Home   >   CSC-OpenAccess Library   >    Manuscript Information
Full Text Available

(513.37KB)
This is an Open Access publication published under CSC-OpenAccess Policy.
Publications from CSC-OpenAccess Library are being accessed from over 74 countries worldwide.
The Influence of Participant Personality in Usability Tests
Ali Alnashri, Obead Alhadreti, Pam J. Mayhew
Pages - 1 - 22     |    Revised - 31-05-2016     |    Published - 30-06-2016
Volume - 7   Issue - 1    |    Publication Date - June 2016  Table of Contents
MORE INFORMATION
KEYWORDS
Usability Testing, Think-aloud Protocol, Personality dimensions.
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the results of a study investigating the impact of participant personality on usability testing. Data were collected from 20 individuals who participated in a series of usability tests. The participants were grouped into 10 introverts and 10 extroverts, and were asked to complete a set of four experimental tasks related to the usability of an academic website. The results of the study revealed that extroverts were more successful than introverts in terms of finding information as well as discovering usability problems, although the types of problems found by both groups were mostly minor. It was also found that extroverts spent more time on tasks but made more mistakes than introverts. From these findings, it is evident that personality dimensions have significant impacts on usability testing outcomes, and thus should be taken into consideration as a key factor of usability testing.
1 Google Scholar 
2 CiteSeerX 
3 refSeek 
4 Scribd 
5 SlideShare 
6 PdfSR 
1 Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2005) Personality and the Internet. The social net: Human behaviour in cyberspace, pp. 27-55.
2 Andreasen, M. S., Nielsen, H. V., Schroder, S. O. and Stage, J. (2007) What happened to remote usability testing? An empirical study of three methods. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York.
3 Barendregt, W., Bekker, M. M., Bouwhuis, D. G. and Baauw, E. (2007) Predicting effectiveness of children participants in user testing based on personality characteristics. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(2), pp. 133-147.
4 Brooke, J., 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194), pp.4-7. Bevan, N. (2009) Usability. In Encyclopaedia of Database Systems. US: Springer.
5 Burnett, G. E. and Ditsikas, D. (2006) Personality as a criterion for selecting usability testing participants. In proceedings of IEEE 4th International conference on Information and Communications Technologies, Cairo, Egypt.
6 Capretz, L. F. (2003) Personality types in software engineering. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(2), pp. 207-214.
7 Cheng, Y., Horwitz, E. and Schallert, D. (1999) Language anxiety: differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49, pp. 417-446.
8 Choudhury, A., Sanjog, J., Reddy, S. and Karmakar, S. (2012) Nanomaterials in the field of design ergonomics: present status. Ergonomics, 55(12), pp. 1453-1462.
9 Clemmensen, T., Hertzum, M., Hornbæk, K., Shi, Q. and Yammiyavar, P., 2008. Cultural cognition in the thinking-aloud method for usability evaluation. Icis 2008 Proceedings, p.189.
10 Cockton, G. and Woolrych, A. (2001) Understanding inspection methods: lessons from an assessment of heuristic evaluation. In People and Computers XV—Interaction without Frontiers, pp. 171-191.
11 Dumas, J. and Redish, J. (1993) A practical guide to usability testing. Norwood. NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.
12 Eysenck, H. J. (1992) Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, pp. 667-673.
13 Eysenck, H. J. (2004) Psychology: An International Perspective. London: Taylor & Francis.
14 Faulkner, L. (2003) Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(3), pp. 379-383.
15 Faulkner, X. (2000) Usability engineering. Houndsmills, Hampshire: Palgrave.
16 George, C. (2008) User-Centred Library Websites: Usability Evaluation Methods. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
17 Hertzum, M., Hansen, K. D. and Andersen, H. H. (2009) Scrutinising usability evaluation: does thinking aloud affect behaviour and mental workload? Behaviour& Information Technology, 28(2), pp. 165-181.
18 Holzinger, A. (2005) Usability engineering methods for software developers. Communications of the ACM, 48(1), pp. 7174.
