神马文学网如何撰写可用性测试报告
来源：百度文库 编辑：神马文学网 时间：2024/04/25 14:52:08
目前您的位置：首页 →行业信息 →新文章、论文 →如何撰写可用性测试报告 详细信息内容 Detailed information CONTENT
[供应] 如何撰写可用性测试报告 - 2006-4-18 人气指数:[118]
注意：若以下信息失效、错误或其他问题，请在以下“ 用户投票评论 ”处提出，我们将及时进行调整。 背景
如何撰写可用性测试报告
[
2006/04/18 13:01 | byjames ]
谁来翻译一下？
The checkpoints
1. Is the research question clearly stated?
2. Does the introduction, statement of the problem, and overview of any literature or previous reports adequately set the background for the reader, and is this material consistent with the research question?
3. Is it clear why the study was conducted?
4. Given the research question and the background material are the research hypotheses and objectives appropriate and clearly stated?
5. Are key terms well defined?
6. Is the independent variable appropriate given the question of the study? Are the levels of the independent variable appropriate?
7. Is the dependent variable appropriate for the study?
8. Are the criterion measures of the dependent variable appropriate, valid, and reliable?
9. Are the scoring, rating, and judging procedures valid and reliable?
10. Is the measuring apparatus (if any) accurate and reliable?
11. Are the controls appropriate? Can the results be affected by variables that have not been controlled? Are the controls or control groups (if used) properly selected?
12. Is the research design suitable to meet the objectives of the study? Is the research design appropriate to test the hypotheses and answer the research question?
13. Are the methods and procedures clearly described in sufficient detail to be understood and replicated?
14. Is the presentation sequence of test stimuli (including any randomisations or counter-balancing) appropriate?
15. Are the test participants properly oriented and motivated? What is their understanding of the task? Are the instructions sufficiently clear and precise?
16. Are there any signs of experiment bias in the design, data collection, assessment, analysis, or reporting?
17. Are the participants properly selected? Is the sample representative and unbiased? Do the procedures adhere to the guidelines for the protection and well being of participants?
18. Is the sample size appropriate? Are the appropriate procedures used to assign participants to groups, treatments, or conditions? Are suitable techniques used to establish group equivalence, such as matching, equating, or randomising?
19. Does participant attrition occur and if so does it bias the sample?
20. Are bad data properly identified and set aside (not included in the final test data set); and are instances of bad data reported and explained as such?
21. Have the data been appropriately analysed, sorted, categorised, grouped, prioritised etc.?
22. Are descriptive statistics used? Are these accurate?
23. Are the inferential statistical tests appropriate? Are the assumptions for their use met? Are there any errors in the calculation or presentation of statistical results?
24. Are all graphs correctly labelled (both the X and Y axes)? Are data elements on graphs properly coded, and identified?
25. Are tables and figures clearly labelled and accurately presented and referenced in the text? Are results and findings correctly interpreted, properly reported, given meaning and placed in context?
