Remote usability evaluation: can users report their own critical incidents?
CHI 98 Cconference Summary on Human Factors in Computing Systems
The User-Reported Critical Incident Method at a Glance
The User-Reported Critical Incident Method at a Glance
A comparison of synchronous remote and local usability studies for an expert interface
CHI '04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Remote usability evaluations With disabled people
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
What happened to remote usability testing?: an empirical study of three methods
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Let your users do the testing: a comparison of three remote asynchronous usability testing methods
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
The impact of distraction in natural environments on user experience research
TPDL'11 Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Theory and practice of digital libraries: research and advanced technology for digital libraries
Using Stressors in Usability Tests: Empirical Results and Practical Recommendations
International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
The effect of testing location on usability test elements such as stress levels and user experience is not clear. A comparison between traditional lab testing and synchronous remote testing was conducted. The present study investigated two groups of users in remote and traditional settings. Within each group participants completed two tasks, a simple task and a complex task. The dependent measures were task time taken, number of critical incidents reported, and user-reported anxiety score. Task times differed significantly between the physical location condition; this difference was not meaningful for real world application, and likely introduced by overhead regarding synchronous remote testing methods. Critical incident reporting counts did not differ in any condition. No significant differences were found in user reported stress levels. Subjective assessments of the study and interface also did not differ significantly. Study findings suggest a similar user testing experience exists for remote and traditional laboratory usability testing.