Database Reference
In-Depth Information
"Thanks for hanging in there ... it appears that we made this way harder than it needed to be, and
I'm sorry about that."
"This is very helpful—you're doing just what we need you to do."
Although the flight attendant is the top-priority role, it is usually not the role that occupies most of the
facilitator's time. As long as all is going well, the flight attendant stays in the background so the
sportscaster can have center stage.
The Sportscaster
While the flight attendant's attention is focused on the user, the sportscaster serves the observers, who
are members of the development team. The main responsibility of the sportscaster is to ensure that the
observers get as much useful information from the test as possible.
Thinking Aloud versus Talking with Users
A common technique for conducting usability tests is the
think-aloud protocol,
where you ask the users
to articulate their thoughts as they work on the task. But let's face it, thinking aloud isn't what most of us
do. If someone went through their daily life explaining their every action, we'd question their sanity. So
although it's fine to ask users to think aloud in a usability test, most of them aren't going to do it
perfectly and it certainly can't be called natural. You know what is much more natural? Talking with
users as they work. Especially in a paper prototype test, this turns out to be the way to go.
Here's the rationale. In paper prototype testing, the Computer is sitting right across from the users, so
their first tendency will be to talk to the Computer. But you don't want this because then the Computer
will feel a social obligation to help the user by explaining the interface. So as the facilitator, you should
be the person the users talk to, and the easiest way to do that is by talking to
them.
But do so carefully. Rather than agreeing, disagreeing, or explaining, the facilitator should be asking
questions, encouraging users to elaborate, and remaining neutral toward the interface and its
designers. It's easy to inadvertently give users a clue about what they're supposed to do. Confirming
afterward that the users made the correct choice isn't quite as bad, but should still be avoided. So
before speaking, consider what effect it might have on the users' behavior.
You may have heard the story about Clever Hans, a horse that supposedly could count by
reading a number off a card and tapping his hoof that many times. Except it turned out that Hans'
proud owner (and also the researchers who tested this supposedly psychic horse) was
subconsciously giving him the cue to stop tapping. If horses are smart enough to play this game,
it's a safe bet that humans are too.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search