Posts Tagged ‘heuristics’

5 simple UX metrics

August 19, 2015
  1. Digestibility
  2. Clarity
  3. Trust
  4. Familiarity
  5. Delight

Clark Wimberly

February 6, 2015

AccessibilityOz uses the following design principles when analysing a current web site:

  • Matching experience and meeting expectation
  • Metaphor
  • Consistency – internal and external
  • Functional minimalism
  • Cognitive load
  • Engagement
  • Memory load
  • Functional layering
  • Visibility
  • Feedback and orientation
  • Direct manipulation
  • Mapping
  • Control, trust, and explorability
  • Error prevention, detection and recovery
  • Mousing and Fitt’s law
  • Affordance
  • Hierarchy of control
  • Spatial memory
  • Visual hierarchy
  • Natural reading order
  • Grouping
  • Visual weight
  • Visual balance
  • Visual minimalism
  • Visual rhythm and scanability
  • Aesthetics

http://www.accessibilityoz.com/services/accessible-user-experience/

Choosing the right UX metrics

June 18, 2013

The HEART model:

  • Happiness: measures of user attitudes, often collected via survey. For example: satisfaction, perceived ease of use, and net-promoter score.
  • Engagement: level of user involvement, typically measured via behavioral proxies such as frequency, intensity, or depth of interaction over some time period. Examples might include the number of visits per user per week or the number of photos uploaded per user per day.
  • Adoption: new users of a product or feature. For example: the number of accounts created in the last seven days or the percentage of Gmail users who use labels.
  • Retention: the rate at which existing users are returning. For example: how many of the active users from a given time period are still present in some later time period? You may be more interested in failure to retain, commonly known as “churn.”
  • Task success: this includes traditional behavioral metrics of user experience, such as efficiency (e.g. time to complete a task), effectiveness (e.g. percent of tasks completed), and error rate. This category is most applicable to areas of your product that are very task-focused, such as search or an upload flow.

Kerry Rodden

Rating – rule of thumb

July 4, 2011

“As a rough estimate, a 2-star average across 68,418 reviews means that 40,000 users gave the application a 1-star rating. Given the 90-9-1 rule for social design, most users never bother reviewing products, so 40,000 low scores represent at least half a million dissatisfied customers.”

Jacob Nielsen

Innovative UX thinking

May 16, 2011
  • reframe the problem;
  • explore many perspectives;
  • synthesize information;
  • embrace constraints;
  • challenge assumptions;
  • appreciate details

Stephen Anderson: Critical Thinking for UX Designers – summarised by Johnny Holland

IA heuristics

March 17, 2010

IA heuristics (comes handy for review)

  1. Does the site structure match the tasks to be performed by the user?
  2. Does the apparent site complexity and functionality match the intended user need?
  3. Is the structure designed so as reduce the total number of navigational steps needed to reach the desired page?
  4. Are frequently needed and critical pages located near the top of the site structure, requiring a small number of clicks from the homepage?
  5. Does the structure convey an appropriate metaphor that facilitates user’s understanding of the site?
  6. Do the navigational labels provide meaningful, unambiguous summary of the pages?
  7. Do the labels use familiar and consistent terminology?
  8. Are the labels distinct from one another?
  9. Do important keywords stand out in the labels?
  10. Does the site promote learning of the location of pages in the site structure?
  11. Does site design build on our prior learning and experience of the intended users?
  12. Does the layout of the navigation facilitate visual scanning by the user?
  13. Do the number of pages per navigation level and the number of levels in the site structure optimise navigation time?
  14. Has random or arbitrary ordering of pages on a particular level in the site structure been avoided?
  15. Are pages on a particular level presented in a logical order to facilitate scanning?
  16. Are pages on a particular level ordered to reveal structure and relationships among them?
  17. Does the order of pages agree with the user’s expected ordering?

