Evaluating the Usability of Common Warnings across Industries Using the System Usability Scale

Carly Ngo, Claudia Ziegler Acemyan, Philip Kortum
{"title":"Evaluating the Usability of Common Warnings across Industries Using the System Usability Scale","authors":"Carly Ngo, Claudia Ziegler Acemyan, Philip Kortum","doi":"10.1177/21695067231192703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study evaluated people’s perceived usability of warning signs and labels using the System Usability Scale (SUS), to understand how textual and visual factors of warnings contribute to SUS scores. 30 warning signs/labels across various industries were selected and 135 participants evaluated these warnings on their usability and familiarity. Each warning’s textual and visual complexity was also assessed. The resulting SUS scores for the warnings covered a broad range (min = 26.1, max = 92.4). Familiarity with the system and the number of words on the warning significantly correlated with SUS scores. Warnings with higher lexical density, a measure of how informative a written text is, related to higher SUS scores. There was no significant relationship between warnings’ visual complexity and SUS scores. The results suggest that the SUS might prove to be a simple and useful way to measure the usability of warnings.","PeriodicalId":74544,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society ... Annual Meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Annual meeting","volume":"34 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society ... Annual Meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Annual meeting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21695067231192703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study evaluated people’s perceived usability of warning signs and labels using the System Usability Scale (SUS), to understand how textual and visual factors of warnings contribute to SUS scores. 30 warning signs/labels across various industries were selected and 135 participants evaluated these warnings on their usability and familiarity. Each warning’s textual and visual complexity was also assessed. The resulting SUS scores for the warnings covered a broad range (min = 26.1, max = 92.4). Familiarity with the system and the number of words on the warning significantly correlated with SUS scores. Warnings with higher lexical density, a measure of how informative a written text is, related to higher SUS scores. There was no significant relationship between warnings’ visual complexity and SUS scores. The results suggest that the SUS might prove to be a simple and useful way to measure the usability of warnings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用系统可用性量表评估跨行业通用警告的可用性
本研究使用系统可用性量表(SUS)评估人们对警告标志和标签的感知可用性,以了解警告的文本和视觉因素如何影响SUS分数。在不同的行业中选择了30个警告标志/标签,135名参与者对这些警告的可用性和熟悉度进行了评估。每个警告的文字和视觉复杂性也被评估。警报的结果SUS评分覆盖了很宽的范围(最小= 26.1,最大= 92.4)。对系统的熟悉程度和警告上的单词数量与SUS分数显著相关。词汇密度越高的警示语(衡量书面文本信息量的一种指标),SUS得分越高。警告的视觉复杂性与SUS评分之间没有显著的关系。结果表明,SUS可能被证明是衡量警告可用性的一种简单而有用的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Is vitamin A an antioxidant? Investigating Human Physiological Responses to Work-Related Stress Phishing in Social Media: Investigating Training Techniques on Instagram Shop Factor Analysis of a Generalized Video Game Experience Measure A Completion Rate Conundrum: Reducing bias in the Single Usability Metric
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1