Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

--- lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:group_a:2019-03-21_discussion_conclusion [21.03.2019 10:47] – ded54912
+++ lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:group_a:2019-03-21_discussion_conclusion [21.03.2019 10:51] (aktuell) – ded54912
@@ Zeile 3: / Zeile 3: @@
 title               : Discussion & Conclusion
 description         : This entry will cover the discussion regarding our evaluation and a final conlusion
-date_date           : 2019-03-21
+date_date           : 2019-03-22
 bygroup             : A
 tags_               : discussion, conclusion
@@ Zeile 16: / Zeile 16: @@
 # Conclusion
+The market analysis showed that remote tools are often bundled with the service of testing and evaluating of the study. The need to install and setup the test by themselves can have negative effects on the participants which can result in worse test results than in lab setups. However, a big concern should be to allow easy participation in a study. A redesign of the software is suggested: the application should rather be hosted on a server in order to reduce the overhead for the participant, this would also solve the problem of compatibility with the operating system.
+The market analysis and the interviews addressed the issue of the requirement of a stable internet connection, delays in the transmission and the impairment of communication. Those aspects need to be addressed in another study and should be considered as key aspects for the quality and usability of such a system.
+Another negative aspect is the dependency on the tool and hardware limitations of the participants, for the recording and the conduction of the test.
+In conclusion, it is safe to state that the RUP will need future updates and improvements to become a fully valuable software for remote usability testing. At the moment the core feature list is set and functioning, nonetheless these features must all be improved regarding their usability and new features must be added to increase the scope of use cases. Comparing the system to Morae, one of its main contenders, there is clear potential for the RUP. Adding new features to it might increase its value, but it is important that these new functions are added with the user in mind. We propose that if new features are added, it should be done one at a time, with own market analyses, expert interviews and usability tests. Admittedly though, as our expert interviews have shown remote testing seems to be of unimportant status at the moment, both in the academic as well as in the economic world. Neither our related work nor our experts showed reasons, why remote testing should be used more or why it would be the best way to do usability testing: rather the opposite was the case. Even our test participants stated they would prefer to test or be tested face to face.