business.

3. Besides primary research secondary advice is available in, for example, statistical forms; some for purchase (others free) at the Australian government business site (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/b06660592430724fca2568b5007b8619/9c7742890adec989ca2568a900139423!OpenDocument which can help getting the business environment surrounding business' currently. Other issues here would be how consumer spending, for example, can affect your line of business.

4. I researched the three competition sites mentioned in previous post, I found 'hardweb' and 'arteffect' had many usability issues and the site style I want to emulate 'emotionlive' also had a few usability issues. I will know more about the sites after testing video is completed and at the moment I can only list what I do and don't like about them, the issues I found in regards to usabilty were about navigation, pointless graphics, links not obvious, don't know what page you are on and being unable to change font size in some browsers.

5. With copyright I only researched in the OZnet law website ( http://www.oznetlaw.net/) and found issues around work agreements between a web designer and the client:

Without a written agreement:

(a) the third party developer (and not the customer) will own the intellectual property in the website and:

* the customer may have limited future control over the development and hosting of the website;
* the website developer may be able to reproduce the customer's website design for another customer if the customer is not the intellectual property owner; or
* the continuing use of artwork or other copyright works by customer will be dependent upon the copyright owner granting it a licence to do so.

(b) owning the intellectual property and not having possession of the source code can be a very frustrating and potentially disastrous situation. Escrow should be considered when the developer is not prepared to supply the source code;

(c) the customer is exposed to significant liability arsing from programming and other errors with the website;

(d) the customer and developer can have different interpretations of delivery dates, the development timetable and the liability of the parties for delay;

(e) the unsuccessful developer is potentially exposed in the case where a pre-contractual development proposal is put forward but not accepted and that proposal is used in a future site created by another developer.

You should maintain records such as minutes of meetings to document the fact that you have relied upon the knowledge and expertise of the developer. Such evidence makes it difficult for a developer to defend a claim of misleading and deceptive conduct made against the developer. (Oznetlaw, 2006)

Also stated in site how it is best (not necessary) to place a copyright symbol on your work and also mentions how every site should have a disclaimer to limit liability.

5. After a fellow student mentioned that she could not find 'emotionlive' displayed sites (they are posted as screenshots without links on the site) on the internet as 'real websites' I searched the net and only found one of the sites but the site looked different to the 'emotionlive' version. I think they(emotionlive) are creating mock up of sites to display on there website as part of the portfolio. Not a bad idea but I think this should be mentioned on their site; else we are left with the impression that they are real sites the devloper created for clients. A bit deceptive but it would help a new designer to have some work to showcase by re vamping existing sites as before and after shots, I just feel this should be stated on the site.

real version: emotionlive version: