~~~~~~~ BRITISH HCI GROUP NEWS SERVICE ~~~~~~~~~~
~~ http://www.bcs.org.uk/hci/ ~~
~~ All news to: [log in to unmask] ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ NOTE: Please reply to article's originator, ~~
~~ not the News Service ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many thanks to those who responded to the survey. I received a total of 102
responses from the three lists (CHI-WEB, the
usability-list-that-shall-not-be-named, and the British HCI Group). 9
responses were excluded from the figures below due to confusion over the
instructions.
Responses were fairly international, with respondents based in the US making
up just over 60% of the total. (Since many email addresses were .com or
.net, signatures, web sites and just plain old asking were used to determine
the location of respondents.)
Responses by country
us 61.3%
uk 12.9%
nl 3.2%
se 3.2%
be 2.2%
fr 2.2%
il 2.2%
au 2.2%
ca 2.2%
de 2.2%
fi 2.2%
ie 1.1%
ir 1.1%
it 1.1%
mx 1.1%
The majority of respondents were usability practitioners:
usability practitioner 64.5%
information architect 7.5%
developer 6.5%
developer + usability/HCI 6.5%
HCI researcher 4.3%
project manager 3.2%
technical writer 2.2%
software testing/QA 2.2%
design director 2.2%
technology manager 1.1%
Not surprisingly, many were involved either in a mixture of web and
"traditional" software development or web development exclusively:
web only 45.2%
mixed web + desktop 33.3%
desktop only 11.8%
other 5.4% (speech, medical x-ray,
electronic lab equipment, air traffic control)
consumer electronics 2.2%
mobile comms 1.1%
multimedia 1.1%
Most respondents spent almost all of their time applying user-centered
methods:
All or most 68.8%
less than half 19.4%
occasionally 11.8%
Finally, here is the list of techniques that respondents used (excluding any
used by only 1 person):
informal usability testing 93.5%
user analysis/profiling 89.2%
evaluate existing system 88.2%
low-fidelity (e.g. paper) prototyping 84.9%
expert (heuristic) usability evaluation 83.9%
task identification 82.8%
navigation design
78.5%
scenarios of use
76.3%
set usability requirements 74.2%
visual interface design 74.2%
use of style guides 67.7%
formal (e.g. quantitative) usability testing 67.7%
stakeholder meeting 66.7%
comprehensive (e.g. hierarchical) task analysis 64.5%
user's conceptual models (of the problem domain) 60.2%
Contextual Analysis 59.1%
usability checklists 58.1%
set quantitative usability goals 58.1%
attitude questionnaires 54.8%
usability surveys
50.5%
use case analysis
48.4%
Essential Use Cases (Constantine and Lockwood) 21.5%
Personas (Alan Cooper) 20.4%
Usage-centered design 11.8%
Other methods (in house) 10.8%
focus groups 8.6%
LUCID 7.5%
observations 6.5%
user interviews 3.2%
competitive analysis 3.2%
storyboards 2.2%
cognitive walkthrough (with team) 2.2%
usability walkthroughs (with team) 2.2%
OVID 2.2%
GUIDE 2.2%
ISO 13407 2.2%
Respondents to the survey will receive a more comprehensive report in due
course. A third-world charity will receive $161.
Thanks again to the respondents and to Nigel Bevan at Serco for helping with
the questionnaire and agreeing to split the contribution to charity.
If anyone would like to perform a more comprehensive analysis of the results
(that they would be willing to share), please let me know.
Regards,
William Hudson
Syntagm Ltd
Design for Usable Systems
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ To receive HCI news, send the message: ~~
~~ "JOIN BCS-HCI your_firstname your_lastname" ~~
~~ to [log in to unmask] ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Newsarchives: ~~
~~ http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/bcs-hci/ ~~
~~ archive.html ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ To join the British HCI Group, contact ~~
~~ [log in to unmask] ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|