Stoneking_Usability Test Analysis Memo_1.2

8/2/2019 Stoneking_Usability Test Analysis Memo_1.2

1/4

MEMORANDUM

TO: Myers, Instructor

FROM: Stacey Stoneking, Student

DATE: January 24, 2012

SUBJECT: English 305: Technical Writing, Usability Test Evaluation

INTRODUCTION:

Below you will find my notes on my usability test document evaluation. I have divided my notes into rhetorical analysis,

usability analysis, conclusions and recommendations. I will evaluate my work in the areas of audience, purpose, context,

content, organization, design, and ethical, legal, and cultural considerations. My claims are backed up by consistent

survey answers, quotes, and references to the documents. The contents of this document represent reader-based opinions,

both positive and negative, that will lead to the revision of the initial instruction set. Problematic areas in content,

organization and design will be reviewed and suggestions for improvement will be given. The revision of these areas will

increase the usability of the document and reader satisfaction.

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS:

Audience:

The audience for the created instruction set would be individuals ages 12+ that enjoy strategic computer/card games. The

audience is limited to individuals with access to the Apple App Store and an Apple Macbook computer, iPhone, or iPod

Touch. My sample size of three individuals does not adequately reflect the entirety of the intended audience, however,

they are individuals that would fit within anticipated users.

Purpose:

The purpose of the instruction set was to educate readers on how to download and play Two Towers. The document

coincides with the previously written, technical description, which contains detailed information on the components of the

game in order to breakdown individual areas of the game and make the instruction set more comprehensive. The AppleApp Store does not give instructions, and the actual game instructions are minimalistic. The instruction set that I have

created is more inclusive and located in a designated location that would be easy to access by the audience.

Context:

The document would be most readily applicable to any individual that showed interest in the game. A website was chosen

for ease of access for readers due to the fact that the game itself, is a computer game. A simple Google search could

display the website and give the reader the information required to download and/or how to play. The document was made

so that a beginner would be able to understand.

Applicability:

To aide with possible questions, the instructions were accompanied by photographs for nearly every step to guide thereader visually through the process of downloading and playing. The addition of a what you will need section allowed

the reader to predetermine if the instruction set could be accomplished readily or if preparation was required.

USABILITY ANALYSIS:

Testers:


2/4

Benjamin Myers 2 January 24, 2012

Three Testers were selected to take the usability test. The Testers were explained what the document was about that they

would be evaluating, and accepted to take the test. During the Pre-test questions, the Testers were evaluated to see if their

answers would be affected by their experience or mood.

Mood

Pre-test Question 1, on a scale from -3 to +3, ranging from Bad to Good, Testers A and B both chose +2. Tester C

chose -1. The answers indicated that the moods of the Testers did not change after reading the document and

completing the survey (Post-Test Question 1).Experience/Interest with Card Games

For experience/interest with card games (Pretest Questions 2 and 3), Tester A, B, and C marked that they had

some experience with card games and were interested in them.Confidence

The Testers indicated in Question 1 of the Learnability section that they felt prepared enough to play and

understand Two Towers. The multiple-choice question asked How confident do you feel that you would be able

to play and understand Two Towers? Tester A and C selected Confident, stating that they had previous

experience with similar games. Tester B chose Very Confident stating the website explains the components of

the game very well.

Content:

Gameplay Sample Video

The most notable evidence received concerned the Gameplay Sample video. In Question 4 of the Efficiency

section, on a scale from -3 to +3, ranging from Boring to Engaging, Tester A ranked the video at +2. Tester 2

marked it at +2, but added the comment Useful, but not overly interesting. Tester B referred to the video later

saying that it was very useful to see the game in action and that it was a great addition. Tester C ranked it +1.

The video selection for this game is extremely limited. There is a possibility of changing it, but it may simply be

removed. Due to the varying answers concerning the video, specific decisions have not yet been made.

Notices/Warnings

The notices and warnings may not be noticeable by every reader. While Testers A and B indicated (in Question 2of the Efficiency section) that "the notices/warnings were depicted in ways that caughtattention, Tester C

disagreed and stated that they were not, and suggested making them bold and red. Red is typically understood

as a cautionary color, therefore, her advice was accepted and the color changed to ensure readers are aware of thenotices/warnings.

