New Interface From Mozilla - Essay Example

Heuristic Evaluation: New Interface from Mozilla Heuristic Design New Interface from Mozilla The design of the alternative interface User interface design deals with design of computer related applications, software, and websites that enhance interfaces for user experience and interaction. The objective of this design is making the interaction of the user with the Mozilla software as efficient and uncluttered as possible. It focuses on achieving users goals and thus adopts a design that is user centered (Trenner and Bawa, 1998). The alternative interface should have different incorporation. This is to attract new range of customers through the wide range of services leaded from the new interface. First of all, the interface should ensure that all key characteristics are among the inclusions in the design. These are the ten principles of interface design. This is in reference to discussions in “Hierarchical Task Analysis,” by Shepherd. There are ten key principles for the design of a user interface. Heuristics refers to these principles because of their nature in reference to usability guidelines. Below is a list of these general principles (Buxton, 2007). 1. Visibility of system status – system should always keep all users updated in reference to the current issues, via the appropriate feedback mechanism within a reasonable time. 2. The system should match with the real world – the system should use terminologies, concepts, and phrases familiar to the user. 3. User freedom and control – the system’s design should facilitate emergency exit, without having to go through the extended dialogue. 4. Standards and consistency – the user should not mind whether the actions, situations, and words means the same thing. 5. Prevention of errors – the system should have the capability to eliminate channels prone to errors. 6. Recognition rather than recalling – the designer does not require the user to remember information in different sections of the dialogue. The instructions should also be visible enough for easy comprehension. 7. Efficiency and flexibility of use- the system should give users an allowance to tailor frequent actions. 8. Minimalist and aesthetic design – dialogues should avoid unnecessary information. All units of information compete for relevant units of information in dialogues, as the relative visibility diminishes. 9. Help users diagnose, recognize and recover from misrepresentations – all error messages should be in unambiguous language. 10. Help and documentation – the system is useable without documentation, but is always advisable to avail help and documentation. The following is an illustration of the appearance of the design. It includes implementation of the information above. It should provide the user with different applications which enables them access sufficient information. One of the characteristics of the new interface is it enhances sharing of data; the book by the name “Hierarchical Task Analysis” has further illustrations. This capability should have no limits as it will ensure the promotion all over the world. User will feel changes as the limitation of the current interface are solved in the new interface. This capability will be impacted by an account so that; senders can always drop the data for the receivers to download at their own disposal (Shneiderman, 1998). The interface should have the capabilities of analyzing weather changes. This is because areas like California suffer highly depending on daily activities, which rely on weather; this is in reference to, Human Computer Interaction. The interface should perform this task by automatically, detecting location through time zones (Buxton, 2007). The interface should incorporate gaming. The book by the name” Designing the User Interfaces,” gives examples of other inclusions in the same line. This is to ensure it occupies the extra time for users. Gaming will also be a mechanism for raising funds to support the site. Other inclusions are shopping, where fraudulent individuals are dealt with by the law. The new interface should be remarkably easy for common users with basic computer skills. This is to cater for continents such as Africa and other developing worlds. The interface should not be biased in reference to locations; this is a characteristic that is in the current interface. The characteristic discourages potential users’ thus baring income from such individuals (Shneiderman, 1998). A hand cursor enables one to manipulate data in the browser. This will be a new inclusion in the alternative interface, thus attracting new users. This will impact on attracting users who like dynamism. The interface should also facilitate user to use fingers to manipulate commands. This will ensure that users meet their target within a shorter time that before. This is a characteristic domination in the android technology; detailed illustration is in “Hierarchical Task Analysis”. The interface should also borrow information from such technologies (Serengul, 2006). Bellow is an illustration of the applications that the design should incorporate. The alternative interface should allow users to share environment experience directly, by selecting the condition that corresponds to their environment. This will ease users’ activities and at the same time winning users’ from competitions. The inclusion will also embank on connecting people through free online calls, messaging, and other communication technologies. It should also have the capability of buying presents, where friends just pick them up after a notification from the interface. With this e will build on meeting the demands on the new generation. Books such as “Usability Engineering,” will open new ideas for new designers to perfect he interface. The following is an illustration of touch screen device interface that allows user to manipulate information from different sources. Key inclusions of the new interface The alternative interface should encompass different utilities such