Unterschiede
Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.
Beide Seiten der vorigen RevisionVorhergehende Überarbeitung | Letzte ÜberarbeitungBeide Seiten der Revision | ||
lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:group_a [22.03.2019 19:56] – Abstract ueberarbeitet scp58322 | lehre:ws18:fsm_18ws:group_a [22.03.2019 19:59] – scp58322 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Zeile 12: | Zeile 12: | ||
[[https:// | [[https:// | ||
==== Description ==== | ==== Description ==== | ||
- | The \texit{Regensburger Usability Platform} is a synchronous remote testing tool. It is the first iteration in an ongoing development process, which to this point lacks a proper evaluation. In order to build a possible roadmap for further iterations and implementations, | + | The Regensburger Usability Platform is a synchronous remote testing tool. It is the first iteration in an ongoing development process, which to this point lacks a proper evaluation. In order to build a possible roadmap for further iterations and implementations, |
- | The second part consisted of a qualitative usability test in which the \texit{Regensburger Usability Platform} is compared to the established remote testing tool \textit{Morae}. We discovered certain problems of remote testing tools, the major ones were the communication between the participants and the supervisor, as well as the configuration of the setup. These properties reduce the possible advantages of synchronous remote testing tools. To address these weaknesses new features should be added or existing ones should be improved. Overall both systems provide good usability. Nevertheless our findings show no reason, why remote testing should be used more or why it would be the best way to do usability testing. Future work should be done to get better insights and thereby make it possible to make a more significant statement in that regard. | + | The second part consisted of a qualitative usability test in which the Regensburger Usability Platform is compared to the established remote testing tool Morae. We discovered certain problems of remote testing tools, the major ones were the communication between the participants and the supervisor, as well as the configuration of the setup. These properties reduce the possible advantages of synchronous remote testing tools. To address these weaknesses new features should be added or existing ones should be improved. Overall both systems provide good usability. Nevertheless our findings show no reason, why remote testing should be used more or why it would be the best way to do usability testing. Future work should be done to get better insights and thereby make it possible to make a more significant statement in that regard. |
==== Goals ==== | ==== Goals ==== |