Images

The images received different feedback in the areas of content and organization. All Testers answered True for

question 4 of the Learnability section, which states, the images used aided the learning experience. For this

question, Testers were provided a space to comment if they answered False. Testers A, B, and C also gave

positive answers for Question 1 of the Efficiency section, ranking the images in the Game Components section

at a +3 from a scale of -3 (Not Helpful) to +3 (Helpful).

Organization:

Images

The images for the document are placed on the right-hand side of the correlating step. This has raised issues andinconsistent feedback. However, this may also have been due to the poor wording of Question 3 in the Efficiency

section, which asks In the How to Download section, how would you describe the images: Helpful, Distracting

Misleading, Other. The options in this multiple-choice question were not evenly distributed, even though theOther option was added. Testers may not have had a desire to explain how they felt about the images. The

question also did not specify the context in which they were evaluating the images. Tester A and B answered

Helpful, however, Tester C found the images Distracting. This may be due to the previously mentioned

question issues or it may be due to reader preference. This area will be reviewed and modifications may be made,

however, concrete decisions have not yet been made on how best to remedy this issue.

Overall


3/4


Question 1 of the Satisfaction section asks, Overall, how would you rate your satisfaction with the document

and gives a scale ranging from -3 (Unsatisfactory) to +3 (Satisfactory). All testers appeared to answer favorably.

Tester A answered +2 commenting that the document was well organized. Tester B answered +3 stating,

Everything was easy to find and understand. Tester C answered +2 stating that the document was user

friendly.

Design:

The design was laid out to be accessible and easy to understand. The sections were chosen to enhance readers ability to

approach any section of the document that they felt necessary to visit at any point while reading. The main design concernwould be the images and their placement at the right-hand side of the correlating step; this issue has been discussed in the

organization section.

Ethical, Legal, and Cultural Considerations:

These issues were not addressed in my document to the proper extent and were not covered in my usability test. However,

areas that I could consider including would be to make sure that color blind readers could differentiate the color choices

easily. If I knew how, I would offer the document in multiple languages.

CONCLUSIONS:

The results are inconclusive. Additional usability tests may be conducted to improve the document further, but due to time

constraints they were unable to be accomplished for the purpose of this memo. The challenging issues in content (i.e

Gameplay Sample video, notices/warnings) organization (i.e. images) and design (i.e. images) will be appraised and the

modification of these areas will increase the documents effectiveness and reader satisfaction.

In the area of content, all Testers were satisfied. The video received mixed reviews, mostly centered on the mundane

content of the video. The notices/warnings were given negative answers by one Tester who stated that they were notnoticeable enough. The content of the documents images were given positive feedback from all Testers.

In the areas of organization and design, the image organization was considered by one Tester to be distracting, butoverall, Testers gave the document high marks.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Recommendations for this instruction set are difficult simply because of the low number of tests completed; however,

there are solutions for the issue areas found by these Testers.

Specific recommendations for content would be in the areas of the Gameplay Video and the use of notices/warnings.

The video is a complicated area, as previously stated, because of the conflicting responses. Some possibilities are to

change the video, remove the video, or give a brief introduction to the video explaining what it is and what the reader

should look to gain from the video. The notices and warnings were bright colors, however, they have been changed tobold, red, and all-cap words to attract the most attention on the black background.

Specific recommendations for Organization/Design would be to reconsider the images. The images are tricky. One testerconsidered them distracting. For some readers, however, having many images is a positive. One option is to lessen the

amount of images, but that may hinder other readers from completely understanding. Another option is to place the

images below the step that they relate to; however, that would be an extremely time-consuming edit to perform on the

designated website and would greatly increase the length of the document visually to the point that readers may not pay as

close attention.


4/4


Thank you for reading my evaluation. Let me know if you have any questions or need any clarification.

Enclosures: Usability Test Results from Testers A, B, and C

Documents

Stoneking_Usability Test Analysis Memo_1.2