26. Are recommendations unambiguous? Do recommendations follow clear usability, human factors, or ergonomics guidelines?
27. Are recommendations supported by references to prior literature or to industry standards?
28. Is the discussion section of the report reasonable in view of the data?
29. Are the conclusions valid and justified by the data?
30. Are the generalizations valid?
31. Do references (if used) match the citations in the text?
32. Have ethical standards been adhered to in all phases of the research?
33. What can be done to improve or re-design the study?
流程 |评论(2) |引用(0) |阅读(4) 引用地址： http://www.mianduo.com/blog/tb.php?t=102
ELLA 2006/04/18 14:49
粗略的看了一遍，这个报告很大程度上是从心理学的思路入手的。里面所用的研究方法和原则都非常相似，所以就顺手翻译出来，但其中有些关键的概念只能用自己最熟悉的词语表达，所以看起来可能不够容易看懂
我想，实用的角度来说，在公司的项目里目前难以做到全部的点，挑了几个比较基本的东西，如果这些不能满足，在我看来整个测试的结果有可能是比较粗略的，有效性会降低。
1 研究的问题是否被清楚地表述了？（我们是否明确了整个项目的问题是什么）
2 研究的目的清晰了吗？
3 所有的关键点都被准确的定义了吗？（我们是否能确定项目中涉及到的任务的方方面面）
4 根据所要研究的问题，是否设定了合适的分类属性（自变量）？同时，这些属性的等级设定得是否正确？是否准确的确定了研究指标（因变量）？（这里就类似于，如果做用户测试，我们需要考察用户行为中的哪些方面，此为因变量）
5 研究中的所有控制都合理吗？研究的结果是否混淆了一些没有被控制到的因素？（这里就是要考虑一些我们没有考虑到的但会影响用户行为的因素，例如，测试的环境，多任务时用户的疲劳程度）
6 参与研究的样本是否都表现真实？他们对于任务的理解是否与我们所假定的理解一致？所有的指导语都表述清楚了吗？（这个就是选择用户的问题，我们需要首先确定我们的目标用户，然后再确定几个特定的具体用户，保证这些具体的来做测试的用户确实代表了我们的目标用户。）
7 数据的整理、分析、分类、比重设置的都合适吗？（统计数据的问题）
8 研究所做的结论是否有数据作为依据，而不是主观的自以为是？（针对我们在分析数据时是否基于数据）
ELLA 2006/04/18 14:39
The checkpoints
1. Is the research question clearly stated?
研究的问题是否被清楚地表述了？
2. Does the introduction, statement of the problem, and overview of any literature or previous reports adequately set the background for the reader, and is this material consistent with the research question?
报告的背景知识是否包括了对项目的介绍，对问题的表述以及对以往报告的总结？前面三方面的材料是否与研究问题是一致的？
3. Is it clear why the study was conducted?
研究的目的清晰了吗？
4. Given the research question and the background material are the research hypotheses and objectives appropriate and clearly stated?
研究的问题和背景资料，作为研究的前提假设，是否都被客观的、准确的、清晰的表述清楚了？
5. Are key terms well defined?
所有的关键点都被准确的定义了吗？
6. Is the independent variable appropriate given the question of the study? Are the levels of the independent variable appropriate?
根据所要研究的问题，是否设定了合适的分类属性（自变量）？同时，这些属性的等级设定得是否正确？
7. Is the dependent variable appropriate for the study?
是否准确的确定了研究指标（因变量）？
8. Are the criterion measures of the dependent variable appropriate, valid, and reliable?
关于研究指标的分类是否合理？是否有效？是否可靠？
9. Are the scoring, rating, and judging procedures valid and reliable?
研究中的计分、等级评定、判断过程是否都是有效的，可靠的？
10. Is the measuring apparatus (if any) accurate and reliable?
如果有测量的仪器，这些仪器是否足够准确和可靠？
11. Are the controls appropriate? Can the results be affected by variables that have not been controlled? Are the controls or control groups (if used) properly selected?
研究中的所有控制都合理吗？研究的结果是否混淆了一些没有被控制到的因素？
12. Is the research design suitable to meet the objectives of the study? Is the research design appropriate to test the hypotheses and answer the research question?
研究的设计是否能迎合研究的目的？是否能验证或辩驳研究最初的假设，是否能回答研究所要回答的问题？
13. Are the methods and procedures clearly described in sufficient detail to be understood and replicated?
对研究的方法和过程的描述是否包含了所有的细节？
14. Is the presentation sequence of test stimuli (including any randomisations or counter-balancing) appropriate?
研究过程中的刺激呈现顺序和呈现方式是否设置的合理？
15. Are the test participants properly oriented and motivated? What is their understanding of the task? Are the instructions sufficiently clear and precise?
参与研究的样本是否都表现真实？他们对于任务的理解是否与我们所假定的理解一致？所有的指导语都表述清楚了吗？
16. Are there any signs of experiment bias in the design, data collection, assessment, analysis, or reporting?
在研究过程中的任务设计、数据收集、评估、分析数据或撰写报告中，是否存在任何的主观偏见？
17. Are the participants properly selected? Is the sample representative and unbiased? Do the procedures adhere to the guidelines for the protection and well being of participants?
参与研究的样本是否选择得当？这些被试富有代表性吗？研究实施的过程中是否对每个被试的引导都一样？
18. Is the sample size appropriate? Are the appropriate procedures used to assign participants to groups, treatments, or conditions? Are suitable techniques used to establish group equivalence, such as matching, equating, or randomising?
