Consider some of the decisions faced by a particular study- how to measure using, what to consider successful, or where in the development cycle to conduct the test.
Factors such as these would make it to difficult to analyze each manipulated factor is a matter of personal opinion.
The broad view of usability includes so much work that we need to build a framework for the studies. Thus, I argue that we handle the problems by situating a particular investigation in light of its research group, its research ques- tions, its methods, the issues it settles or raises, and its major constraints. The situating will help us fashion a coherent land- scape of usability, a landscape that will help us to assess more cannily what we know about usability and what we need to know.
This coincides well with the statement I previously made about the difficulties of measuring and analyzing usability with infinite manipulations used throughout technical communication.
By enacting one specific framework to be used by all technical communicators, it makes it easier to determine usability across the field.
Direct questioning -Surveys -Interviews - Comprehension tests 0 Observation -Informal observation -Laboratory observation -User protocols -Reading protocols -Keystroke records -Computer text analysis -Editorial review -Technical review
Of the three methods, I would assume that direct questioning and observation would be the most effective. Direct contact with users and instant access to data would make determining usability easier.
The traditional evaluation methods involve a computer or an expert evaluating the product for how well it meets preset criteria.
According to the text, traditional evaluation methods produce real-time results, in regards to readability and efficiency. They don't, however, answer questions of usability.
Product Development Model With an Example From Test- ing of Documentation- The product development model ad- heres to a pragmatic, engineering model. It focuses on deliv- ering usability information important to the various stages of product development in a timely manner. Because of the time constraints, it normally employs laboratory rather than field studies. Thus, it selects research methods on the basis of how well they deliver the necessary information. Dieli [18] and Lasselle [19] have identified a number of products thkt could be tested at each point in the development cycle- from others’ products and prototypes in the design phase, to storyboards, to documentation modules, and to full product tests. These lists suggest a range of places to test that are new to usability testers who focus on testing completed, or near-completed, products
The product development model measures usability, paying special attention to each stage of development, maintaining realistic expectations during each stage, and continuously determining the practicality of the product from stage to stage.
The milieu of the cognitive work is the laboratory. Though surveys and interviews may be part of the work, classical experiments or protocols are the mainstays of the research. Informal observation, editorial review, technical review, and field studies are not often employed.
The cognitive model requires an experiment. Test subjects must use the "product" with researchers watching, who then determine usability through user action.
My only concern with this method is pre-screening for participants. The provided example involves word processor software. A factor that could impact data would be computer literacy or basic familiarization. Although its a new program being tested, anyone who has previously used a word processor would be more successful at navigating the tested program than someone with no previous experience.
In the field, researchers can learn about the social complexities of use and gain strategies for (1) improving com- munication with users and (2) designing systems that support the natural means of social feedback and interaction.
The Cultural Model uses user interaction to determine usability. This model seems the most reliable when trying to determine the usability of a program because it connects researchers with the audience. It's easy to assume that the larger an audience a program or website has, the simpler usability has to be.
Product methods are usually linked to product ques- tions, cognitive model methods to user questions, and cultural model methods to milieu questions.
It's important to recognize the connections between the methods and questions: information processing and questions formed during application or testing, and a person's beliefs connected to how/where they were born or raised
A second means for enhancing product development can come from applying the results of validation research.
Connecting data and research across technical communicators, in regards to one product, can improve usability. A collective effort among many in the field provides many "solutions" or "resolutions", as we learned in #wickman concerning wicked problems.
More and more people believe that we need to know about “natural use” to know about “usability” and to build more usable systems
"Natural use's goal is to minimize interference to results and data as close to reality as possible."
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/which-ux-research-methods/
This can be done through observation, and can be extremely helpful when determining usability. Going with the provided example, if users were testing a new word processor, some questions that could be answered include: How easy is the program to navigate? Are the tools and symbols universally recognizable?