A packet-based, hierarchical communication system, arranged in a spanning tree configuration, is described in which wired and wireless communication networks exhibiting substantially different characteristics are employed in an overall scheme to link portable or mobile computing devices. The network accommodates real time voice transmission both through dedicated, scheduled bandwidth and through a packet-based routing within the confines and constraints of a data network. Conversion and call processing circuitry is also disclosed which enables access devices and personal computers to adapt voice information between analog voice stream and digital voice packet formats as proves necessary. Routing pathways include wireless spanning tree networks, wide area networks, telephone switching networks, internet, etc., in a manner virtually transparent to the user. A voice session and associate call setup simulates that of conventional telephone switching network, providing well-understood functionality common to any mobile, remote or stationary terminal, phone, computer, etc.

Hierarchical Data Collection Network Supporting Packetized Voice Communications Among Wireless Terminals and Telephones

The idea of conducting usability tests remotely emerged ten years ago. Since then, it has been studied empirically, and some software organizations employ remote methods. Yet there are still few comparisons involving more than one remote method. This paper presents results from a systematic empirical comparison of three methods for remote usability testing and a conventional laboratory-based think-aloud method. The three remote methods are a remote synchronous condition, where testing is conducted in real time but the test monitor is separated spatially from the test subjects, and two remote asynchronous conditions, where the test monitor and the test subjects are separated both spatially and temporally. The results show that the remote synchronous method is virtually equivalent to the conventional method. Thereby, it has the potential to conveniently involve broader user groups in usability testing and support new development approaches. The asynchronous methods are considerably more time-consuming for the test subjects and identify fewer usability problems, yet they may still be worthwhile.

What happened to remote usability testing?: an empirical study of three methods

Human-computer interaction: interdisciplinary roots and trends

When designing a usability evaluation, choices must be made regarding methods and techniques for data collection and analysis. Mobile guides raise new concerns and challenges to established usability evaluation approaches. Not only are they typically closely related to objects and activities in the user's immediate surroundings, they are often used while the user is ambulating. This paper presents results from an extensive, multi-method evaluation of a mobile guide designed to support the use of public transport in Melbourne, Australia. In evaluating the guide, we applied four different techniques; field-evaluation, laboratory evaluation, heuristic walkthrough and rapid reflection. This paper describes these four approaches and their respective outcomes, and discusses their relative strengths and weaknesses for evaluating the usability of mobile guides.

/pdf/evaluating-the-usability-of-a-mobile-guide-the-influence-of-2127t9k3bn.pdf

Evaluating the usability of a mobile guide: the influence of location, participants and resources

This paper presents the results of two studies comparing traditional lab-based usability testing and remote Webbased usability testing of Web sites. Two sites were tested: an employee benefits site and a financial information site. The remote tests used an automated technique whereby the users participated from their normal work locations using their normal browser, and there was no real-time observation. Tasks were presented to the user in a small browser window at the top of the screen that was also used to capture their input. Results showed high correlations between lab and remote tests for the task completion data and the task time data. Subjective ratings of the sites did not correlate as well. The most critical usability issues with the sites were identified by both techniques, although each technique also uniquely uncovered other issues. In general, the results indicate that both the lab and remote tests capture very similar information about the usability of a site. Each type of test appears to offer its own advantages and disadvantages in terms of the usability issues it can uncover.

/pdf/an-empirical-comparison-of-lab-and-remote-usability-testing-5907ocnpto.pdf

An Empirical Comparison of Lab and Remote Usability Testing of Web Sites

Imagine being able to collect data lie static and full motion screen images, user video, and user comments , through your computer. Think about observing from your office or lab as an evaluation participant worked in their own o&e. What if you could sample from an intercity, interregional, or international user base without having to leave your office or lab? Thanks to recent developments in the areas of information sharing and collabora-tive work tools, each of these objectives is now attainable Usability evaluators can now view computer networks and modem connections as frameworks upon which distributed usability labs can be constructed, and all network or modem accessible machines as potential windows into remote test sites. These remote test sites can range from a machine down the hall to one on the other side of the world. The technological building blocks needed to create remote testing facilities are now available, in varying degrees, on all major computing platforms (i.e., Unix, MS Windows, Macintosh, OS/2). With computer-to-computer video conferencing tools product development teams can now both see and listen to evaluation participants sitting in front of properly equipped computers anywhere in the world. They can observe evaluation participants as they examine and annotate screen shots or g documentation using shared whiteboard tools. Observers can also watch full motion images of f the participant's screen from remote locations H g as participants use their products. By mixing p and matching these technological building i blocks, usability specialists can conduct a myri-ad of usability engineering activities remotely.

Remote usability testing

An improved telephone interface box which interfaces an incoming telephone line to either a modem or a telephone handset is disclosed. The choice of connection is made by a controller that answers incoming calls and determines if the call is to be directed to the modem or the telephone line. The controller determines the destination of the incoming call by detecting tones on the telephone line or by examining the response of the caller to a voice prompt. If the controller determines that the incoming call is to be directed to the telephone handset, the controller generates a ring signal having substantially the same cadence as that detected on the incoming line and sends that ring signal to the telephone handset. If the handset goes off-hook during the time the controller is making its determination as to the correct destination for the incoming call, the controller suspends its operation until the handset is placed on-hook or a predetermined time interval elapses. The controller also allows the handset to assert priority over an existing connection by rapidly depressing the off-hook switch on the handset.

FAX-telephone interface circuit

At the CHI '94 Workshop: "Analyzing and Communicating Usability Data", usability researchers and practitioners gathered to discuss how usability data should be collected, analyzed, and communicated to help ensure the design and development of usable products. This workshop was motivated by the challenges CHI practitioners have encountered in analyzing and communicating data despite the widespread availability of a variety of usability tools. Workshop activities included brief presentations, small group discussions, and rating exercises that involved evaluating analysis and communication techniques discussed during the workshop. Some of the questions addressed during the workshop included: what makes analysis and communication techniques effective, what are the advantages and disadvantages of team involvement in data gathering, analysis, and communication, and what is the best way to use video? Most participants believed involving design teams in data gathering as well as analysis, observing users in real time, developing the negotiation and social skills of usability practitioners, and the use of narrative as a representation of user-artifact interaction were all valuable approaches to the design and development of usable products. This article describes the activities and findings of the workshop participants in more detail.

Analyzing and communicating usability data: now that you have the data what do you do? a CHI'94 workshop

INTRODUCTION Significant work is taking place in deriving new methods for providing user feedback during the product development lifecycle. The bulk of this work is focused on cost effective “discount” data collection techniques [1]. Besides discount methods, there has been debate about the advantages of ethnomethodologies over purely experimental laboratory techniques in conducting user research [2]. Usability professionals are becoming more adept at collecting data using some of the newer techniques, but it is questionable whether such data is analyzed and communicated in an optimal manner. The process of determining how to convert the collected data into scheduled design and implementation solutions has been described as essentially one of negotiation [3].

Nandini P. Nayak

Papers

Remote usability testing

FAX-telephone interface circuit

Analyzing and communicating usability data: now that you have the data what do you do? a CHI'94 workshop

Analyzing and communication usability data: now that you has the data what do you do?