2004Unpublished venueRequires access

A comparison of synchronous remote and local usability studies for an expert interface

A. J. Bernheim Brush, Morgan G. Ames, Janet Davis

Open publisher page 67 citations

Abstract

Synchronous remote usability studies can be a convenient and cost-effective alternative to conventional local usability studies. Although they are common in the field, there has been little research comparing synchronous remote usability studies with local studies. In our comparison of remote and local studies of an expert interface, the primary differences were in the participant's and facilitator's qualitative experience. The remote and local studies agreed closely (with no significant differences) in terms of the number of usability issues found, their type, and their severity. While our comparison focuses on an expert interface and more work is needed to understand remote studies in general, our experience suggests that evaluators of expert interfaces will have comparable success identifying usability issues with either remote or local studies.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Synchronous remote usability studies can be a convenient and cost-effective alternative to conventional local usability studies. Although they are common in the field, there has been little research comparing synchronous remote usability studies with local studies. In our comparison of remote and local studies of an expert interface, the primary differences were in the participant's and facilitator's qualitative experience. The remote and local studies agreed closely (with no significant differences) in terms of the number of usability issues found, their type, and their severity. While our comparison focuses on an expert interface and more work is needed to understand remote studies in general, our experience suggests that evaluators of expert interfaces will have comparable success identifying usability issues with either remote or local studies.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 67 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Synchronous remote usability studies can be a convenient and cost-effective alternative to conventional local usability studies. Although they are common in the field, there has been little research comparing synchronous remote usability studies with local studies. In our comparison of remote and local studies of an expert interface, the primary differences were in the participant's and facilitator's qualitative experience. The remote and local studies agreed closely (with no significant differences) in terms of the number of usability issues found, their type, and their severity. While our comparison focuses on an expert interface and more work is needed to understand remote studies in general, our experience suggests that evaluators of expert interfaces will have comparable success identifying usability issues with either remote or local studies.

Key concepts: Usability, Facilitator, Computer science, Interface (matter), Human–computer interaction, Usability inspection, Usability lab, Heuristic evaluation

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A comparison of synchronous remote and local usability studies for an expert interface — Research Paper | ScholarLens