A field study of the relationship and communication between Chinese evaluators and users in thinking aloud usability tests

Authors:
Qingxin Shi
Affiliations:
Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark
Venue:
Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: building bridges
Year:
2008

Citing 14
Cited 5

Cultural effects in usability assessment

CHI 98 Cconference Summary on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Global-software development lifecycle: an exploratory study

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Usability Engineering

Usability Engineering
Usability Testing and Research

Usability Testing and Research
Analysis of combinatorial user effect in international usability tests

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
The validity of the stimulated retrospective think-aloud method as measured by eye tracking

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
What do usability evaluators do in practice?: an explorative study of think-aloud testing

DIS '06 Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems
Usability Engineering: Process, Products and Examples

Usability Engineering: Process, Products and Examples
Communication patterns and usability problem finding in cross-cultural thinking aloud usability testing

CHI '08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
What is part of a usability test?

CHI '08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
The cultural usability (CULTUSAB) project: studies of cultural models in psychological usability evaluation methods

UI-HCII'07 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Usability and internationalization
Cultural usability tests - how usability tests are not the same all over the world

UI-HCII'07 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Usability and internationalization
Relationship model in cultural usability testing

UI-HCII'07 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Usability and internationalization
Analyzing non-verbal cues in usability evaluation tests

UI-HCII'07 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Usability and internationalization

Intercultural Usability Surveys: Do People Always Tell "The Truth"?

IDGD '09 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Internationalization, Design and Global Development: Held as Part of HCI International 2009
Test case selection and prioritization: risk-based or design-based?

Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement
Keep talking: an analysis of participant utterances gathered using two concurrent think-aloud methods

Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries
Exploring the impact of cultures on web usability test

HCD'11 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Human centered design
Usability problem identification in culturally diverse settings

Information Systems Journal

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Thinking aloud is the most widely applied usability evaluation method. In order to get reliable usability problems, it is necessary for the evaluators to establish a supportive relationship and communicate effectively with the users. This study investigated the relation and communication between the evaluators and test users in Chinese usability testing sessions. Field observations and interviews were conducted in five companies in Beijing. This research was based mainly on Nisbett's cultural theory and Boren and Ramey's thinking aloud model. The results of the study showed that Chinese users focused mainly on tasks, while evaluators focused on both users and tasks. Further, Chinese users did not think aloud actively; thus, in order to encourage users to speak out, effective communication skills were required for Chinese evaluators. Retrospective thinking aloud and explanation were also used in the tests. Finally, it discussed that communication was appropriate for the formative evaluations, but not for the summative evaluations.