Comparison of usability evaluation methods

Usability testing methods aim to evaluate the ease of use of a software product by its users. As existing methods are subjective and open to interpretation, scholars have been studying the efficacy of each method

Genise, Pauline (August 28, 2002.). "Usability Evaluation: Methods and Techniques". University of Texas

{{Cite book|last1=Dhouib|first1=A.|last2=Trabelsi|first2=Abdelwaheb|last3=Kolski|first3=C.|last4=Neji|first4=M.|title=2016 9th International Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI) |chapter=A classification and comparison of usability evaluation methods for interactive adaptive systems |date=2016|chapter-url=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7529639|pages=246–251|doi=10.1109/HSI.2016.7529639|isbn=978-1-5090-1729-4|s2cid=19110009|access-date=2021-02-07|archive-date=2021-02-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214114313/https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7529639|url-status=live}}

{{Cite journal|last=Hocko|first=Jennifer M.|date=2002|title=Reliability of Usability Evaluation Methods|url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/citations;jsessionid=C5845D40ECD67930411AE8996F45674D?doi=10.1.1.131.243}}

and their adequacy to different subjects, comparing which one may be the most appropriate in fields like e-learning,

{{Cite book|last1=Vukovac|first1=Dijana Plantak|last2=Kirinic|first2=V.|last3=Klicek|first3=B.|date=2010|title=A Comparison of Usability Evaluation Methods for e- Learning Systems|chapter=A Comparison of Usability Evaluation Methods for e-Learning Systems|chapter-url=https://www.daaam.info/Downloads/Pdfs/science_books_pdfs/2010/Sc_Book_2010-027.pdf|doi=10.2507/daaam.scibook.2010.27|isbn=9783901509742|access-date=2021-02-07|archive-date=2018-06-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180603013250/http://www.daaam.info/Downloads/Pdfs/science_books_pdfs/2010/Sc_Book_2010-027.pdf|url-status=live}}

e-commerce,{{Cite journal|last1=Hasan|first1=L.|last2=Morris|first2=Anne|last3=Probets|first3=S.|date=2012|title=A comparison of usability evaluation methods for evaluating e-commerce websites|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144929X.2011.596996|journal=Behav. Inf. Technol.|volume=31|issue=7|pages=707–737|doi=10.1080/0144929X.2011.596996|s2cid=9998763|access-date=2021-02-07|archive-date=2021-02-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210218062945/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144929X.2011.596996|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}

or mobile applications.{{Cite book|last1=Mathur|first1=P.|last2=Chande|first2=Swati V.|title=Microservices in Big Data Analytics|date=2020|chapter=Empirical Investigation of Usability Evaluation Methods for Mobile Applications Using Evidence-Based Approach|pages=95–110|chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-981-15-0128-9_9|doi=10.1007/978-981-15-0128-9_9|isbn=978-981-15-0127-2|s2cid=214128768 |access-date=2021-02-07|archive-date=2021-02-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210218062951/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-981-15-0128-9_9|url-status=live}}

class="wikitable"
Evaluation Method ! Evaluation Method Type ! Applicable Stages ! Description ! Advantages ! Disadvantages
Think-aloud protocol | Testing | Design, coding, testing and release of application | Participants in testing express their thoughts on the application while executing set tasks | Less expensive Results are close to what is experienced by users | The Environment is not natural to the user
Remote Usability testing | Testing | Design, coding, testing and release of application | The experimenter does not directly observe the users while they use the application though activity may be recorded for subsequent viewing | Efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction, the three usability issues, are covered | Additional Software is necessary to observe the participants from a distance
Focus groups | Inquiry | Testing and release of application | A moderator guides a discussion with a group of users of the application | If done before prototypes are developed, can save money Produces a lot of useful ideas from the users themselves Can improve customer relations | The environment is not natural to the user and may provide inaccurate results. The data collected tends to have low validity due to the unstructured nature of the discussion
Interviews | Inquiry | Design, coding, testing and release of application | The users are interviewed to find out about their experience and expectations | Good at obtaining detailed information Few participants are needed Can improve customer relations | Can not be conducted remotely Does not address the usability issue of efficiency
Cognitive walkthrough | Inspection | Design, coding, testing and release of application | A team of evaluators walk through the application discussing usability issues through the use of a paper prototype or a working prototype | Good at refining requirements does not require a fully functional prototype | Does not address user satisfaction or efficiency The designer may not behave as the average user when using the application
Pluralistic walkthrough | Inspection | Design | A team of users, usability engineers and product developers review the usability of the paper prototype of the application | Usability issues are resolved faster Greater number of usability problems can be found at one time | Does not address the usability issue of efficiency