From Volkside: 17 guidelines for better information architecture…from 1991

Web standards

June 6, 2008
  1. All web pages should contain: title, site-identifier with link to
    home page, update date, navigation, contact, content p.120
  2. Standards “allow graceful degradation” apparently goes back to Jeffrey
    VEEN, The Art and Science of Web Design, 2000, New Riders
  3. Why it’s good to stick to conventions and difficult to create new
    communicational clues p.94 (sidebar)

From: Wroblewski, Luke (2002), Site-Seeing: A Visual Approach to Web-Usability, New York: Hungry Minds

Nielsen’s usability principles and heuristics

June 5, 2008
  1. Visibility of system status – always keep users informed about
    what is going l, through providing appropriate feedback within
    reasonable time
  2. Match between system and the real world – speak the users’
    language, using words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user,
    rather than systemoriented terms
  3. User control and freedom – provide ways of allowing users to
    easily escape from places they unexpectedly find themselves, by
    using clearly marked ’emergency exits’
  4. Consistency and standards – avoid making users wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing
  5. Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors – use plain language to describe the nature of the problem and suggest a way of solving it
  6. Error prevention – where possible prevent errors occurring in
    the first place
  7. Recognition rather than recall – make objects, actions, and
    options visible 8. Flexibility and efficiency of use-provide
    accelerators that are invisible to lovice users, but allow more
    experienced users to carry out tasks more quickly 9. Aesthetic
    and minimalist design-avoid using information that is irrelevant
    or rarely needed
  8. Help and documentation – provide information that can be easily
    searched and provides help in a set of concrete steps that can
    easily be followed

From: Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H. (2002), Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, New York: Wiley, p.27

Nielsen’s usability principles and heuristics

June 5, 2008
  1. Visibility of system status – always keep users informed about
    what is going l, through providing appropriate feedback within
    reasonable time
  2. Match between system and the real world – speak the users’
    language, using words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user,
    rather than systemoriented terms
  3. User control and freedom – provide ways of allowing users to
    easily escape from places they unexpectedly find themselves, by
    using clearly marked ’emergency exits’
  4. Consistency and standards – avoid making users wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing
  5. Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors – use plain language to describe the nature of the problem and suggest a way of solving it
  6. Error prevention – where possible prevent errors occurring in
    the first place
  7. Recognition rather than recall – make objects, actions, and
    options visible 8. Flexibility and efficiency of use-provide
    accelerators that are invisible to lovice users, but allow more
    experienced users to carry out tasks more quickly 9. Aesthetic
    and minimalist design-avoid using information that is irrelevant
    or rarely needed
  8. Help and documentation – provide information that can be easily
    searched and provides help in a set of concrete steps that can
    easily be followed

From: Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H. (2002), Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, New York: Wiley, p.27

Heuristic evaluation of websites

May 19, 2008

According to Nielsen etc., users ignore approximately 80% of the content of a webpage. Doesn’t really surprise, does it?

Scannability of pages becomes more and more essential and is on the top of my list for heuristic evaluations. Other key criteria: orientation, consistency, relevance, and controllability.

    Where am I, what do I get?

  • Site ID
  • Communication of site goal (e.g. in tag line)
    How can I navigate?

  • Signposting: Where am I, where can go, where have I been? (e.g. breadcrumbs)
  • Amount of menus manageable? Competing navigation systems?
  • Categories and subcategories sensible and logically coherent?
  • Consistent labels?
  • search function?
    How do I find my way within the page?

  • Screen real estate: content first?
  • Overall hierarchy apparent and sensible? Visual hierarchy, Headers, subheaders, lists
  • Granularity of content chunks consistent?
  • Makes content sense as a ‘narrative’ or answer to the user’s interest?
  • Visual weight of irrelevant elements (Ads, banners etc.)
    General usability

  • Adheres to conventions for layout, navigation and technical features?
  • Visual cues to support navigation and communication? Links clearly highlighted?
  • User centred approach: personalisation, control of page layout, reflection of user needs?
    General accessibility

  • Standard compliant with W3 standards?
  • Clear structure?
  • HTML syntax?