人类思维隐喻的可用性检验与启发式评价的比较

K. Hornbæk, E. Frøkjær
{"title":"人类思维隐喻的可用性检验与启发式评价的比较","authors":"K. Hornbæk, E. Frøkjær","doi":"10.1207/s15327590ijhc1703_4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A new usability inspection technique based on metaphors of human thinking has been experimentally compared to heuristic evaluation (HE). The aim of metaphors of thinking (MOT) is to focus inspection on users' mental activity and to make inspection easily applicable to different devices and use contexts. Building on classical introspective psychology, MOT bases inspection on metaphors of habit formation, stream of thought, awareness and associations, the relation between utterances and thought, and knowing. An experiment was conducted in which 87 novices evaluated a large Web application, and its key developer assessed the problems found. Compared to HE, MOT uncovered usability problems that were assessed as more severe for users and also appeared more complex to repair. The evaluators using HE found more cosmetic problems. The time spent learning and performing an evaluation with MOT was shorter. A discussion of strengths and weaknesses of MOT and HE is provided, which shows how MOT can be an effective al...","PeriodicalId":208962,"journal":{"name":"Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact.","volume":"112 37","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"52","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Usability Inspection by Metaphors of Human Thinking Compared to Heuristic Evaluation\",\"authors\":\"K. Hornbæk, E. Frøkjær\",\"doi\":\"10.1207/s15327590ijhc1703_4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A new usability inspection technique based on metaphors of human thinking has been experimentally compared to heuristic evaluation (HE). The aim of metaphors of thinking (MOT) is to focus inspection on users' mental activity and to make inspection easily applicable to different devices and use contexts. Building on classical introspective psychology, MOT bases inspection on metaphors of habit formation, stream of thought, awareness and associations, the relation between utterances and thought, and knowing. An experiment was conducted in which 87 novices evaluated a large Web application, and its key developer assessed the problems found. Compared to HE, MOT uncovered usability problems that were assessed as more severe for users and also appeared more complex to repair. The evaluators using HE found more cosmetic problems. The time spent learning and performing an evaluation with MOT was shorter. A discussion of strengths and weaknesses of MOT and HE is provided, which shows how MOT can be an effective al...\",\"PeriodicalId\":208962,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact.\",\"volume\":\"112 37\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"52\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1703_4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1703_4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 52

摘要

本文将一种基于人类思维隐喻的可用性检验方法与启发式评价方法进行了实验比较。思维隐喻的目的是关注使用者的心理活动,并使其易于适用于不同的工具和使用语境。在经典内省心理学的基础上,MOT以习惯形成、思维流、意识和联想、话语与思想的关系、认知等隐喻为基础进行考察。在一项实验中,87名新手评估了一个大型Web应用程序,该应用程序的主要开发人员评估了发现的问题。与HE相比,MOT发现的可用性问题被评估为对用户来说更严重,而且修复起来也更复杂。使用HE的评估者发现了更多的表面问题。用MOT学习和执行评估所花费的时间更短。讨论了MOT和HE的优缺点,说明了MOT如何成为一个有效的人工智能系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Usability Inspection by Metaphors of Human Thinking Compared to Heuristic Evaluation
A new usability inspection technique based on metaphors of human thinking has been experimentally compared to heuristic evaluation (HE). The aim of metaphors of thinking (MOT) is to focus inspection on users' mental activity and to make inspection easily applicable to different devices and use contexts. Building on classical introspective psychology, MOT bases inspection on metaphors of habit formation, stream of thought, awareness and associations, the relation between utterances and thought, and knowing. An experiment was conducted in which 87 novices evaluated a large Web application, and its key developer assessed the problems found. Compared to HE, MOT uncovered usability problems that were assessed as more severe for users and also appeared more complex to repair. The evaluators using HE found more cosmetic problems. The time spent learning and performing an evaluation with MOT was shorter. A discussion of strengths and weaknesses of MOT and HE is provided, which shows how MOT can be an effective al...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Usability Inspection by Metaphors of Human Thinking Compared to Heuristic Evaluation Templates for Search Queries: A User-Centered Feature for Improving Web Search Tools A Corporate Style Guide That Includes Domain Knowledge Identification of an Acceptable Mixture of Key and Speech Inputs in Bimodal Interfaces Decision Support for Indexing and Retrieval of Information in Hypertext Systems
×
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