Department of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Biomed Inform. 2011 Dec;44(6):948-57. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2011.07.002. Epub 2011 Jul 12.
Various methods exist for conducting usability evaluation studies in health care. But although the methodology is clear, no usability evaluation method provides a framework by which the usability reporting activities are fully standardized. Despite the frequent use of forms to report the usability problems and their context-information, this reporting is often hindered by information losses. This is due to the fact that evaluators' problem descriptions are based on individual judgments of what they find salient about a usability problem at a certain moment in time. Moreover, usability problems are typically classified in terms of their type, number, and severity. These classes are usually devised by the evaluator for the purpose at hand and the used problem types often are not mutually exclusive, complete and distinct. Also the impact of usability problems on the task outcome is usually not taken into account. Consequently, problem descriptions are often vague and even when combined with their classification in type or severity leave room for multiple interpretations when discussed with system designers afterwards. Correct interpretation of these problem descriptions is then highly dependent upon the extent to which the evaluators can retrieve relevant details from memory. To remedy this situation a framework is needed guiding usability evaluators in high quality reporting and unique classification of usability problems. Such a framework should allow the disclosure of the underlying essence of problem causes, the severity rating and the classification of the impact of usability problems on the task outcome. The User Action Framework (UAF) is an existing validated classification framework that allows the unique classification of usability problems, but it does not include a severity rating nor does it contain an assessment of the potential impact of usability flaws on the final task outcomes. We therefore augmented the UAF with a severity rating based on Nielsen's classification and added a classification for expressing the potential impact of usability problems on final task outcomes. Such an augmented scheme will provide the necessary information to system developers to understand the essence of usability problems, to prioritize problems and to tackle them in a system redesign. To investigate the feasibility of such an augmented scheme, it was applied to the results of usability studies of a computerized physician order entry system (CPOE). The evaluators classified the majority of the usability problems identically by use of the augmented UAF. In addition it helped in differentiating problems that looked similar but yet affect the user-system interaction and the task results differently and vice versa. This work is of value not only for system developers but also for researchers who want to study the results of other usability evaluation studies, because this scheme makes the results of usability studies comparable and easily retrievable.
在医疗保健领域,存在各种进行可用性评估研究的方法。但是,尽管方法学已经很明确,但是没有任何可用性评估方法可以提供一个框架,使可用性报告活动完全标准化。尽管经常使用表格来报告可用性问题及其上下文信息,但这种报告常常受到信息丢失的阻碍。这是因为评估者的问题描述是基于他们在特定时间对可用性问题的重要性的个人判断。此外,可用性问题通常根据其类型、数量和严重程度进行分类。这些类别通常是由评估者为手头的目的而设计的,并且使用的问题类型通常不是互斥的、完整的和独特的。此外,可用性问题对任务结果的影响通常也不被考虑。因此,问题描述通常很模糊,即使与类型或严重程度相结合,在与系统设计师讨论后也会留下多种解释的空间。当与系统设计师讨论时,这些问题描述的正确解释高度依赖于评估者从记忆中检索相关细节的程度。为了纠正这种情况,需要一个框架来指导可用性评估者进行高质量的报告,并对可用性问题进行独特的分类。这样的框架应该允许揭示问题原因的本质、严重程度评级以及可用性问题对任务结果的影响的分类。用户操作框架(UAF)是一个现有的经过验证的分类框架,允许对可用性问题进行独特的分类,但它不包括严重程度评级,也不包含对可用性缺陷对最终任务结果的潜在影响的评估。因此,我们在 UAF 中增加了一个基于尼尔森分类的严重程度评级,并增加了一个用于表达可用性问题对最终任务结果的潜在影响的分类。这样的扩充方案将为系统开发人员提供必要的信息,以了解可用性问题的本质,对问题进行优先级排序,并在系统重新设计中解决这些问题。为了研究这种扩充方案的可行性,我们将其应用于计算机化医师医嘱录入系统(CPOE)的可用性研究结果。评估者使用扩充后的 UAF 对大多数可用性问题进行了相同的分类。此外,它还有助于区分看起来相似但对用户-系统交互和任务结果产生不同影响的问题,反之亦然。这项工作不仅对系统开发人员有价值,对希望研究其他可用性评估研究结果的研究人员也有价值,因为该方案使可用性研究的结果具有可比性和可检索性。