Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Appl Ergon. 2019 Jan;74:85-96. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.011. Epub 2018 Aug 18.
The present article examined the effects of using different extra-laboratorial testing procedures in usability testing. Three experiments were conducted using different artefacts (website, computer-simulated mobile phone, fully operational smartphone) to compare different methodological approaches in field testing (synchronous and asynchronous remote testing, classical field testing) to lab-based testing under different operational conditions (dual task demands, poor product usability). Typical outcome variables of usability testing were measured, including task completion time, click rate, perceived usability and workload. Overall, the results showed no differences between field and lab-based testing under favourable operational conditions. However, under difficult operational conditions (i.e. dual task demands, poor product usability) differences between field and lab-based testing emerged (corresponding to small and medium effect sizes). The findings showed a complex pattern of effects, suggesting that there was no general advantage of one testing procedure over another.
本文探讨了在可用性测试中使用不同实验室外测试程序的效果。通过三个实验，使用不同的人工制品（网站、计算机模拟手机、全功能智能手机）来比较现场测试（同步和异步远程测试、经典现场测试）和不同操作条件下基于实验室的测试（双任务需求、产品可用性差）中的不同方法。测量了可用性测试的典型结果变量，包括任务完成时间、点击率、感知可用性和工作量。总体而言，在有利的操作条件下，现场测试和基于实验室的测试之间没有差异。然而，在困难的操作条件下（即双任务需求、产品可用性差），现场测试和基于实验室的测试之间出现了差异（对应于小和中等效应大小）。研究结果表明，存在一种复杂的效应模式，这表明没有一种测试程序普遍优于另一种。
