mp2 Report

Texas A&M University at Qatar
Title: Usability Testing on Experiment #4 Lab Instructions for ENGL 210 Course
Date: 18 June 2015
Name: Ghadeer Al-Haddad
Introduction and test goals

When there is a need to improve or build a product, testing should be one of the main steps to consider.
Testing measures the effectiveness and usability of the product that we care about. By doing that we
allow some users to test the effectiveness of the product and track their interactions and feedbacks.
Testing can be observing how our product is intended to our users and how the users are attracted to
our product. This major step can solve many problems that we dont directly see in our products. It can
shift our whole design into a new one. It can tell us where to go and proceed in our project process. It is
necessary as it saves us time and money (Small).
Mirel a specialized in usability, declares that: Usability is a property of artifact. It measures and assesses
whether the artifacts operations, displays, and content are easy to understand, use, access, learn, and
navigate (287). Mirel describes usability as a property. I think in my case this property was used to
measure and assess Experiment 4 lab instructions for my Engl210 course. The lab instruction document
is from my PHY208 course.
This Experiment 4 instructions were a problem for me. The problem I found in the lab instructions
include: how the instructions are written in an indirect way, how the instructions are not audiencefocused, and how it is difficult to keep reading and proceeding in the steps. This problem made me
wonder if other students in Texas A&M University have the same problem. To discover that, I tested the
lab instructions of Experiment 4 by conducting a usability test in form of questionnaire (See Appendix A).
Method and Methodology
The questionnaire was completed by students from Texas A&M University at Qatar. Six students filled it
out. Three of them filled it after the Engl210 class was done, they stayed and filled it out, one solved it at
a coffee shop, and two by email. The usability testing filling was in three days, because different people
were available at different days since it required some time. Some students had taken this lab so that
might affect my results as they are already familiar with the instructions.
Results and Recommendations
Table1 below shows the results of the questionnaire that the students completed. I took into
consideration that many factors will affect my results. First, students who did this experiment before
found the instructions more clear to them than the ones who didnt. Second, since this is a long
questionnaire, I assumed that maybe some students did it quickly without reading carefully. Finally, the
number of students who did the survey was only six, so the data show less convergence.
As mentioned by Mirel, Better outcomes in product design and development require a shared
understanding across stakeholders of why certain evaluations are being conducted at a given point
(302). I believe when the evaluators know the purpose and how is it serve them later, they will behave
differently in solving the usability test. For example, my purpose out of the usability test was to improve
lab instructions as well as to discuss what to improve. If some of the participants share the same
purpose as me and believe in my goal, they will do the usability test in a more invested manner, which
will result in more efficient data.
I consider the data or outcome I have out of my usability test as a reliable data. I should mention that I
considered the choices of strongly agree or disagree, as a direct agree or disagree because I assumed
people spent less time doing this survey so I counted it as their first direct response for each instruction
they read. I assumed they spent less time because the questionnaire asked students to record the time,
but only two students did. This means they didnt read the instructions carefully at the beginning. For
the questions about steps 10-13 and steps 17-19, I asked them to specify the unclear steps, some
participants didnt specify them which means they might not have read the steps because they did it
fast. Some participants disagreed with the clearness of most of the steps and then at the end indicated
that the document was user-friendly! This surprised me because I expected the participants to be a little
more truthful when solving the usability test. I expected them to help me figure out the problem not
mainly to help me have my usability test answered. However, I believe the data I got is reliable because
those points were found in few participants so hopefully this didnt overly affect my overall result.
Table1: the statements and the number of students responds
Experiment #4 instruction steps
The goal statement
The equipment statement
The theory paragraph
Steps 1-2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Step 6
Step 7
Step 8
Step 9
Steps 10-13
Step 14
Step 15
Step 16
Steps 17-19
Number of students
Agree (clear) Neutral
Disagree
(not clear)
4
1
1
4
2
2
1
2
5
1
2
2
2
4
2
2
4
3
1
2
2
1
3
1
3
2
4
1
1
2
1
3
2
4
5
1
2
2
2
1
1
4
Based on the questionnaire results, I offer the following recommendations to improve this Experiment 4
lab instructions document:
1- Most students agreed to have a summary paragraph of the experiment before they start the
experiment. I think a one summary paragraph would be helpful for students to know what they
will do and what is the overall concepts they need to apply in this Experiment #4.
2- According to the results, two out of the six students had difficulties in Step 3. To remedy this,
some terms can be defined for the students. For Example: defining the banana plug cord term.
3- Most students have difficulties with Step 5, so I suggest adding a picture of the computer
window to make it a clearer step.
4- Three out of the six students had difficulties with Step 7. I think this is because the sentence is
long and requires some explanations for the terms. I recommend breaking the step into two and
writing it in more clear way. For example, specify for the student the way to use general formula
and then for the part regarding obtaining the theoretical value, it can be in a separate step.
5- From the commentary section, one student required adding a picture of the circuit in step 8. I
agree with him since it will make it easier to understand how to do the series connection.
6- Three students disagree that Steps 10-13 are clear, commenting that they couldnt understand
where to get certain values and formulas. For example: for Step 11 which requires checking the
digit window, adding a picture of that window will make it easier to find where to look. In
addition, I suggest adding the equation or the way of finding the mean value for Step 13.
7- Four out of the six student had a problem with Step 14, since lots of instructions are crowded in
one step. Therefore, this step needs to be written with more explanations, and broken down
into two steps that are more specific. For example, after telling the student repeat 8-12, the
reason should also be written of why to repeat certain steps. In addition, the second sentence
can be written as a separate step.
8- Regarding Step 16, two students had difficulties and two students felt it is neutral. I recommend
using picture of the parallel configuration, which will make it clear.
9- For the Steps 17-19, four students found them unclear. They agreed on step 17 being the most
unclear one because as they said it was rather wordy with too much information all in one step.
I recommend for step 17 to be divided into four steps. There are total four sentences in this step
in which each sentence can be separated into a step by it is own.
Conclusion
Although the usability testing step is done in this project, I think of it as another starting point for this
Experiment 4 lab instructions document. I believe that the usability test was more of a tool to help
improve this lab document. I used this tool to better see the problems and to answer my initial
questions. The main question was where are the problems in this document that need to be solved?
Analyzing the problems can lead to the solutions and will help create a better set of instructions.
The results showed that some of the students who did the usability test had problems in reading several
lab steps. The main problems were that some steps were not clear, not so specific, and too long.
I considered this lab instructions problem first to be a personal problem, which made me wonder about
the experience of other users. Through the usability test, I was able to look at the problem from
different perspectives. It narrowed more the problem of lab instructions into specific points to improve.
In addition, it made me care more about this problem as it is not only my problem. I believe when taking
into account the rhetorical context of this Experiment 4 lab instructions document it would be better
created. Pondering the purpose, the topic, and the audience of the lab document will lead to a more
thoughtful outcome.
As mentioned by Mirel: In addition to rhetorical skills, usability evaluators need to have a tool kit of
methodologies from which to design and carry out evaluation projects for various situations (289).
Knowing only the rhetorical context of the document cant take the project into better steps on its own.
Having a known way to get the needed data is important. As I used a survey for my usability test, I
thought of many questions regarding the participants in solving the survey. Identifying my audience or
purpose will not help me by itself if I didnt know how to get the information I wanted from them. I used
the usability test and by asking questions I was able to get all the data I wanted or needed to figure a
solution.
This usability test helped me to reach my goal for my project: it showed me the problems in the
experiment 4 lab instructions and then I was able to recommend solutions. It is an important step that
allow us to see the negative sides of our product which is in my case the lab instructions and so make
the process of creating the product more effective and efficient.
Work cited
-
Mirel, Barbara. "How Can Technical Communicators Evaluate the

Usability of Artifacts?" Solving Problems in Technical
Communication. Ed. Johndan and stuart. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 2013.
Small, Nancy. "SME: Usability Testing." Texas A&M University at

Qatar. Eng210. 21 May 2015.
Appendix A

mp2 Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

mp2 Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

mp2 Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Texas A&M University at Qatar

Introduction and test goals

Mirel, Barbara. "How Can Technical Communicators Evaluate the

Small, Nancy. "SME: Usability Testing." Texas A&M University at

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.