Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles 2006
DOI: 10.1145/1182475.1182504
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

It's worth the hassle!

Abstract: The distinction between field and laboratory is classical in research methodology. In human-computer interaction, and in usability evaluation in particular, it has been a controversial topic for several years. The advent of mobile devices has revived this topic. Empirical studies that compare evaluations in the two settings are beginning to appear, but they provide very different results. This paper presents results from an experimental comparison of a fieldbased and a lab-based usability evaluation of a mobil… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 97 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Currently, there is an ongoing generalized discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of testing software in the laboratory [39] as opposed to when the development cycle is over [40]. This study considers that these two approaches are complementary, and must be applied according to the user's needs and intended context of use.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Currently, there is an ongoing generalized discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of testing software in the laboratory [39] as opposed to when the development cycle is over [40]. This study considers that these two approaches are complementary, and must be applied according to the user's needs and intended context of use.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The question of which research setting is optimal for studying mobile usability has been addressed in earlier studies (Kjeldskov, Skov, Als, & Høegh, 2004;Kaikkonen, Keklinen, Cankar, Kallio, & Kankainen, 2005;Nielsen, Overgaard, Pedersen, Stage, & Stenild, 2006;Rogers et al, 2007). The studies, however, offer different views.…”
Section: Methodological Concernsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In some cases there has been little difference in results (e.g., Sun and May 2013]). Others understandably disagree (e.g., [Nielsen et al 2006]). Furthermore, while we have been successful in achieving similar results between diverse groups when focusing on audio and the readability of a foreign language, clearly there are many elements of field studies it is not possible to mimic -for example, differences in power dynamics, cultural etiquette, comfort with technology and so on [Medhi et al 2010].…”
Section: Study Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 99%