样本的大小合适吗？不同样本之间的数量是否匹配？
19. Does participant attrition occur and if so does it bias the sample?
如果样本需要完成多个任务，前期的任务是否会对后期的任务产生干扰？
20. Are bad data properly identified and set aside (not included in the final test data set); and are instances of bad data reported and explained as such?
如果存在错误的数据，这些数据在分析前期是否被剔除在外了？
21. Have the data been appropriately analysed, sorted, categorised, grouped, prioritised etc.?
数据的整理、分析、分类、比重设置的都合适吗？
22. Are descriptive statistics used? Are these accurate?
是否采用了描述性统计？这些描述性的统计精确吗？
23. Are the inferential statistical tests appropriate? Are the assumptions for their use met? Are there any errors in the calculation or presentation of statistical results?
推断性统计是否合适？在进行推断时，数据是否满足了所有的统计前提？
24. Are all graphs correctly labelled (both the X and Y axes)? Are data elements on graphs properly coded, and identified?
所有的图表都采用了正确的标记吗？
25. Are tables and figures clearly labelled and accurately presented and referenced in the text? Are results and findings correctly interpreted, properly reported, given meaning and placed in context?
所有的表格和数据在表述时都准确吗？
26. Are recommendations unambiguous? Do recommendations follow clear usability, human factors, or ergonomics guidelines?
研究所做的建议是否清晰？这些建议符合可用性、人因素和工效学的原则吗？
27. Are recommendations supported by references to prior literature or to industry standards?
研究所做的建议是否先进于前人所做的研究结果、现有的工业标准？
28. Is the discussion section of the report reasonable in view of the data?
关于数据的讨论是否符合逻辑？
29. Are the conclusions valid and justified by the data?
研究所做的结论是否有数据作为依据，而不是主观的自以为是？
30. Are the generalizations valid?
根据研究结论所做的推理，是否合理？
31. Do references (if used) match the citations in the text?
报告中所有的引用内容与原文都一致吗？
32. Have ethical standards been adhered to in all phases of the research?
研究的过程中是否存在任何种族的特质？
33. What can be done to improve or re-design the study?
这个研究还有什么地方需要提高和改善？
[供应] 如何撰写可用性测试报告 - 2006-4-18 人气指数:[118]
注意：若以下信息失效、错误或其他问题，请在以下“ 用户投票评论 ”处提出，我们将及时进行调整。 背景
如何撰写可用性测试报告
[
2006/04/18 13:01 | byjames ]谁来翻译一下？
The checkpoints
1. Is the research question clearly stated?
2. Does the introduction, statement of the problem, and overview of any literature or previous reports adequately set the background for the reader, and is this material consistent with the research question?
3. Is it clear why the study was conducted?
4. Given the research question and the background material are the research hypotheses and objectives appropriate and clearly stated?
5. Are key terms well defined?
6. Is the independent variable appropriate given the question of the study? Are the levels of the independent variable appropriate?
7. Is the dependent variable appropriate for the study?
8. Are the criterion measures of the dependent variable appropriate, valid, and reliable?
9. Are the scoring, rating, and judging procedures valid and reliable?
10. Is the measuring apparatus (if any) accurate and reliable?
11. Are the controls appropriate? Can the results be affected by variables that have not been controlled? Are the controls or control groups (if used) properly selected?
12. Is the research design suitable to meet the objectives of the study? Is the research design appropriate to test the hypotheses and answer the research question?
13. Are the methods and procedures clearly described in sufficient detail to be understood and replicated?
14. Is the presentation sequence of test stimuli (including any randomisations or counter-balancing) appropriate?
15. Are the test participants properly oriented and motivated? What is their understanding of the task? Are the instructions sufficiently clear and precise?
16. Are there any signs of experiment bias in the design, data collection, assessment, analysis, or reporting?
17. Are the participants properly selected? Is the sample representative and unbiased? Do the procedures adhere to the guidelines for the protection and well being of participants?
18. Is the sample size appropriate? Are the appropriate procedures used to assign participants to groups, treatments, or conditions? Are suitable techniques used to establish group equivalence, such as matching, equating, or randomising?