as shopping online, inclusions such as price comparison engines, social networking engines among others. Enhancement of flexibility should be a vital consideration; this is to meet different demands of customers. Below is a discussion of these enhancements that should be incorporated during the process of design (Serengul, 2006). Shopping online The interface should incorporate programs that will boost online markets. This will facilitate the purchase of various commodities at customers’ convenience. The interface should eliminate chances of misrepresentations which include computer frauds. It should use complicated coding to prevent hackers from accessing sites through the interface. Frequent site update is a strategy that is currently used to enhance site security. The program should entail a wide range of products, both goods and services. This is a characteristic that will invite different potential buyers and sellers. The site should be easily accessible from all corners of the world (Shepherd, 2001). Fixing of prices should be a role controlled by the interface holders. This is to avoid customer exploitation as well as preventing unhealthy competition, which may result in loss of customers. The interface should also encourage promotion, advertisement, and offer assistance to the customers regarding various goods in the market. The interface should incorporate price comparison engines that will enable the customer to compare and select the most favorable price in the market. The design should provide variety of commodities that are available in the market. The following is an illustration of different types of shoes offers by a particular seller. Flexibility The alternative interface should be flexible to accommodate different inclusions. This is a strategy that will boost its marketability in the global environment. It should be flexible enough to ensure that it can be changed with time depending on various weaknesses that might be detected later. It should be compatible with different sites on the internet (Shepherd, 2001). Social network connections The interface should allow connection to various social networking sites like twitter and facebook. Connection to these sites will ensure that many people will find information on the variety of goods offered. The users should have the authority of to control access to these sites. However, it should ensure that relevant security problems are addressed to avoid other people accessing a user’s profile (Nielsen and Mark, 1994). Evaluation Heuristic evaluation is a usability engineering methodology, which used in finding the usability problems relating to user interface designs. This facilitates attention as part of the iterative design process. It entails considering a small set of analysis and evaluations to examine the judgment and interface compliance with acceptable usability principles. In general, it is a difficult undertaking for a single individual, since it is impossible for one person to identify all possible problems in an interface. From this, it is evident that this is a process that requires an association of ideas from different evaluators so as to meet the target. Experience from different projects shows that, different individuals have the capability to identify different problems, thus impacting on its effectiveness (Bill, 2007). The diagram below shows a design where 19 evaluators are to identify 16 usability problems. This was in a voice response, therefore, allowing Mozilla customers to have to their interests looked at. Every blank square in the diagram below represents a one problem identified each evaluator, which will in turn give Mozilla a new face. It is evident that there are extremely low chances of overlapping between set of issues that elevators identify. From this, we can strongly add weight to the previous statement by stating that, usability problems are so many, thus found by everyone in the evaluation team. From the evaluation, it is also evident that some problems, which exist are, identifiable only are some individuals. However, after the identification of the problem, it is not advisable to rely on findings made by one person. It is also essential to know that, the person who identified the problem is the best person to identify the subsequent issues relating to the problem. Chief evaluators should also bear in mind that individuals who hardly identify problems are the one who identifies complex problems. This is the reason behind involving many individuals in heuristic evaluations. The recommend number is between four and five as supremely large numbers may turn out of control (Bill, 2007). The illustration above shows which evaluator found a certain usability problem in the heuristic evaluation of the issue. The rows show the 19 participants, while the columns represent the 16 identified interface problems. The squares represent the evaluators’ performance in reference to the found usability problems. The black squares indicate the problems identified by the evaluators, while the white ones shows that the evaluator did not identify the problem. The rows have an arrangement where the most successful evaluators re at the bottom while the least successful are at the top. Elevators arrange the problems systematically, whereby the most difficult issues are on the far left while basic problem are on the right (Annett and Stanton, 2000). Each elevator should conduct the assignment individually to enhance the design of the Mozilla interface. Communication should only be allowed after completion of evaluation of all interfaces, hence creating a basis for findings aggregation. This is a strategy that ensures unbiased and independent evaluations from all evaluators. After this activity, the designer will collect information and analyze a report, in preparation for the next step. The evaluators will have a chance to explain their views and suggestions in relation to their findings. This will also be accompanied by an explanation, supporting the identified problems. The