1. Simple usability testing
Hans Põldoja

2. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share
Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative
Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California,
94105, USA.

3. “Usability is like cooking: everybody needs the results,
anybody can do it reasonably well with a bit of training, and
yet it takes a master to produce a gourmet outcome.”
(Jakob Nielsen)
(Nielsen, 2009b)

4. “Discount Usability”
• Simplified user testing, which includes a
handful of participants, a focus on qualitative
studies, and use of the thinking-aloud method
• Narrowed-down prototypes — usually
paper prototypes — that support a single path
through the user interface
• Heuristic evaluation in which you evaluate
user interface designs by inspecting them relative
to established usability guidelines
(Nielsen, 2009a)

5. Testing with paper
prototypes

7. Testing with checklists

8. Testing with checklists
• Ten Usability Heuristics
• Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
• (... and following web standards)

9. http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html

10. 1.Visibility of system status
The system should always keep users informed about
what is going on, through appropriate feedback within
reasonable time.
(Nielsen, 2005)

11. 2. Match between system and
the real world
The system should speak the users' language, with
words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather
than system-oriented terms. Follow real-world
conventions, making information appear in a natural and
logical order.
(Nielsen, 2005)

12. 3. User control and freedom
Users often choose system functions by mistake and
will need a clearly marked "emergency exit" to leave
the unwanted state without having to go through an
extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.
(Nielsen, 2005)

13. 4. Consistency and standards
Users should not have to wonder whether different
words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
Follow platform conventions.
(Nielsen, 2005)

14. 5. Error prevention
Even better than good error messages is a careful
design which prevents a problem from occurring in the
first place. Either eliminate error-prone conditions or
check for them and present users with a confirmation
option before they commit to the action.
(Nielsen, 2005)

15. 6. Recognition rather than
recall
Minimize the user's memory load by making objects,
actions, and options visible. The user should not have to
remember information from one part of the dialogue to
another. Instructions for use of the system should be
visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate.
(Nielsen, 2005)

16. 7. Flexibility and efficiency of
use
Accelerators -- unseen by the novice user -- may often
speed up the interaction for the expert user such that
the system can cater to both inexperienced and
experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent
actions.
(Nielsen, 2005)

17. 8. Aesthetic and minimalist
design
Dialogues should not contain information which is
irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of
information in a dialogue competes with the relevant
units of information and diminishes their relative
visibility.
(Nielsen, 2005)

18. 9. Help users recognize, diagnose,
and recover from errors
Error messages should be expressed in plain language
(no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and
constructively suggest a solution.
(Nielsen, 2005)

19. 10. Help and documentation
Even though it is better if the system can be used
without documentation, it may be necessary to provide
help and documentation. Any such information should
be easy to search, focused on the user's task, list
concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large.
(Nielsen, 2005)

20. http://designingwebinterfaces.com/6-tips-for-a-great-flex-ux-part-5

21. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/

22. Think aloud testing
with users

24. How many users should you
test?
• Steve Krug: 3 users 2 times
• Jakob Nielsen: 5 users 1 time
(Krug, 2006; Nielsen, 2000)

25. References
• Krug, S. (2006). Don’t Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web
Usability. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
• Nielsen, J. (2000). Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users. http://
www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html
• Nielsen, J. (2005). Ten Usability Heuristics. http://www.useit.com/papers/
heuristic/heuristic_list.html
• Nielsen, J. (2009a). Discount Usability: 20 Years. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/
discount-usability.html
• Nielsen, J. (2009b). Anybody Can Do Usability. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/
anybody-usability.html