19. Does participant attrition occur and if so does it bias the sample?
20. Are bad data properly identified and set aside (not included in the final test data set); and are instances of bad data reported and explained as such?
21. Have the data been appropriately analysed, sorted, categorised, grouped, prioritised etc.?
22. Are descriptive statistics used? Are these accurate?
23. Are the inferential statistical tests appropriate? Are the assumptions for their use met? Are there any errors in the calculation or presentation of statistical results?
24. Are all graphs correctly labelled (both the X and Y axes)? Are data elements on graphs properly coded, and identified?
25. Are tables and figures clearly labelled and accurately presented and referenced in the text? Are results and findings correctly interpreted, properly reported, given meaning and placed in context?
26. Are recommendations unambiguous? Do recommendations follow clear usability, human factors, or ergonomics guidelines?
27. Are recommendations supported by references to prior literature or to industry standards?
28. Is the discussion section of the report reasonable in view of the data?
29. Are the conclusions valid and justified by the data?
30. Are the generalizations valid?
31. Do references (if used) match the citations in the text?
32. Have ethical standards been adhered to in all phases of the research?
33. What can be done to improve or re-design the study?
流程 |评论(2) |引用(0) |阅读(4) 引用地址： http://www.mianduo.com/blog/tb.php?t=102
ELLA 2006/04/18 14:49粗略的看了一遍，这个报告很大程度上是从心理学的思路入手的。里面所用的研究方法和原则都非常相似，所以就顺手翻译出来，但其中有些关键的概念只能用自己最熟悉的词语表达，所以看起来可能不够容易看懂
我想，实用的角度来说，在公司的项目里目前难以做到全部的点，挑了几个比较基本的东西，如果这些不能满足，在我看来整个测试的结果有可能是比较粗略的，有效性会降低。
1 研究的问题是否被清楚地表述了？（我们是否明确了整个项目的问题是什么）
2 研究的目的清晰了吗？
3 所有的关键点都被准确的定义了吗？（我们是否能确定项目中涉及到的任务的方方面面）
4 根据所要研究的问题，是否设定了合适的分类属性（自变量）？同时，这些属性的等级设定得是否正确？是否准确的确定了研究指标（因变量）？（这里就类似于，如果做用户测试，我们需要考察用户行为中的哪些方面，此为因变量）
5 研究中的所有控制都合理吗？研究的结果是否混淆了一些没有被控制到的因素？（这里就是要考虑一些我们没有考虑到的但会影响用户行为的因素，例如，测试的环境，多任务时用户的疲劳程度）
6 参与研究的样本是否都表现真实？他们对于任务的理解是否与我们所假定的理解一致？所有的指导语都表述清楚了吗？（这个就是选择用户的问题，我们需要首先确定我们的目标用户，然后再确定几个特定的具体用户，保证这些具体的来做测试的用户确实代表了我们的目标用户。）
7 数据的整理、分析、分类、比重设置的都合适吗？（统计数据的问题）
8 研究所做的结论是否有数据作为依据，而不是主观的自以为是？（针对我们在分析数据时是否基于数据）
ELLA 2006/04/18 14:39The checkpoints
1. Is the research question clearly stated?
研究的问题是否被清楚地表述了？
2. Does the introduction, statement of the problem, and overview of any literature or previous reports adequately set the background for the reader, and is this material consistent with the research question?
报告的背景知识是否包括了对项目的介绍，对问题的表述以及对以往报告的总结？前面三方面的材料是否与研究问题是一致的？
3. Is it clear why the study was conducted?
研究的目的清晰了吗？
4. Given the research question and the background material are the research hypotheses and objectives appropriate and clearly stated?
研究的问题和背景资料，作为研究的前提假设，是否都被客观的、准确的、清晰的表述清楚了？
5. Are key terms well defined?
所有的关键点都被准确的定义了吗？
6. Is the independent variable appropriate given the question of the study? Are the levels of the independent variable appropriate?
