This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Impact of Pre-Study Exploration on System Usability Scale and Task Success Rates for Automotive Interfaces
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published March 28, 2017 by SAE International in United States
This content contains downloadable datasetsAnnotation ability available
Measurement of usability with the System Usability Scale (SUS) is successfully applied to products in many industries. The benefit of any measurement scale, however, is limited by the repeatability of the associated testing process. For SUS, these factors can include sample size, study protocol, previous experience, and pre study exposure to the system being tested. Differences in user exposure can influence the usability assessment of interfaces which could affect the validity of SUS scores. A customer clinic was conducted on a steering wheel/instrument cluster and a center display screen, to see the difference in SUS scores of participants with “Free Exploration (participant had a few minutes to interact with the system)”, “Guided Exploration (participant was given a couple of tasks prior to the study)”, “No Exploration (no interaction prior to the study)” and “Repeated task Exploration (tasks were asked again after the no exploration phase concluded)” in a between subject design study. All four scenarios were analyzed for their impact on SUS score, task success rates and adjective rating. Under the “No Exploration” test method the estimates of mean SUS score, adjective rating and task success rates are reliable and repeatable with a good correlation to external quality metrics.
|Technical Paper||NaviQ - A User Satisfaction Questionnaire for IVNS|
|Technical Paper||A Comprehensive Method for Wheel Testing by Stress Analysis|
|Technical Paper||Wheel Dust Measurement and Root Cause Assessment|
CitationChandran, S., Forbes, J., Bittick, C., Allanson, K. et al., "Impact of Pre-Study Exploration on System Usability Scale and Task Success Rates for Automotive Interfaces," SAE Technical Paper 2017-01-1385, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-1385.
Data Sets - Support Documents
|[Unnamed Dataset 1]|
|[Unnamed Dataset 2]|
|[Unnamed Dataset 3]|
|[Unnamed Dataset 4]|
|[Unnamed Dataset 5]|
- Schmettow, M., “Sample Size in Usability Study,” Communications of the ACM, 2012, doi: 10.1145/2133806.2133824
- Macefield, R., “How to Specify the Participant Group Size for Usability Studies: A Practitioner’s Guide,” Journal of Usability Studies: 34-45, Nov. 2009.
- Nielson, J., Landauser, T.K., “A Mathematical Model of the Findings of Usability Problems,” presented at Interchi ’93, Amsterdam, April 24-29, 1993.
- Brooke, J., “System Usability Scale (SUS): A Quick-and-Dirty Method of System Evaluation User Information,” Digital Equipment Co Ltd, Reading UK, 1986.
- McLellan, S., “The Effect of Experience on System Usability Scale Ratings,” Journal of Usability Studies: 56-67, Feb. 2012.
- Khan, T., Pitts, M., Williams, M. A., “Cross- Cultural Differences in Automotive HMI Design: A Comparative Study between UK and Indian Users’ Design Preferences,” Journal of Usability Studies: 45-65, Feb 2016
- Sauro, J., Lewis, R. J., “Estimating Completion Rates from Small Samples using Binomial Confidence Interval: Comparisons and Recommendations,” Proceedings on the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting, USA, September 26-30, 2005