Wiki source code of Measuring Instruments
Hide last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
1.2 | 1 | |
| |
6.2 | 2 | |
| 3 | |||
| |
8.1 | 4 | == Basics== |
| |
6.2 | 5 | |
| |
8.1 | 6 | === Decide framework=== |
| |
6.2 | 7 | |
| |
9.1 | 8 | ==== DETERMINE THE GOALS==== |
| |
6.2 | 9 | |
| |
10.1 | 10 | * What are the high-level goals of the evaluation? |
| 11 | * Who wants it and why? | ||
| 12 | * The goals influence the approach used for the study. | ||
| 13 | |||
| |
11.4 | 14 | |
| 15 | ==== EXPLORE THE QUESTIONS==== | ||
| 16 | |||
| |
11.1 | 17 | Define (sub)goals & (sub)research questions. |
| |
8.1 | 18 | |
| |
11.4 | 19 | |
| 20 | ==== CHOOSE EVALUATION APPROACH & METHODS==== | ||
| 21 | |||
| |
11.1 | 22 | The evaluation approach influences the methods used, and in turn, |
| 23 | how data is collected, analyzed and presented | ||
| |
8.1 | 24 | |
| |
11.4 | 25 | |
| 26 | ==== IDENTIFY PRACTICAL ISSUES==== | ||
| 27 | |||
| |
17.1 | 28 | * Intention: Clarify objectives and hypotheses/claims |
| |
15.1 | 29 | * Metrics & measures: What, how and why |
| |
17.1 | 30 | * People: Target group & participants |
| 31 | * Activities: Derive activities from use cases | ||
| 32 | * Context: Social, ethical, physical, etc. aspects | ||
| 33 | * Technologies: Hardware and software | ||
| |
14.1 | 34 | |
| |
15.1 | 35 | |
| |
11.1 | 36 | For example: |
| |
11.2 | 37 | * Select users. |
| 38 | * Stay on budget. | ||
| 39 | * Stay on schedule. | ||
| 40 | * Find participants. | ||
| 41 | * Select equipment. | ||
| |
11.1 | 42 | Perform a pilot (trial) study! |
| |
9.1 | 43 | |
| |
10.1 | 44 | |
| |
11.4 | 45 | ==== DECIDE ABOUT ETHICAL ISSUES==== |
| |
10.1 | 46 | |
| |
11.4 | 47 | |
| 48 | |||
| 49 | ==== EVALUATE, ANALYZE, INTERPRET AND PRESENT THE DATA==== | ||
| 50 | |||
| 51 | |||
| |
11.3 | 52 | The approach and methods used influence how data |
| 53 | is evaluated, analyzed, interpreted and presented. | ||
| |
10.1 | 54 | |
| |
11.1 | 55 | |
| |
11.4 | 56 | === IMPACT framework=== |
| |
11.1 | 57 | |
| |
11.4 | 58 | |
| 59 | |||
| |
13.1 | 60 | == GOOD EVALUATION == |
| |
1.2 | 61 | |
| |
5.1 | 62 | * Establishing convincing arguments for your design solution |
| |
6.1 | 63 | |
| |
5.1 | 64 | * By conducting complementary and regular evaluations at different stages |
| 65 | of your design process using the appropriate evaluation methods | ||
| 66 | (e.g. summative, formative, expert-based, observational, ...) | ||
| |
6.1 | 67 | |
| |
5.1 | 68 | * Evaluations should result in insights regarding possible problems and |
| 69 | their causes in order to support refinement of your design specification | ||
| |
6.1 | 70 | |
| |
5.1 | 71 | * Look at user experience in its full breadth: Effectiveness, efficiency, |
| 72 | satisfaction, learnability, mood, connectedness, ... | ||
| |
1.2 | 73 | |
| |
3.1 | 74 | |
| |
4.1 | 75 | |
| |
5.1 | 76 | |
| 77 | |||
| 78 |