From Bicycle to Bites: Indoor vs. Outdoor User Testing Methodologies of Georeferenced Mobile Apps
The paper is aimed to explore and discuss the way we evaluate, asses and test with users mobile applications—which main interaction modality is GPS and geo-referenced data—both in-lab and en plein air. The research intends to asses user experience evaluating methodologies to have better insight to understand how to design and plan spatial interactions among people, mobile devices, the physical environment and the digital space of geo-located information. The study adopts user test task-based methodologies coming from the user-centered design qualitative methods comparing infield research and usability lab conditions. The paper proposes experimental evidences coming from the indoor experiences—where geo-localization is simulated, but other research parameters are in control—with outdoor situation—where geo-localization is the real driver of interactions, but many variables interferes with some parameters and measurement observation—to understand experimental variables and bias to prevent them in the design process, using the field of cycling as a case study.
KeywordsSpace-based interaction design Geo-based experience design Outdoor user experience testing Infield usability test Contextual usability test
Although the paper is a result of the joint work of all authors, Letizia Bollini is in particular author of parts 1, 2 and 5 and Giulia Cicchinè is author parts 3 and 4.
We acknowledge Professor Natale Stucchi, University of Milano-Bicocca for is precious advice and supervision on data analysis of experimental results.
- 1.Meyers, J., Tognazzini, B.: Apple IIe Design Guidelines. Apple Computer (1982)Google Scholar
- 3.Krug, S.: Rocket Surgery Made Easy: The Do-It-Yourself Guide to Finding and Fixing Usability problems. New Riders Press, Berkley (2010)Google Scholar
- 4.Bollini, L.: Orienteering and orienteering yourself. User centered design methodologies applied to geo-referenced interactive ecosystems. In: Murgante, B., Misra, S., Rocha, A.M.A., Torre, C., Rocha, J.G., Falcão, M.I., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O., Gervasi, O. (eds.) ICCSA 2014, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8580, pp. 642–651. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
- 5.Kjeldskov, J., Skov, M.B., Als, B.S., Høegh, R.T.: Is it worth the hassle? exploring the added value of evaluating the usability of context-aware mobile systems in the field. In: Brewster, S., Dunlop, M.D. (eds.) Mobile HCI 2004. LNCS, vol. 3160, pp. 61–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Kjeldskov, J., Skov M.B.: Was it worth the hassle?: ten years of mobile HCI research discussions on lab and field evaluations. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI 2014), pp. 43–52. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
- 7.Brown, B., Reeves, S., Sherwood, S.: Into the wild: challenges and opportunities for field trial methods. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2011), pp. 1657–1666. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
- 8.Korn, M., Zander, Pär-Ola: From workshops to walkshops: evaluating mobile location-based applications in realistic settings. In: Workshop on Observing the Mobile User Experience at NordiCHI 2010, 16–20 October 2010, Reykjavik, Iceland (2010)Google Scholar
- 9.Budiu, R., Nielsen, J.: Mobile Usability. New Riders Press, Berkeley (2012)Google Scholar
- 10.Molich, R. Usable Web Design. Ingeniøren, Bøger (2000). In DanishGoogle Scholar
- 11.Nielsen, J.: Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users, Nielsen Norman Group Blog, 19 March 2000. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test-with-5-users/