19 Hornbæk, K., 2010. Dogmas in the assessment of usability evaluation methods. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(1), pp.97-111.
20 ISO/IEC. 9241-14 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT)s - Part 14 Menu dialogues, ISO/IEC 9241-14: 1998 (E), 1998.
21 Jordan, P. (1998) An introduction to usability. London: Tayler & Francis.
22 Kallio, T. and Kaikkonen, A. (2005) Usability testing of mobile applications: A comparison between laboratory and field testing. Journal of Usability studies, 1(4-16), pp. 23-28.
23 Kitchenham, S. L. and Pfleeger, B.A. (2002) Principles of Survey Research. US: John Wiley & Sons.
24 Kjeldskov J., Skov M. B., Als B. S. and Høegh R. T. (2004) Is it Worth the Hassle? Exploring the Added Value of Evaluating the Usability of Context-Aware Mobile Systems in the Field. In Proceedings Mobile H CI 2004 conference, Glasgow, UK. Springer- Verlag, 2004, pp. 61-73.
25 Lazar, J. and Preece, J., 2002. Social considerations in online communities: Usability, sociability, and success factors. na.
26 Lindgaard, G. and Chattratichart, J. (2007) Usability testing: What have we overlooked? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press.
27 Lorr, M., 1991. An empirical evaluation of the MBTI typology. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(11), pp.1141-1145.
28 Matera, M., Rizzo, F. and Carughi, G. T. (2006) Web usability: Principles and evaluation methods. Web engineering, pp. 143-180.
29 Molich, R., Thomsen, A. D., Karyukina, B., Schmidt, L., Ede, M., Van Oel, W. and Arcuri, M. (1999) Comparative evaluation of usability tests. In CHI' 99 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 83-84, ACM.
30 Nielsen, J. (1994) Usability Engineering. London: Morgan Kaufmann.
31 Nielsen, J., Clemmensen, T. and Yssing, C. (2002) Getting access to what goes on in people’s heads? Re?ections on the think-aloud technique. In Proceedings of the second Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction, pp. 101-110.
32 Nielsen, J. and Phillips, V.L., 1993, May. Estimating the relative usability of two interfaces: heuristic, formal, and empirical methods compared. In Proceedings of the INTERACT'93 and CHI'93 conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 214-221). ACM.
33 Prümper, J., Frese, M., Zapf, D. and Brodbeck, F.C., 1991. Errors in computerized office work: differences between novice and expert users. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 23(2), pp.63-66.
34 Rutherford, R. (2001) Using personality inventories to help form teams for software engineering class projects. In Proceedings of the 6th annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, pp. 73-76, 2001.
35 Sonderegger, A., Schmutz, S. and Sauer, J., 2016. The influence of age in usability testing. Applied Ergonomics, 52, pp.291-300.
36 Spool, J. and Schroeder, W. (2001) Testing web sites: Five users is nowhere near enough. In CHI' 01 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 285-286, ACM.
37 Sternberg, R. J., Roediger, H. L. and Halpern, D. F. (2007) Critical Thinking in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38 Taylor, J. (1998) Using asynchronous computer-conferencing to encourage interaction in seminar discussions. In The Digital University, pp. 219-232.
39 Virzi, R. A. (1992) Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: how many subjects is enough? Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 34(4), pp. 457-468.
40 Whitehead, C. C. (2006) Evaluating web page and web site usability. In Proceedings of the 44th annual Southeast regional conference, pp. 788-789.
41 Wixon, D. (2003) Evaluating usability methods: why the current literature fails the practitioner. Interactions, 10(4), pp. 28-34.
Mr. Ali Alnashri
School of Computing Sciences, University of East Anglia - United Kingdom
aalnashri@tvtc.gov.sa
Mr. Obead Alhadreti
School of Computing Sciences, University of East Anglia - United Kingdom
Dr. Pam J. Mayhew
School of Computing Sciences, University of East Anglia - United Kingdom