Calendar

May 20

CTS 2013 - The 2013 Intl. Conf. on Collaboration Techn. and Systems

May 22

Knowing (by) Designing 2013

May 27

13th Intl. Conf. on New Interfaces for Musical Expression

May 19

“ Design can be art. Design can be aesthetics. Design is so simple, that's why it is so complicated. ”

-- Paul Rand, 1997

Share this quote on...
Get more quotes via RSS or by joining our Usability Quote of the Day Facebook Page

Featured chapter

Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann

Read Steve's chapter !

Help us help you!

Spread the word:
Donate
Other ways to help

Victoria A. Bowers

Add description

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Rename / change spelling

Add publication

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Publications by Victoria A. Bowers (bibliography)

1990

Edit | Del

Bowers, Victoria A. and Snyder, Harry L. (1990): Concurrent versus Retrospective Verbal Protocol for Comparing Window Usability. In: D., Woods, and E., Roth, (eds.) Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting 1990, Santa Monica, USA. pp. 1270-1274.

“A traditional concurrent verbal protocol method was compared to a heavily cued retrospective verbal protocol in which users were presented with a video tape of their performance to help them recall their thoughts after task completion. The two methods of protocol were employed in a comparison of two different size monitors. Subjects were required to complete 12 tasks which varied in the number of windows required simultaneously on the monitor. The subjects' performance, as measured by steps to completion, task completion time, and errors committed, was compared across monitors and protocol methods. Subjective data were also collected in the form of task difficulty ratings, as well as a global measure of user satisfaction. Verbal data were compared to assess any information differences due to the methods of collection or the monitor sizes. No performance or subjective differences were found between the two protocol methods. The kinds of information gathered were quite different for the two methods, with concurrent protocol subjects giving procedural information and retrospective protocol subjects giving explanations and design statements. Performance data, as well as subjective data, indicated that on tasks that require that one or two windows be present simultaneously, there were no differences between the two monitor sizes. As the number of simultaneous windows increased, however, the large monitor's advantages became apparent. Tasks which require that four windows be present simultaneously were judged to be easier and required fewer steps on the large monitor than on the small monitor.”

Add publication