Advertisement

Social Overlays: Collectively Making Websites More Usable

  • Tao Dong
  • Mark S. Ackerman
  • Mark W. Newman
  • Gaurav Paruthi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8120)

Abstract

Many small organizations lack the expertise and resources to conduct usability evaluations of their websites. Social Overlays, presented here, is a new system that allows a community of users to collectively improve their website.

Social Overlays enables end–users to identify and repair common user interface problems through creating “overlays” on web pages as part of their regular use, thereby improving usability while reducing the need for professional services. In short, Social Overlays harnesses the diversity of experience and ideas within a community to "crowd source" usability.

To evaluate Social Overlays, we examined whether a group of community members without any usability training could use Social Overlays to identify and repair UI problems on their medium–sized community’s website. We found that they could. Community users were able to uncover a large number of UI problems and formulate reasonable solutions to the problems they identified. In addition, we compared Social Overlays to two standard ways of assessing website usability: expert inspection and usability testing. We found that Social Overlays users identified more problems, and their reported problems differed in useful ways from those found by the experts and the usability testing team.

Keywords

Usability community peer production social computing 

References

  1. 1.
    Ackerman, M.S.: Augmenting the organizational memory: a field study of answer garden. In: Proc. CSCW 1994, pp. 243–252. ACM, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bias, R.G.: The pluralistic usability walkthrough: coordinated empathies. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L. (eds.) Usability Inspection Methods, pp. 63–76. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bigham, J.P., Ladner, R.E.: Accessmonkey: a collaborative scripting framework for web users and developers. In: Proc. W4A 2007, pp. 25–34. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bolin, M., et al.: Automation and customization of rendered web pages. In: Proc. UIST 2005, pp. 163–172. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chilana, P.K., et al.: LemonAid: selection-based crowdsourced contextual help for web applications. In: Proc. CHI 2012, pp. 1549–1558. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chilana, P.K., et al.: Post-deployment usability: a survey of current practices. In: Proc. CHI 2011, pp. 2243–2246. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hartson, H.R., Castillo, J.C.: Remote evaluation for post-deployment usability improvement. In: Proc. AVI 1998, pp. 22–29. ACM, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hill, W.C., et al.: Edit wear and read wear. In: Proc. CHI 1992, pp. 3–9 (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Matejka, J., et al.: IP-QAT: in-product questions, answers, & tips. In: Proc. UIST 2011, pp. 175–184. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McGrath, D., Spear, M.B.: The Academic Crisis of the Community College. SUNY Press (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muller, M.J., et al.: Methods & tools: participatory heuristic evaluation. Interactions 5(5), 13–18 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nichols, D.M., et al.: Participatory usability: supporting proactive users. In: Proc. CHINZ 2003, pp. 63–68. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McFarlane, N.: Fixing Web Sites with GreaseMonkey, http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8215?page=0,0
  15. 15.
    Oppermann, R., Reiterer, H.: Software evaluation using the 9241 evaluator. Behav. Inf. Technol. 16(4-5), 232–245 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rubin, J., Chisnell, D.: Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests. Wiley (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sproull, L., et al.: Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization. MIT Press (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Takagi, H., et al.: Social accessibility: achieving accessibility through collaborative metadata authoring. In: Proc. ASSETS 2008, pp. 193–200. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wagner, E.L., Piccoli, G.: Moving beyond user participation to achieve successful IS design. Commun. ACM 50(12), 51–55 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang, J., et al.: QuME: a mechanism to support expertise finding in online help-seeking communities. In: Proc. UIST 2007, pp. 111–114. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tao Dong
    • 1
  • Mark S. Ackerman
    • 1
  • Mark W. Newman
    • 1
  • Gaurav Paruthi
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations