Heuristic Evaluation
AJ Brush
Richard Anderson
Administrivia



No class on Thursday 6/5
Applications due Friday 6/6
Final Presentations on Thursday 6/12
from 10:30 – 12:30 Room TBA
Plan for Today



Presentation on Heuristic Evaluation
Try it out on each other’s applications
Course evaluations
Heuristic Evaluation
“Heuristic evaluation is done as a systematic
inspection of a user interface design for usability. …
Heuristic evaluation involves having a small set of
evaluators examine the interface and judge its
compliance with recognized usability principles (the
"heuristics"). “ [From useit.com]
Lecture Material for today comes from Jakob Nielsen’s
site useit.com
Heuristic Evaluation:
http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/
“Discount” Usability Method



Jakob Nielson’s term for quick cheap
and easy evaluation
Economic argument
Three principles



Scenarios
Heuristic Evaluation
User studies with 3-5 users
Method


Each evaluator inspects the interface
alone using heuristics
Nielson recommends

At least two passes through the interface


One to get the flow and scope
Second to focus on specific elements
Method (2)

Make a list of usability problems





Note each problem separately
Must reference heuristic
Not required to say how to fix it.
Check you’ve covered all heuristics.
Typically takes 1-2 hours

Break up larger interfaces
Method (3)

Can have an “observer”



Minimize work for evaluator
Operate a prototype
For domain knowledge
Severity Ratings



Compile list of all problems
Ask evaluators to rate severity of the
problem on 0-4 scale
3 factors



Frequency
Impact
Persistence
Severity Rating (2)
0 = I don't agree that this is a usability problem
at all
1 = Cosmetic problem only: need not be fixed
unless extra time is available on project
2 = Minor usability problem: fixing this should
be given low priority
3 = Major usability problem: important to fix, so
should be given high priority
4 = Usability catastrophe: imperative to fix this
before product can be released
How many evaluators?



More evaluators = more problems
found = more cost
3-5 evaluators seems to work best
Hot topic in industry: “Magic Number 5”
panel at CHI this year
The Heuristics
Visibility of system status

The system should always keep users
informed about what is going on,
through appropriate feedback within
reasonable time.


Good Example: The status bar at the
bottom of Internet Explorer
Bad Example: Not clear who’s homework is
being graded.
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 systemoriented terms. Follow real-world
conventions, making information appear in a
natural and logical order.
 Bad Example: “Acquire” instead of scan,
“Platen” as the only option for Select
source.
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.
Consistency and standards

Users should not have to wonder
whether different words, situations, or
actions mean the same thing. Follow
platform conventions.

Bad Example: Options that brings up a
dialog without “...” after name
Error prevention

Even better than good error messages
is a careful design which prevents a
problem from occurring in the first
place.

Good Example: gray out “okay” button
until required information is submitted
Recognition rather than recall

Make 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.

Bad Example: Layer Icons in scanner program has
no tooltips or context menu
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tablet heuristics
Tablet form factor

The application should be aware of the
tablet form factor

Are the graphics big enough?


High DPI
Portrait and Landscape modes
Pen based Interaction

User should be able to easily use the
application with the stylus.





Communicate clearly what is inkable
Cursor feedback
Bigger, easily-targeted controls
Generous tap, double-click and hover
tolerances
Keep related objects in proximity
For fun
The Heuristics applied to everyday life
Now you try it….

Break into project teams




2 subgroups
Get another group’s application
Each subgroup does a heuristic
evaluation
Whole team compares the problems
each subgroup found