Remote Web usability testing

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 364-368

  Baravalle, Andres ^a   Lanfranchi, Vitaveska ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0348162596     PISSN: 07433808     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03195512     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. EBLING, M. R., & JOHN, B. E. (2000, August). On the contributions of different empirical data in usability testing. In Proceedings on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 289-296). New York: ACM Press.
2. HONG, J. I., HEER, J., WATERSON, S., & LANDAY, J. A. (2001). WebQuilt: A proxy-based approach to remote Web usability testing. Association for Computing Machinery Transactions on Information Systems, 19, 263-285.
3. HUGHES, K., JENKINS, S., & WRIGHT, G. (1999). Triple-sXML: A standard within a standard. Retrieved August 1, 2002 from http://www. triple-s.org/sssasc99.htm.
4. NIELSEN, J. (2000). Why you only need to test with 5 users. Retrieved May 20, 2003 from www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html.
5. NIELSEN, J. (n.d.). How to conduct a heuristic evaluation. Retrieved August 1, 2002 from http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_evaluation.html.
6. NIELSEN, J., & LANDAUER, T. K. (1993). A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In S. Ashlund et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Association for Computing Machinery Interchi'93 Conference (pp. 206-213). New York: ACM Press.
7. PATERNÒ, F., PAGANELLI, L., & SANTORO, C. (2001). Models, tools and transformations for design and evaluation of interactive applications. In Proceedings of the Human Computer Interaction Conference (pp. 23-28). Patras, Greece: Typorama.
8. PERFETTI, C., & LANDESMAN, L. (n.d.). Eight is not enough. Retrieved May 20, 2003 from http://www.uie.com/Articles/eight_is_not_enough.htm.
9. SPOOL, J., & SCHROEDER, W. (2001). Testing websites: Five users is nowhere near enough. In Proceedings of the Association for Computing Machinery, Computer Human Interaction Conference (pp. 285-286). New York: ACM Press.
10. TAMLER, H. M. (2001). High-tech vs. high-touch: Some limits of automation in diagnostic usability testing. In HT Consulting, Sample usability evaluation report (on line). Retrieved May 20, 2003 from http://www.htamler.com/papers/techtouch.
11. TULLIS, T., FLEISCHMAN, S., McNULTY, M., CIANCHETTE, C., & BERGEL, M. (2002). An empirical comparison of lab and remote usability testing of Web sites. In Usability Professionals' Association 2002 Conference Proceedings (CD-ROM). Bloomingdale, IL: Usability Professionals' Association.
12. USABLE TOOLS (2001). Usability browser. Retrieved August 1, 2002 from: http://www.usabletools.com/ub.htm.
13. VIRZI, R. (1992). Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough? Human Factors, 34, 457-468.