尼尔森可用性量表
只是想知道是否有人知道网络管理员可以对测试组进行可用性测试的标准调查（最好是基于 Jacob Nielson 的可用性工作）？
我可以自己编造，但我觉得必须对我应该要求的任务的判断进行一些扎实的研究。
例如
Q:: 要求用户查找个人资料页面 难道我... A.) 在每个问题后向他们展示标准李克特量表 B.) 在所有问题之后向他们展示类似的内容
.. 那么这个 Likert 应该是什么，我知道尼尔森的可用性判断量表是基于可学习性、使用效率、记忆性、错误率、满意度，但我只能想象我会设计一个可以有效衡量满意度的 Likert...我怎么想要求用户在使用一次网站后按 1-5 级对网站的记忆力进行排名？肯定有人想出了一个提出问题的好方法吗？
Just wondering if anyone out there knows of a standard survey (preferably based off Jacob Nielson's work on usability) that web admin's can administer to test groups for usability?
I could just make up my own but I feel there as got to be some solid research out there on the sort of judgments on tasks I should be asking.
For example
Q:: Ask user to find profile page
Do I ...
A.) Present them with standard likert scale after each question
B.) Present them the likert after all the questions
..
Then what should that likert be, I know Nielson's usability judgments scale is based on Learnability, Efficiency of Use, Memorability, Error Rate, Satisfaction but I can only imagine a likert I would design that would effectively measure satisfaction...how am I suppose to ask a user to rank the Memorability of a site after one use on a 1-5 scale? Surely someone has devised a good way to pose the question?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（2）
简短易懂的系统可用性量表 (SUS) 已由 Tullis 和 Stetson (2004) 在心理测量上优于其他主观量表包括著名的 QUIS。大多数 SUS 项目似乎与可学习性或可记忆性有关，还有一些与效率有关。然而，我不会尝试将其分解为子量表；所有项目都高度相关，表明该量表衡量的是单一的基础结构。
我怀疑你能否得到一个秤来分别测量尼尔森的每个维度。用户可以告诉您产品是否“难以”使用，但对他们来说进一步分解它要困难得多。他们知道做某事需要付出很多努力，但是否是因为他们找不到更简单的方法（可学习性）？或者也许他们在之前的任务中学到了更好的方法，但忘记了（记忆力）？或者这就是它必须的方式（效率）？用户不会有足够的信息来进行区分。
如果您对尼尔森的每个维度特别感兴趣，请分别直接评估它们。您可以通过记录错误数量或点击之间的时间，以及精确地通过用户学习规范交互序列所需的尝试次数来粗略地衡量可学习性。为了提高效率，在训练用户执行规范的交互序列后，记录他们完成该操作所需的时间。您还可以使用 GOMS-KLM 之类的工具进行分析，得到非常好的答案。为了便于记忆，请在一周左右后将相同的用户带入，并将他们的表现与效率测量试验的表现进行比较。
与几乎所有主观量表一样，SUS 主要用于比较不同产品的整体主观体验。如果没有可比较的东西，很难知道从单个分数中得出什么结论。这些量表不会告诉您产品有哪些具体问题或为什么会出现这些问题（例如，帮助您确定改进措施）。为此，最好对测试参与者进行定性观察和汇报。
The short and easy System Usability Scale (SUS) has been found by Tullis and Stetson (2004) to psychometrically outperform other subjective scales including the renowned QUIS. Most SUS items seem related to learnability or memorability, along with a couple for efficiency. However, I wouldn’t try to break it into subscales; all items are highly intercorrelated suggesting this scale measures a single underlying construct.
I would doubt you can get a scale to measure each of Nielsen’s dimensions separately. A user can tell you if a product is “hard” to use, but it’s much more difficult for them to break it down further. They know it took a lot of work to do something, but was it because they couldn’t figure out an easier way (learnability)? Or maybe they had learned a better way on a previous task, but forgot it (memorability)? Or is that just the way it has to be (efficiency)? Users are not going to have sufficient information to make the distinction.
If you are specifically interested in each of Nielsen’s dimensions separately, then assess them separately and directly. You can measure learnability crudely through recording the number of errors or time between clicks, and precisely by how many trials it takes for users to learn the normative interaction sequence. For efficiency, after you train users to do the normative interaction sequence, record how long it takes them to do it. You can also get a pretty good answer analytically using something like GOMS-KLM. For memorability, bring the same users in a week or so later and compare their performance to that of the efficiency-measuring trial.
Like nearly all subjective scales, the SUS is primarily useful for comparing the overall subjective experience of different products. It’s hard to know what to make out of a single score without something to compare it to. These scales won’t tell what specific problems a product has or why it has them (e.g., to help you determine improvements). For that, qualitative observation and debriefing your test participants is best.
一些建议：
不要仅通过倾听用户的意见并等待他们的反馈来确定您的标准。尼尔森表示，可用性的第一条规则是“不要听取用户的意见”；更重要的是观看它们工作。
这里是关于制定 Likert 问卷的常见问题解答。如果您要在每项任务之后向用户询问一系列问题，那么我会宁可简单明了。您正在考虑的两种选择都有优点和缺点。如果您让用户等到完成所有任务后再填写调查，他们在适应学习曲线时可能不会记得界面最初的困难。另一方面，如果您在每项任务后向他们提问，他们可能会在接近任务列表末尾时开始匆忙完成调查问卷。根据您有多少任务，一个额外的选项可能是让用户在每完成几个任务后填写一份调查。
马里兰大学人机交互实验室维护着一个用户交互满意度调查问卷 ，现已可供下载，目前版本为 7.0。您也许可以使用他们的调查，或者至少根据您的需要进行定制。
A few recommendations:
Don't determine your standard exclusively by listening to the users and waiting for their feedback. Nielsen says that rule #1 in usability is "Don't listen to users"; it's more important to watch them work.
Here is an FAQ regarding development of Likert questionnaires. I would err on the side of simplicity and brevity if you are going to ask users a list of questions after every task. There are advantages and disadvantages to both of the options you are considering. If you make a user wait until they have finished all of their tasks before they fill out a survey, they may not remember their initial difficulties with the interface as they adjust to its learning curve. On the other hand, if you ask them questions after each task, they may start rushing through the questionnaire as they get toward the end of the list of tasks. An extra option, depending on how many tasks you have, may be to have the user fill out a survey after every several tasks.
The University of Maryland HCI Laboratory maintains a Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction, which is available for download and now on version 7.0. You may be able to use their survey, or at least tailor it for your use.