Two Case Studies in Using Cognitive Walkthrough for Interface Evaluation

Abstract

Previous HCI-studies have compared usability evaluation methods quantitatively without supplementing these data with detailed qualitative data about how analysts actually learn and use methods. In contrast, we present two diary-based case studies that describe the processes of two novice analysts who learned about and applied the Cognitive Walkthrough (CW; Lewis, et al., 1990) to the specification of a multimedia authoring system. Results show that the two analysts easily learned to use CW but also that they found the technique tedious to use. Moreover, CW was neither reliable when comparing the two analysts' processes and outcomes to each other, nor accurate when comparing the analysts' problem predictions to results from usability tests applied to a running system. We examine these data in detail, searching for possible causes of the observed reliability and accuracy. Based on these analyses, we suggest three changes to CW method to improve its accuracy and two changes to improve its reliability. Further, we recommend developing a tool to reduce the tedium and integrate our suggested improvements to CW.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
May 01, 2000
Accession Number
ADA382319

Entities

People

  • Bonnie E. John
  • Niels E. Jacobsen

Organizations

  • Carnegie Mellon University

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • C4I
  • Energy and Power Technologies

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Beta Testing
  • Case Studies
  • Cell Membrane
  • Cognitive Systems Engineering
  • Computer Programming
  • Computer Programs
  • Computer Science
  • Computers
  • Human-Computer Interaction
  • Information Science
  • Operating Systems
  • Psychology
  • Reliability
  • Software Development
  • Test And Evaluation
  • User Interface
  • Word Processors

Fields of Study

  • Computer science

Readers

  • Computational Modeling and Simulation
  • Database Systems and Applications
  • Instructional Design and Training Evaluation.