Talk:Usability testing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is a rather idealized definition that does not take into account the broad diversity of what people do under the label of "usability testing". In my experience, "usability testing" is a label for a very large number of different techniques for assessing a product. Even with this narrow definition, there's strong evidence that usability testing practices are so diverse that they aren't comparable, or at least not to the point where it is meaningful to discuss topics such as the proper number of test participants. Certainly, most "usability tests" are not controlled experiments. -- Ronz 15:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional External Links

Some of the external links are barely more than self-promotion. I decided to leave them all, but move the less informative, more promotional ones to the end. (Ronz 14:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'm for removing all the external links, adding internal references, and see how the self-promoters respond. Wikipedia:External Links Guide --Ronz 14:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed everything that didn't fit the External Links Guide. --Ronz 19:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of things to test

I moved this from the article because its not encyclopedic and from my perspective misses what usability testing is all about.
Originally contributed by Vmahi9 on 23 November 2006:

Here we check the user friendlyness of the application. There are several sub tests to be followed:

1. User Interface Testing
   a. Look and Feel of the objects
   b. Alignments
   c. Spell checks
   d. Error messages etc.
2. Manual support Testing
   a. User Manuals/User Guides.

--Ronz 17:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion about designers

Although usability may be hurt by design decisions there is no evidence that shows they are contradictory. And there is no evidence about designers focusing more on "cool" things than usability. (Mdediana 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed. Although the statement may or may not be true, it doesn't really belong in this article. If it was intended to be there as a reason to do usability testing, it is only one of many reasons. JayKinnis 04:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Agree..pretty biased as is. Usability can conversely be hurt by developers/engineers and management overly concerned on product functionality and adding features without promoting usability. Because they understand their own designs and the technology they are often ignorant to the fact that average users will not be able to utilize their designs. If a section is to be added concerning detriments to good usability this angle needs to be included as well. 20seven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.104.17 (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that usability testing includes testing how the user uses the manual because in my experience the manual is a part of the product. Without it, the user can't easily accomplish tasks without some period of self-teaching (time consuming). How well was it written? Was the way the information was presented handled by the user? Did the user use the manual at all? How does the user use the manual to find the information he/she is looking for? What about online help? Context sensitive? This is all a part of usability testing, in my opinion.

In addition, I think feedback on error messages that occur is very important. How many times have you received an error in windows that just said "An Error Occurred" without any additional information on how to resolve it or even what caused it.

If your look and feel is clunky, it is going to affect your users ability to use the software, won't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.15.64 (talk • contribs)

Usability testing versus usability inspection

Donmillion (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usability testing is a technique used to evaluate a product by testing it on users. This can be seen as an irreplaceable usability practice, since it gives direct input on how real users use the system.[1] This is in contrast with usability inspection methods where experts use different methods to evaluate a user interface without involving users.

The first sentence seems to describe User Acceptance Testing - which can of course include usability testing, but is not the same thing AS usability testing.

The second sentence says that usability testing is essential to usability. Fair enough, but is it necessary to say so?

The third sentence is contentious: who says that users are not permitted in a usability inspection? I would certainly want to include them!

A better opening might be:

"Usability" concerns the ease with which users can undertake and complete tasks via some product (such as a software system), and the degree of satisfaction they experience in doing so. Usability can be measured by various parameters, such as time taken to complete tasks, frequency of consulting "help" resources, frequency of user errors while executing tasks, and subjective measures of satisfaction. Some aspects of usability can be assessed by non-dynamic methods (reviews), but others require active use of the product by representative end users.

Donmillion (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Donmillion[reply]

Claims about "first use of usability testing"

The people from Intuit may think they were the first people to do usability testing in 1984 but it's patently not true. I set up a human factors laboratory to do this at Digital Equipment in the UK in 1983, and that in turn was modelled on a lab that was set up by Bill Zimmer and John Whiteside at Digital's Spitbrook facility in New Hampshire. There's even a paper by John Whiteside, Dennis Wixon and others on how people use text editors, based on usability testing, that was published in 1982. That was just what was going on in Digital Equipment; when you take into account all the work that was done at PARC, at IBM and other places, I think one can conclude that the Intuit claim is entirely bogus and doesn't really deserve to be in here.

DrJohnBrooke (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That plot?

Isn't that Excel(?) plot rather awful? Using lines instead of dots (or other markers) imo indicates a rather unscientific approach...