Goal:

The goal of this assignment is to get experience performing a heuristic evaluation of a real user interface, and to provide useful feedback to your classmates on their interface designs.

Job:

In this assignment you and the other students in your group will act as consultants to another group in the class. Assume they would like some outside assistance in finding problems with their prototype interface.

This assignment will proceed in two steps. First, each student will perform a heuristic evaluation on their own and write up a report. Second, all the students in the evaluation group will pool their lists of problems, assign severity ratings to each problem, and make summary recommendations to the project group.

Individual Evaluation:

Apply Nielsen's heuristics, or a different set of heuristics if you think a different set is more appropriate, to the interface, making use of the project group's personas, scenarios, flow charts, screen shots, and interactive prototype. You should do this in two passes. In the first pass, read the group's reports and then try out their prototype (i.e., run it); walk through their task scenarios. In the second pass, go through the interface (using the scenarios again if appropriate) and look for and note HE violations.

You should concentrate on the interface the group has designed, not only on what has been implemented. Do not focus on features that are missing, but would clearly be added (e.g., "there should be help on this screen... and this screen..." -- if it is a globally missing feature you can report it once). We want to focus on evaluating what they have designed so far.

Use the severity rating scheme from the lecture:

• 0. Don't think this is a usability problem.
• 1. Cosmetic problem
• 2. Minor usability problem
• 3. Major usability problem; important to fix
• 4. Usability catastrophe; imperative to fix

The indvidual report should list each of the problems found in the following format:

problem # [heuristic # and name] (severity rating)
description of problem and reasoning why you think this violates the heuristic

For example:
5. [H4 Consistency & Standards] (Severity 2)
The interface used the string "Save" on the first screen for saving the user's file, but used the string "Write file" on the second screen. Users may be confused by this different terminology for the same function.

6. [H3 User Control & Freedom] (Severity 3)
The interface brings the user into a set of preference screens when they select "New User", but doesn't allow the user out of the dialog until they fill out all 4 screens. There is no way to cancel from any of the screens if a user came into the first screen by accident.

.....

The individual evaluation writeup should take no more than two printed pages. You shouldn't spend more than two hours on this part of the assignment.

Group Evaluation:

The group report should compile all usability violations, eliminating duplicates. Make a note of how many evaluators found each error. Decide on the appropriate severity measure for each violation; negotiate among yourselves and use an average if you can't come to agreement. List the total number of violations in each severity category and each heuristic type.

The group report should close with some overall recommendations for improving the user interface. The group report should take no more than 6 printed pages. You shouldn't spend more than an hour and a half on this part of the assignment.

On Tuesday April 11, in class, each group will discuss the results of the HE with their partner group. Thus you will be presenting both a written and an oral report.

It's easiest for everyone if these are put up on the web. This way all members of the receiving group can get the report, and the instructors can as well. Project A should put the report for project B on A's website. However, if they like, project B may also post A's evaluation of B on B's site.

Group Assignments:

MessageWiz <-> iBuyRight
UC Hipo <-> UI Design Patterns
LightsOn <-> Geneboree

Upcoming due dates:

• Tues April 11 Project Heuristic Evaluation due
• Thurs April 20: Second Interactive Prototype due