Cargando…
Are UX Evaluation Methods Providing the Same Big Picture?
The success of a software application is related to users’ willingness to keep using it. In this sense, evaluating User eXperience (UX) became an important part of the software development process. Researchers have been carrying out studies by employing various methods to evaluate the UX of software...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8156257/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34067640 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21103480 |
_version_ | 1783699399324467200 |
---|---|
author | Nakamura, Walter Takashi Ahmed, Iftekhar Redmiles, David Oliveira, Edson Fernandes, David de Oliveira, Elaine H. T. Conte, Tayana |
author_facet | Nakamura, Walter Takashi Ahmed, Iftekhar Redmiles, David Oliveira, Edson Fernandes, David de Oliveira, Elaine H. T. Conte, Tayana |
author_sort | Nakamura, Walter Takashi |
collection | PubMed |
description | The success of a software application is related to users’ willingness to keep using it. In this sense, evaluating User eXperience (UX) became an important part of the software development process. Researchers have been carrying out studies by employing various methods to evaluate the UX of software products. Some studies reported varied and even contradictory results when applying different UX evaluation methods, making it difficult for practitioners to identify which results to rely upon. However, these works did not evaluate the developers’ perspectives and their impacts on the decision process. Moreover, such studies focused on one-shot evaluations, which cannot assess whether the methods provide the same big picture of the experience (i.e., deteriorating, improving, or stable). This paper presents a longitudinal study in which 68 students evaluated the UX of an online judge system by employing AttrakDiff, UEQ, and Sentence Completion methods at three moments along a semester. This study reveals contrasting results between the methods, which affected developers’ decisions and interpretations. With this work, we intend to draw the HCI community’s attention to the contrast between different UX evaluation methods and the impact of their outcomes in the software development process. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8156257 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81562572021-05-28 Are UX Evaluation Methods Providing the Same Big Picture? Nakamura, Walter Takashi Ahmed, Iftekhar Redmiles, David Oliveira, Edson Fernandes, David de Oliveira, Elaine H. T. Conte, Tayana Sensors (Basel) Article The success of a software application is related to users’ willingness to keep using it. In this sense, evaluating User eXperience (UX) became an important part of the software development process. Researchers have been carrying out studies by employing various methods to evaluate the UX of software products. Some studies reported varied and even contradictory results when applying different UX evaluation methods, making it difficult for practitioners to identify which results to rely upon. However, these works did not evaluate the developers’ perspectives and their impacts on the decision process. Moreover, such studies focused on one-shot evaluations, which cannot assess whether the methods provide the same big picture of the experience (i.e., deteriorating, improving, or stable). This paper presents a longitudinal study in which 68 students evaluated the UX of an online judge system by employing AttrakDiff, UEQ, and Sentence Completion methods at three moments along a semester. This study reveals contrasting results between the methods, which affected developers’ decisions and interpretations. With this work, we intend to draw the HCI community’s attention to the contrast between different UX evaluation methods and the impact of their outcomes in the software development process. MDPI 2021-05-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8156257/ /pubmed/34067640 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21103480 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Nakamura, Walter Takashi Ahmed, Iftekhar Redmiles, David Oliveira, Edson Fernandes, David de Oliveira, Elaine H. T. Conte, Tayana Are UX Evaluation Methods Providing the Same Big Picture? |
title | Are UX Evaluation Methods Providing the Same Big Picture? |
title_full | Are UX Evaluation Methods Providing the Same Big Picture? |
title_fullStr | Are UX Evaluation Methods Providing the Same Big Picture? |
title_full_unstemmed | Are UX Evaluation Methods Providing the Same Big Picture? |
title_short | Are UX Evaluation Methods Providing the Same Big Picture? |
title_sort | are ux evaluation methods providing the same big picture? |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8156257/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34067640 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21103480 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nakamurawaltertakashi areuxevaluationmethodsprovidingthesamebigpicture AT ahmediftekhar areuxevaluationmethodsprovidingthesamebigpicture AT redmilesdavid areuxevaluationmethodsprovidingthesamebigpicture AT oliveiraedson areuxevaluationmethodsprovidingthesamebigpicture AT fernandesdavid areuxevaluationmethodsprovidingthesamebigpicture AT deoliveiraelaineht areuxevaluationmethodsprovidingthesamebigpicture AT contetayana areuxevaluationmethodsprovidingthesamebigpicture |