| Summary: | Design guidelines are used in interaction design (IxD) for physical design and for evaluating the usability of designs and interactive products. Guidelines are widely used for physical design and evaluation, but have a number of problems. IxD patterns have been proposed as an alternative to guidelines, as they are claimed to have several advantages over guidelines. A small number of empirical studies provide evidence that patterns are beneficial when used in IxD. Additional research on the usefulness of IxD patterns is required. The primary research question investigated in this thesis was thus: How useful are IxD patterns as physical design and evaluation aids in IxD, as compared to design guidelines? The role of guidelines and patterns as design and evaluation aids in IxD was investigated and a comparison of guidelines and patterns, based on a set of guideline and pattern properties, was conducted. The concept of pattern and guideline usefulness was explored and a research agenda for guidelines and patterns was identified, together with a set of research questions for an empirical study. The empirical study of the use of patterns for evaluation, redesign and new design, as compared to guidelines, was conducted at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in 2004. The participants were a purposive sample of post-graduate Computing students, who were regarded as novice interaction designers. Two equivalent groups were formed, one that used patterns and one that used guidelines. Patterns were found to be as useful as guidelines when used as evaluation aids. Guidelines and patterns were identified as effective tools for identifying and explaining usability issues and design features. Best-effort matched sets of guidelines and patterns produced substantially different result sets when used to identify issues and features, with fairly low overlap. A substantial evaluator effect was observed for the use of guidelines and patterns for evaluation, and the results obtained were similar to those obtained by Molich et al. in their Comparative Usability Evaluation (CUE) studies. There was no statistically significant difference between the effectiveness of guidelines and patterns for evaluation. There was also no statistically significant difference between the perceived efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction in use of guidelines and patterns for evaluation. Guidelines and patterns were found to be used in similar ways for evaluation. Patterns were found to be more effective than guidelines for redesign. Patterns were found to be as useful as guidelines when used for new design. There was no statistically significant difference between the effectiveness of guidelines and patterns for new design. There was also no statistically significant difference between the perceived efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction in use of guidelines and patterns for redesign and new design. Guidelines and patterns were found to be used in similar ways for design. There was no statistically significant difference between the perceived usefulness of the format, content, ease of learning, and usefulness as personal and shared design languages, of guidelines and patterns. Both participant groups were equally agreeable to using guidelines and patterns in the future. The perceived usefulness of pattern collections was found to depend on the usability of the collection interface and the content quality of the patterns. The results of the empirical study thus provided empirical evidence that patterns were as useful as guidelines for evaluation and new design, and were perceived as positively as guidelines were. Patterns were found to be superior to guidelines for redesign. Patterns can therefore be used with a measure of confidence as early stage design aids for physical design and evaluation in the future. In addition to these findings, a number of opportunities for further research were identified.
|
|---|
