Evaluation Methods: Quantitative & Qualitative

A. Testing EXPERIENCE: checking its quality

Heuristic Evaluation VR (expert review)

This is not a user test, but an expert review.

A Heuristic Evaluation is performed with 4-6 people from your team or 4-6 designers-developers from other teams.

  1. The idea is that each of you will take the headset and go through the experience. After this, each of you will list challenges & problems that you have experiences for each heuristic (so Natural Engagement can show a list of multiple challenges that need to be solved, and then the next heuristic as well).

  2. When everyone has created their list of issues, problems and challenges, you will start discuss each issues and then rate each one of them. (1= simple problem, easy solvable within project - 5= complex problem, unsolvable within project). You will create a Heuristic Evaluation Matrix to receive an overview of the amount and complexity of usability problems in total.

These heuristics were motivated by the different nature of VEs, in particular, the need for intuitive interaction and the sense of immersion, which is important for many VR applications that aim to simulate reality as faithfully as possible (Stone, 2002).

Heuristics for VR

Tip: try to come up with some of your own heuristics, specified for your project.

  1. Natural engagement. Interaction should approach the user’s expectation of interaction in the real world as far as possible. Ideally, the user should be unaware that the reality is virtual. Interpreting this heuristic will depend on the naturalness requirement and the user’s sense of presence and engagement.

  2. Compatibility with the user’s task and domain. The VE and behaviour of objects should correspond as closely as possible to the user’s expectation of real world objects; their behaviour; and affordances for task action.

  3. Natural expression of action. The representation of the self/presence in the VE should allow the user to act and explore in a natural manner and not restrict normal physical actions. This design quality may be limited by the available devices. If haptic feedback is absent, natural expression inevitably suffers.

  4. Close coordination of action and representation. The representation of the self/ presence and behaviour manifest in the VE should be faithful to the user’s actions. Response time between user movement and update of the VE display should be less than 200 ms to avoid motion sickness problems.

  5. Realistic feedback. The effect of the user’s actions on virtual world objects should be immediately visible and conform to the laws of physics and the user’s perceptual expectations.

  6. Faithful viewpoints. The visual representation of the virtual world should map to the user’s normal perception, and the viewpoint change by head movement should be rendered without delay.

  7. Navigation and orientation support. The users should always be able to find where they are in the VE and return to known, preset positions. Unnatural actions such as fly-through surfaces may help but these have to be judged in a trade-off with naturalness (see heuristics 1 and 2).

  8. Clear entry and exit points. The means of entering and exiting from a virtual world should be clearly communicated.

  9. Consistent departures. When design compromises are used they should be consistent and clearly marked, e.g. cross-modal substitution and power actions for navigation.

  10. Support for learning. Active objects should be cued and if necessary explain themselves to promote learning of VEs.

  11. Clear turn-taking. Where system initiative is used it should be clearly signalled and conventions established for turn-taking.

  12. Sense of presence. The user’s perception of engagement and being in a ‘real’ world should be as natural as possible.

  13. …….. you can create some of your own heuristics as well.

Sutcliffe, A. and Gault, B. (2004). Heuristic evaluation of virtual reality applications. [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222086342_Heuristic_evaluation_of_virtual_reality_applications [Accessed 29 Aug. 2019].

Cognitive Walkthrough

Cognitive Walkthrough is a formal method for evaluating a UI without users.‌

  • Focuses on first time use

  • Task oriented: requires tasks and walkthrough scenarios

  • Will users be able to follow this scenario? Can you tell a believable story?

  • Must be aware of user capabilities

article 4: Cognitive walkthrough procedure Stages of Action Model, Norman (2001)

Formative Evaluation

B. Testing USER TASKS: checking its quality

A Taxonomy of Usability Characteristics in Virtual Environments, Joseph L. Gabbard (1997)
  • Navigation & Wayfinding

  • System Control

  • Selection & Manipulation

  • Feedback, Feedforward & Force feedback

Tools: Hierarchical Task Analysis - User Task Flow - User Testing - Heuristic Evaluation - Biometric measuring - Questionnaires - Interviews

Heuristic Evaluation VR‌

Summative Evaluation

Testing in 1989

Tools: User Journey - Touchpoints - Proxemic areas - Action spaces - Rapid Prototype - Play-acting (see Class 1: Design Tools)

Last updated

Was this helpful?