System Evaluation and User Interfaces

Abstract

It is essential for developing a useful system to evaluate its user interface. The interface should be evaluated by potential users instead of experts, if unbiased results are to be obtained. It is more recommendable to observe users’ reactions to an actual working prototype of the interface than to simply ask them about what kind of interface is preferable. The observation in a laboratory room can produce more general and scientific results than that in a real-world situation does. Thus, this chapter describes how to conduct a laboratory study. It collects users’ reactions to the prototype of a user interface in a controlled situation. There are many items to consider in order to conduct a laboratory study: goals, hypotheses, factors, conditions, experimental design, tasks, subjects, data collection, and analysis. Each of these items is explained in detail. An example of system evaluation that is conducted in the past study on telepresence robots is discussed.

Keywords

Human-computer interaction (HCI) Usability User study Iterative development Order effect Between-subjects experiment Ceiling effect Human-robot interaction (HRI) Questionnaire ANOVA 

References

  1. Ishiguro, H., Trivedi, M.: Integrating a perceptual information infrastructure with robotic avatars: a framework for tele-existence. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 99), pp. 1032–1038 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. Jouppi, N.P.: First steps towards mutually-immersive mobile telepresence. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2002), pp. 354–363 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. Nakanishi, H., Murakami, Y., Kato, K.: Movable cameras enhance social telepresence in media spaces. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2009), pp. 433–442 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. Nakanishi, H., Kato, K., Ishiguro, H.: Zoom cameras and movable displays enhance social telepresence. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2011), pp. 63–72 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. Nakanishi, H., Tanaka, K., Wada, Y.: Remote handshaking: touch enhances video-mediated social telepresence. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2014), pp. 2143–2152 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. Nakanishi, H., et al.: Minimum movement matters: impact of robot-mounted cameras on social telepresence. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2008), pp. 303–312 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. Paulos, E., Canny, J.: Social tele-embodiment: understanding presence. Auton Robot 11(1), 87–95 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Prussog, A., Muhlbach, L., Bocker, M.: Telepresence in videocommunications. Annual Meeting of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 180–184 (1994)Google Scholar
  9. Vogeley, K., Fink, G.R.: Neural correlates of the first-person-perspective. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7(1), 38–42 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EngineeringOsaka UniversitySuitaJapan

Personalised recommendations