Using XPDesign for testing
The PTG approach to expert evaluation differs significantly from the classic ‘heuristic’ evaluation. Heuristic evaluation methods are based on evaluating an application against a set of descriptive criteria. These criteria tend to cover high level aspects of interface design and usability related to the look and feel of the application. They tend not to explicitly address the fundamental design of an application or its ability to deliver on tasks and goals. That is, they tend to focus on surface characteristics of the user interface that have quick 'band-aid' solutions.
Further, the criteria are descriptive of what an interface is like when it is usable, but do not prescribe the solution. That is, the heuristics will help you determine if something is usable, but there are still a multitude of solutions to pick, and there is no way to pick the best one, except through the evaluator’s skill. This means that if two different evaluators examined the same application, they would end up with quite different results, and very different recommendations and solutions.
Therefore, it is possible to have an application that complies with usability heuristics and guidelines, but it can be of no business value, or not even work in the right way, depending on the depth and breadth of the evaluation performed and the skill of the evaluator. But most importantly, if the design has not been conducted using XPDesign™ or an equivalent, then there is a strong likelihood that a fundamental redesign may be required.
With usability testing, no amount of testing will save the design if the fundamentals aren’t right. This does not mean testing has no value. Rather, it needs to be used carefully, and, if used late in the lifecycle, cannot be expected to produce miracles if there is no time to implement the recommendations.
Traditional usability testing methodologies have the following problems:
-
The quality of the evaluation is dependent on the skill of the evaluator
-
The quality of the recommendations is dependent on the skill of the evaluator
-
Traditional heuristics only focus on surface usability features, not the fundamentals
-
Evaluating whether an application is compliant with heuristics does not mean the application actually does what people want and contributes to the organisation
-
Traditional methods only focus on usability, not on business performance, learning, and other key areas.
Our testing process uses our XPDesign™ high performance interface design process to reverse engineer the user interface to identify the root causes of usability and business effectiveness issues.
The following table summarises the business benefits of using XPDesign™ to reverse-engineer the user interface and conduct the usability evaluation:
|
Traditional |
Traditional |
PTG's High performance user interface design process: XPDesign™ | |
|
Identifies the fundamental causes behind the performance issues |
|
|
|
| Focusses on deep usability and human performance issues than just the surface / widget features |
|
|
|
| Recommendations made address fundamental issues to give the user interface a longer lifetime |
|
|
|
| The process ensures that the evaluation results and recommendations are consistent |
|
|
|
| Requires only one iteration of testing to uncover the fundamental issues |
|
|
|
| Reverse-engineers the user interface using XPDesign™ to understand the deeper problems |
|
|
|
| Reduces screen count by 50-80%, reducing effort to code, maintain, train and support |
|
|
|
| Increase alignment between people's work and the applicaiton |
|
|
|
| The application is easier to learn and use, increasing satisfaction and loyalty |
|
|
|
| Provide clear evidence for decision making, to remove bias and opinion |
|
|
|
| Reduces training and support after the application goes live |
|
|
|
| Recommendations provide clear fundamental design improvements, rather than just rearranging widgets |
|
|
|
