(For example, you may report that 71% of participants selected the word ‘fresh’ to describe the design.) Use percentages rather than raw frequencies to report the number of times each word was selected.Report the top most-selected words (for example, ‘calm,’ ‘expensive,’ ‘innovative,’ ‘fresh,’ and ‘intimidating’).To analyze your participants’ responses, determine the percentage of participants who selected each individual word, then rank the words to identify the most frequently selected ones. In our online survey to measure the attractiveness of flat designs, we used this modified product reaction list. Simply showing participants a screenshot or a design mockup can reduce distractions that could arise from their evaluations of content or functionality. Users don’t need to interact with the design.Benedek and Miner aimed for at least 40% negative words in their original set. Your results won’t be useful if you let participants choose only flattering words to describe your UI. Include a variety of words: negative, positive, and neutral.This will help dilute the impact of lazy respondents who fail to read and just choose the first five words presented to them (which may be more of a problem in online surveys). If possible, randomize the order in which the words are presented.Keeping the number of words down will help decrease respondent fatigue and ensure a better response rate.
Around 25 or less would be best, and the fewer the better, as long as you still have enough words to cover the range of possible reactions.
If you plan on using a survey format (particularly an online survey), reduce the number of words in the list. A list of 118 words takes a long time to read and consider, even in laboratory usability studies.To measure aesthetics, remove any words that are only relevant for functionality, content, or performance (such as, “Controllable,” “Too Technical,” or “Slow”).Don’t be afraid to add your own words to the list as needed. Include words that you expect your users to use for describing the interface, as well as words that would be relevant for your study goals. Which words you include depend on what you’re interested in measuring.There are a few points to keep in mind if you compress the word list: To adapt this methodology to focus on visual appeal, we recommend modifying the list of product-reaction words. Taken together, the words cover a wide variety of possible reactions to features ranging from the design’s visual appeal, the microcopy used, the functionality, to the user experience as a whole.
#Kate video toolkit full#
The full list of product reaction words is quite large and comprehensive. (A controlled vocabulary can’t remove this problem entirely, however - I encountered one study participant who seemed to have a uniquely negative interpretation of the word ‘sophisticated’.) For example, a researcher must determine what exactly a participant meant when she said the site design was ‘intriguing’. The variability in word choice that naturally occurs during free-form qualitative evaluation can be problematic for data analysis. (The product reaction cards are called "Microsoft reaction cards" because the 2002 study was done at Microsoft.)Ī major benefit of this methodology is that it introduces a controlled vocabulary for participants. At the end of usability testing sessions, participants were given the deck of cards and asked to select the five words that best described the product. They created 118 physical cards with different product-reaction words written on each card. This desirability study methodology was first introduced by Joey Benedeck and Trish Miner in their 2002 paper, “Measuring Desirability: New methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab setting.” Benedeck and Miner set out to develop a practitioner’s methodology suited to the challenges of measuring intangible emotional responses like desirability and fun. Along with satisfaction-rating scales or qualitative-comment analysis, the Microsoft Desirability Toolkit (also known as the Microsoft Reaction Card Method) can help designers gauge users’ responses to the aesthetic qualities of a site.
0 kommentar(er)
