Uzilla: A new tool for Web usability testing

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 194-201

  Edmonds, Andy ^a,b  

^a CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOENGINEERING; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; EVALUATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INFORMATION SERVICE; INFORMATION SYSTEM; INTERNET; METHODOLOGY;

EVALUATION STUDIES; HUMAN ENGINEERING; HUMANS; INFORMATION SERVICES; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INTERNET; SOFTWARE; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 0041977058     PISSN: 07433808     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03202542     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. BYRNE, M. D. (2001). A quantitative simulation framework for human factors engineering: ACT-R/PM. Paper presented at Human. Systems 2001, Houston.
2. CATLEDGE, L. D., & PITKOW, J. E. (1995). Characterizing browsing strategies in the World-Wide Web. In Proceedings of the 3rd International World Wide Web Conference (pp. 1065-1073). Darmstadt, Germany.
3. CHOO, C., DETLOR, D., & TURNBULL, D. (2000a). Web work:Information seeking and knowledge work on the World Wide Web, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
4. CHOO, C., DETLOR, B., & TURNBULL, D. (2000b). Working the Web: An empirical model of Web use. In Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science 33. Maui, HI: IEEE.
5. CLAYPOOL, M., LE, P., WASEDA, M., & BROWN, D. (2001). Implicit interest indicators. In Proceedings of ACM Intelligent User Interfaces Conference (IUI) (pp. 33-40). New York: ACM Press.
6. COCKBURN, A., GREENBERG, S., JONES, S., McKENZIE, B., & MOYLE, M. (2003). Improving Web page revisitation: Analysis, design, and evaluation. Information Technology & Society, 3, 159-183.
7. COCKBURN, A., & McKENZIE, B. (2001). What do Web users do? An empirical analysis of Web use. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54, 903-922.
8. DUMAS, J. (2002). User-based evaluations. In J. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human-computer interaction handbook (pp. 1093-1117). NJ: Erlbaum.
9. EBLING, M. R., & JOHN, B. E. (2000). On the contributions of different empirical data in usability testing, In Conference proceedings on designing interactive systems (pp. 289-296). New York: ACM Press.
10. EDMONDS, A. (2001). Lucidity. Retrieved March 3, 2003 from http://sourceforge.net/projects/lucidity/.
11. ERGOSOFT LABORATORIES (n.d.). ErgoBrowser. Retrieved March 3, 2002 from http://www.ergolabs.com/resourees.htm.
12. ETGEN, M., & CANTOR, J. (1999). What does getting WET (Web event-logging tool) mean for Web usability? In Fifth Human Factors and the Web Conference Proceedings. Retrieved March 3, 2002 from http://zing.ncsl.nist.gov/hfweb/proceedings/etgen-cantor/.
13. FAULKNER, L. L. (2002). Quantifying and analyzing human behavior during usability testing: Cross user analysis and the optimal path test method. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14. GOLDBERG, J. H., STIMSON, M. J., LEWENSTEIN, M., SCOTT, N., & WICHANSKY, A. M. (2002). Eye tracking in Web search tasks: Design implications. In Proceedings of the Eye Tracking Research and Applications Symposium (ETRA) (pp. 51-58). New York: ACM Press.
15. GOOD, M. (1985). The use of logging data in the design of a new text editor. In Proceedings of CHI '85 Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 93-97). New York: ACM Press. New York.
16. HAMMONTREE, M., WEILER, P., & NAYAK, M. (1994). Remote usability testing. Interact, 1, 21-24.
17. HILBERT, D., & REDMILES, D. (2000). Extracting usability information from user interface events. ACM Computing Surveys, 32, 384-421.
18. HONG, J. I., HEER, J., WATERSON, S., & LANDAY, J. A. (2003). WebQuilt: A proxy-based approach to remote Web usability testing. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 19, 263-285.
19. HONG, J. I., & LANDAY, J. A. (2001). WebQuilt: A framework for capturing and visualizing the Web experience. In Proceedings of the Tenth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW10) (pp. 718-724). Hong Kong: Retrieved March 3,2002 from http://www10.org/cdrom/.
20. LOCKERD, A., & MUELLER, F. (2001). Cheese: Tracking mouse movements on Websites: A tool for user modeling. In Computer Human Interaction Conference Proceedings (pp. 279-280). New York: ACM Press.
21. NIST (1999a). The IUSR project: Industry usability report. Retrieved March 3, 2002 from http://zing.ncsl.nist.gov/iusr/documents/WhitePaper.html.
22. NIST (1999b). WebVIP: Overview. Retrieved March 3, 2002 from http://zing.ncsl.nist.gov/WebTools/WebVIP/overview.html.
23. OPTIMOZ (2002). CVS tag 0.3.4. Retrieved March 3, 2002 from http://optimoz.mozdev.org/gestures/.
24. REEDER, R. W., PIROLLI, P., & CARD, S. K. (2001). WebLogger: A data collection tool for Web-use studies (UIR Technical Reports UIR-R-2000-6). Xerox PARC.
25. RUBIN, J. (1994). Handbook of usability testing. New York: Wiley.
26. TAUSCHER, L. & GREENBERG, S. (1997). How people revisit Web pages: Empirical findings and implications for the design of history systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47, 97-137.
27. TULLIS, T., FLEISCHMAN, S., McNULTY, M., CIANCHETTE, C., & BERGEL, M. (2002). An empirical comparison of lab and remote usability testing of Web sites. Paper presented at the Usability Professionals Conference, Orlando, FL.
28. VIRZI, R. A. (1992). Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough? Human Factors, 34, 457-468.
29. W3C (1999). XPath. Retrieved March 03, 2003 from http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath.