Web-Systems Remote Usability Tests and Their Participant Recruitment
In this paper we present a description of a proposed hybrid, remote usability testing method and a comparison of different approaches to participant recruitment for the test conducted according to this usability evaluation method. Moreover this paper contains a description of the implemented hybrid method and its characteristic. One of the main features of this method is that it allows to perform remote online tests. These tests are an alternative to traditional laboratory tests. They don’t require a special laboratory space, gathering participants in one place, a moderator or other equipment to perform the tests. However we have to face a challenge – how to recruit participants for remote usability test, which is more complicated because we must motivate our users to participate in such test without having a direct contact with them.
This paper presents a comparison of a few selected methods that we used to encourage users of website HotelGo24.com to take part in usability evaluation test of that site. We present how many users were ready to participate in our study depending on the applied method of encouragement and their reward for participating in the study.
KeywordsUsability evaluation Remote testing Participant recruitment methods
The work was supported by The European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme, Coordination and Support Action, Grant Agreement Number 316097 [ENGINE].
- 1.Rajeshkumar, S., Omar, R., Mahmud, M.: Taxonomies of user experience (UX) evaluation methods. In: 2013 International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS), pp. 533–538, 27–28 Nov 2013Google Scholar
- 2.Rubin, J., Chisnell, D.: Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design and Conduct Effective Tests. Wiley, New York (2008)Google Scholar
- 3.Nielsen, J.: Usability inspection methods. In: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 413–414. ACM, Apr 1994Google Scholar
- 5.Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., Van de Weijer, J.: Eye Tracking: a Comprehensive Guide to Methods And Measures. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2011)Google Scholar
- 6.Tullis, T., Fleischman, S., McNulty, M., Cianchette, C., Bergel, M.: An empirical comparison of lab and remote usability testing of web sites. In: Usability Professionals Association Conference, July 2002Google Scholar
- 7.Brush B., Ames M., Davis J.: A Comparison of Synchronous Remote and Local Usability Studies for an Expert Interface. In CHI 2004 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, New York, USA, pp. 1179–1182 (2004)Google Scholar
- 8.Oztoprak A., Erbug C.: Field versus Laboratory Usability Testing: a First Comparison. Technical report, Department of Industrail Design - Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Architercture, Inonu Bulvari, 06531 Ankara, Turkey (2008)Google Scholar
- 9.Liu, D., Bias, R.G., Lease, M., Kuipers, R.: Crowdsourcing for usability testing. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 49(1), 1–10 (2012)Google Scholar
- 10.Kittur, A., Chi, E.H., Suh, B.: Crowdsourcing user studies with Mechanical Turk. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 453–456. ACM, Apr 2008Google Scholar
- 11.Howe, J.: Crowdsourcing: A Definition. http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com/cs//06/crowdsourcing_a.html. Accessed Jan 2015
- 12.Nakamoto, S.: Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Consulted 1(2012), 28 (2008)Google Scholar