discussion should allow comments and questions from other evaluators; this will enhance comprehension of the problem. Evaluations in a written format have advantages such as suit for formal presentation (Trenner and Bawa, 1998). However, reports demand extra effort from the evaluators and require aggregations as well as reading by all stakeholders of the projects. This organization, adds the overheads, but in return enhances presentation of the output. The results are also readily available after the last task. Observers will also have to organize and understand one set of personal notes. They will also help the evaluators in the process of operating the interface, in case problems arise. Common problems, which call for, external assistance includes unstable prototype. Solutions to such issues include reducing the evaluators’ domain expertise, and the significance of acquiring certain traits of the interface (Buxton, 2007). The above illustration shows the relationship between the number of individuals identifying interface problems, and the individual problems. The diagram above shows the relationship between cost benefits and the number of evaluators. This relationship shows that the cost of implementing a new interface should be economical. In the testing processes, the observer has the responsibility of interpreting users’ actions. This will facilitate the process of inferring the relationship between these actions and the usability action in the design of the interface. It facilitates testing, even if the user does not have any knowledge or skill relating to interface design. However, the evaluator places the testing recommendation so that to enhance the analysis of the user interface. In most cases, the observers have a responsibility of recording the evaluator’s comments, but not to0 interpret the actions of the evaluator (Dix, Finlay, Abowd, and Beale, 2003). There are two principal differences between traditional user testing and the heuristic evaluation. These include the willingness and the attitude of the observer to answer the evaluator’s questions, as well as other coordination aspects of the two parties. Traditionally, observers aimed at identifying the errors made by the evaluators, in the process of handling the interface. This brought up a spirit that led to an unstable mind on the part of the evaluator. In the modern evaluation, we always encourage to get answers for the experiment, other than bothering the evaluator. This is because disruptions kill consistency on the part of the evaluator. There are campaigns trying to change the procedures in heuristic evaluations. In heuristic evaluation of a system application, it is inappropriate to decline questions from evaluators. This is in instances where non-domain experts are working as evaluators. This will also give them better access of the usability of the interface, than if the elevators do not allow the questions. These hints will also save precious evaluation time as they will complete the task within short time duration. It is crucial to note that, evaluators should not have plenty of time as this will not impact directly with the identification of interface problems (Annett and Stanton, 2000). On an average basis, a heuristic evaluation session last for around two to two and half hours. However, this is not always applicable in large, complicated interfaces as they have a substantial number of dialogue elements. However, it is advisable to split the evaluation sessions, so that each person can concentrate on each section (Buxton, 2007). This paper provides the necessary techniques for necessary to solve problems, discover, and learn. In cases where exhaustive search is not practical, users adopt various heuristic methods to speed up the appropriate method of speeding up the process of emerging with a satisfactory solution. Heuristics in engineering provides the basis of solving process design problems which vary from operating conditions to the size of the equipment. Engineers adopt various methods to come up with appropriate solutions to these problems. Design of the above interface clearly identifies this role of engineers to come up with solutions to the burning problems to the users. This usability engineering methodology is particularly vital to the users since it comes up with solutions to various problems that relate to user interface designs. It considers analysis and evaluation that is necessary to analyze judgment and interface compliance with usability principles that are acceptable. It is exceptionally difficult for one to identify the possible problems that arise in the interface and thus the process requires ideas from different elevators to identify problems. Experience that users gather from various projects has reflected that different individuals have the ability to identify different problems. When different people analyze the problems of the heuristic approaches adopted, they will identify all the problems and its corrections leads to the effectiveness of the interface (Nielsen and Mark, 1994). References Annett, J and Stanton, V A, eds, 2000. Task Analysis. London: Taylor & Francis Bill M. 2007. Designing Interactions Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press. Buxton, B. 2007. Sketching User Experiences : Getting the Design Right and the Right Design , London, Morgan Kaufmann Dix, A. Finlay, J. Abowd, G. and Beale, R. 2003. Human Computer Interaction (3rd. ed.), London: Prentice Hall Faulkner, X. 2000. Usability Engineering, London, Macmillan Press. Nielsen, J and Mark, R. 1994. Usability Inspection Methods, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Serengul, S. 2006. Human Computer Interaction, London: Middlesex University Press. Shepherd, A. 2001. Hierarchical Task Analysis, London: Taylor & Francis. Shneiderman, B. 1998. Designing the User Interfaces, (3rd ed), Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley Longman Inc. Trenner, L. and Bawa, J. 1998. The Politics of Usability, London: Springer Verlag. Read More