The Bootstrap Discovery Behaviour (BDB): A new outlook on usability evaluation

Cognitive Processing

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 23-31

  Borsci, Simone ^a   Londei, Alessandro ^a   Federici, Stefano ^a,b  

^a SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PERUGIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Asymptotic test; Bootstrap; Effectiveness; Return of investment; User experience evaluation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; BOOTSTRAP DISCOVERY BEHAVIOUR; COGNITION; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERNET; MALE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY SAMPLE; STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; THINKING; VALIDITY;

MODELS, THEORETICAL; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 79551545939     PISSN: 16124782     EISSN: 16124790     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10339-010-0376-6     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. JR Bellman CW Park 1980 Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes: a protocol analysis J Consum Res 7 3 234 248 10.1086/208812
2. Bettman JR (1979) An information processing theory of consumer choice. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge
3. G Biehal D Chakravarti 1982 Experiences with the Bettman-park verbal-protocol coding scheme J Consum Res 8 4 442 448 10.1086/208884
4. G Biehal D Chakravarti 1982 Information-presentation format and learning goals as determinants of consumers' memory retrieval and choice processes J Consum Res 8 4 431 441 10.1086/208883
5. G Biehal D Chakravarti 1986 Consumers' use of memory and external information in choice: Macro and micro perspectives J Consum Res 12 4 382 405 10.1086/208525
6. G Biehal D Chakravarti 1989 The effects of concurrent verbalization on choice processing J Mark Res 26 1 84 96 10.2307/3172671
7. Borsci S, Federici S (2009) The partial concurrent thinking aloud: a new usability evaluation technique for blind users. In: Emiliani PL, Burzagli L, Como A, Gabbanini F, Salminen A-L (eds) Assistive technology from adapted equipment to inclusive environments-AAATE 2009, vol 25. Assistive technology research series. IOS Press, Florence, pp 421-425. doi: 10.3233/978-1-60750-042- 1-421
8. D Caulton 2001 Relaxing the homogeneity assumption in usability testing Behav Inf Technol 20 1 1 7 10.1080/01449290010020648
9. B Efron 1979 Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife Ann Statist 7 1 1 26 10.1214/aos/1176344552 10.1214/aos/1176344552
10. Federici S, Borsci S (2010) Usability evaluation: models, methods, and applications. International encyclopedia of rehabilitation. Center for International rehabilitation research information and exchange (CIRRIE), Buffalo. http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/article.php?id=277&language= en. Accessed 20 Sept 2010
11. S Federici S Borsci ML Mele 2010 Usability evaluation with screen reader users: a video presentation of the pcta's experimental setting and rules Cogn Process 11 3 285 288 10.1007/s10339-010-0365-9 10.1007/s10339-010-0365-9 20628785
12. S Federici S Borsci G Stamerra 2010 Web usability evaluation with screen reader users: implementation of the partial concurrent thinking aloud technique Cogn Process 11 3 263 272 10.1007/s10339-009-0347-y 10.1007/s10339-009-0347-y 19916036
13. Fox J (2002) An r and s-plus companion to applied regression. SAGE, California
14. Goodstein RL (1963) Boolean algebra. Pergamon Press, Oxford
15. A Green 1995 Verbal protocol analysis Psychologist 8 3 126 129
16. M Hertzum NE Jacobsen 2003 The evaluator effect: a chilling fact about usability evaluation methods Int J Hum Comput Interact 15 4 183 204 10.1207/S15327590IJHC1501-14 10.1207/S15327590IJHC1501-14
17. H Kuusela P Pallab 2000 A comparison of concurrent and retrospective verbal protocol analysis Am J Psychol 113 3 387 404 1:STN:280: DC%2BD3cvks1Kjtw%3D%3D 10.2307/1423365 10997234
18. H Kuusela MT Spence AJ Kanto 1998 Expertise effects on prechoice decision processes and final outcomes: A protocol analysis Eur J Mark 32 5/6 559 10.1108/03090569810216181
19. JR Lewis 1994 Sample sizes for usability studies: additional considerations Hum Factors 36 2 368 378 1:STN:280:DyaK2czltVemsQ%3D%3D 8070799
20. JR Lewis 2001 Evaluation of procedures for adjusting problem-discovery rates estimated from small samples Int J Hum Comput Interact 13 4 445 479 10.1207/S15327590IJHC1304-06
21. JR Lewis 2006 Sample sizes for usability tests: mostly math, not magic Interactions 13 6 29 33 10.1145/1167948.1167973 10.1145/1167948.1167973 (Pubitemid 44720192)
22. Lewis C, Rieman J (1993) Task-centered user interface design: a practical introduction. http://users.cs.dal.ca/~jamie/TCUID/tcuid.pdf. Accessed 20 Jun 2010
23. Nielsen J (2000) Why you only need to test with 5 users. www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html. Accessed 20 Jun 2010
24. Nielsen J, Landauer TK A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In: Proceedings of the INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 Conference on human factors in computing systems, Amsterdam, 24-29 Apr 1993. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 206-213
25. Nielsen J, Mack RL (eds) (1994) Usability inspection methods.Wiley, New York
26. PG Polson C Lewis J Rieman C Wharton 1992 Cognitive walkthroughs: a method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces Int J Man Mach Stud 36 5 741 773 10.1016/0020-7373(92)90039-N 10.1016/0020-7373(92)90039-N
27. Rieman J, Franzke M, Redmiles D Usability evaluation with the cognitive walkthrough. In: Conference companion on human factors in computing systems, Denver, Colorado, United States, 1995. ACM, 223735, pp 387-388. doi: 10.1145/223355.223735
28. Schmettow M Heterogeneity in the usability evaluation process. In: Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI group annual conference on people and computers: culture, creativity, interaction-Volume 1, Liverpool, United Kingdom, 2008. British Computer Society, 1531527, pp 89-98
29. Spool J, Schroeder W Testing web sites: Five users is nowhere near enough. In: CHI '01 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Seattle, Washington, 2001. ACM, 634236, pp 285-286. doi: 10.1145/634067.634236
30. Turner CW, Lewis JR, Nielsen J (2006) Determining usability test sample size, vol 2. International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors, Second edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton
31. Virzi RA (1990) Streamlining the design process: running fewer subjects. Human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting proceedings 34:291-294
32. RA Virzi 1992 Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: how many subjects is enough? Hum Factors 34 4 457 468
33. Wharton C, Rieman J, Lewis C, Polson PG (1994) The cognitive walkthrough method: a practitioner's guide. In: Nielsen J, Mack RL (eds) Usability inspection methods. Wiley, New York, pp 105-140
34. Woolrych A, Cockton G Why and when five test users aren't enough. In: Vanderdonckt J, Blandford A, Derycke A (eds) Proceedings of IHM-HCI 2001 conference, Toulouse, FR, 10-14 Sept 2001. Cépadčus Éditions, pp 105-108
35. PC Wright AF Monk 1991 A cost-effective evaluation method for use by designers Int J Man Mach Stud 35 6 891 912 10.1016/s0020-7373(05)80167-1 10.1016/S0020-7373(05)80167-1