根据所要研究的问题，是否设定了合适的分类属性（自变量）？同时，这些属性的等级设定得是否正确？
7. Is the dependent variable appropriate for the study?
是否准确的确定了研究指标（因变量）？
8. Are the criterion measures of the dependent variable appropriate, valid, and reliable?
关于研究指标的分类是否合理？是否有效？是否可靠？
9. Are the scoring, rating, and judging procedures valid and reliable?
研究中的计分、等级评定、判断过程是否都是有效的，可靠的？
10. Is the measuring apparatus (if any) accurate and reliable?
如果有测量的仪器，这些仪器是否足够准确和可靠？
11. Are the controls appropriate? Can the results be affected by variables that have not been controlled? Are the controls or control groups (if used) properly selected?
研究中的所有控制都合理吗？研究的结果是否混淆了一些没有被控制到的因素？
12. Is the research design suitable to meet the objectives of the study? Is the research design appropriate to test the hypotheses and answer the research question?
研究的设计是否能迎合研究的目的？是否能验证或辩驳研究最初的假设，是否能回答研究所要回答的问题？
13. Are the methods and procedures clearly described in sufficient detail to be understood and replicated?
对研究的方法和过程的描述是否包含了所有的细节？
14. Is the presentation sequence of test stimuli (including any randomisations or counter-balancing) appropriate?
研究过程中的刺激呈现顺序和呈现方式是否设置的合理？
15. Are the test participants properly oriented and motivated? What is their understanding of the task? Are the instructions sufficiently clear and precise?
参与研究的样本是否都表现真实？他们对于任务的理解是否与我们所假定的理解一致？所有的指导语都表述清楚了吗？
16. Are there any signs of experiment bias in the design, data collection, assessment, analysis, or reporting?
在研究过程中的任务设计、数据收集、评估、分析数据或撰写报告中，是否存在任何的主观偏见？
17. Are the participants properly selected? Is the sample representative and unbiased? Do the procedures adhere to the guidelines for the protection and well being of participants?
参与研究的样本是否选择得当？这些被试富有代表性吗？研究实施的过程中是否对每个被试的引导都一样？
18. Is the sample size appropriate? Are the appropriate procedures used to assign participants to groups, treatments, or conditions? Are suitable techniques used to establish group equivalence, such as matching, equating, or randomising?
样本的大小合适吗？不同样本之间的数量是否匹配？
19. Does participant attrition occur and if so does it bias the sample?
如果样本需要完成多个任务，前期的任务是否会对后期的任务产生干扰？
20. Are bad data properly identified and set aside (not included in the final test data set); and are instances of bad data reported and explained as such?
如果存在错误的数据，这些数据在分析前期是否被剔除在外了？
21. Have the data been appropriately analysed, sorted, categorised, grouped, prioritised etc.?
数据的整理、分析、分类、比重设置的都合适吗？
22. Are descriptive statistics used? Are these accurate?
是否采用了描述性统计？这些描述性的统计精确吗？
23. Are the inferential statistical tests appropriate? Are the assumptions for their use met? Are there any errors in the calculation or presentation of statistical results?
推断性统计是否合适？在进行推断时，数据是否满足了所有的统计前提？
24. Are all graphs correctly labelled (both the X and Y axes)? Are data elements on graphs properly coded, and identified?
所有的图表都采用了正确的标记吗？
25. Are tables and figures clearly labelled and accurately presented and referenced in the text? Are results and findings correctly interpreted, properly reported, given meaning and placed in context?
所有的表格和数据在表述时都准确吗？
26. Are recommendations unambiguous? Do recommendations follow clear usability, human factors, or ergonomics guidelines?
研究所做的建议是否清晰？这些建议符合可用性、人因素和工效学的原则吗？
27. Are recommendations supported by references to prior literature or to industry standards?
研究所做的建议是否先进于前人所做的研究结果、现有的工业标准？
28. Is the discussion section of the report reasonable in view of the data?
关于数据的讨论是否符合逻辑？
29. Are the conclusions valid and justified by the data?
研究所做的结论是否有数据作为依据，而不是主观的自以为是？
30. Are the generalizations valid?
根据研究结论所做的推理，是否合理？
31. Do references (if used) match the citations in the text?
报告中所有的引用内容与原文都一致吗？
32. Have ethical standards been adhered to in all phases of the research?
研究的过程中是否存在任何种族的特质？
33. What can be done to improve or re-design the study?
这个研究还有什么地方需要提高和改善？