Exploring two methods of usability testing: concurrent versus retrospective think-aloud protocols

M.J. van den Haak; Menno D.T. de Jong

doi:10.1109/IPCC.2003.1245501

Exploring two methods of usability testing: concurrent versus retrospective think-aloud protocols

M.J. van den Haak
, Menno D.T. de Jong

Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences

Research output: Contribution to conference › Paper

38 Citations (Scopus)

1216 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Think-aloud protocols are commonly used for the usability testing of instructional documents, Web sites and interfaces. This paper addresses the benefits and drawbacks of two think-aloud variations: the traditional concurrent think-aloud method and the less familiar retrospective think-aloud protocols. It also offers an outline of a long-term research project designed to empirically investigate the value of both variants. The results of a first comparative study indicate that, although the two methods have distinct differences, they do seem to produce a similar outcome. A more detailed description of the results will be offered during the presentation.

Original language	Undefined
Pages	285-287
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2003.1245501
Publication status	Published - 2003
Event	IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, IPCC 2003 - Orlando, United States Duration: 21 Sept 2003 → 24 Sept 2003

Conference

Conference	IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, IPCC 2003
Country/Territory	United States
City	Orlando
Period	21/09/03 → 24/09/03

Keywords

IR-55838

Access to Document

10.1109/IPCC.2003.1245501

01245501

Cite this

@conference{abe9f5d2da0941bf8a30ea49e3082c85,

title = "Exploring two methods of usability testing: concurrent versus retrospective think-aloud protocols",

abstract = "Think-aloud protocols are commonly used for the usability testing of instructional documents, Web sites and interfaces. This paper addresses the benefits and drawbacks of two think-aloud variations: the traditional concurrent think-aloud method and the less familiar retrospective think-aloud protocols. It also offers an outline of a long-term research project designed to empirically investigate the value of both variants. The results of a first comparative study indicate that, although the two methods have distinct differences, they do seem to produce a similar outcome. A more detailed description of the results will be offered during the presentation.",

keywords = "IR-55838",

author = "\{van den Haak\}, M.J. and \{de Jong\}, \{Menno D.T.\}",

year = "2003",

doi = "10.1109/IPCC.2003.1245501",

language = "Undefined",

pages = "285--287",

note = "IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, IPCC 2003 ; Conference date: 21-09-2003 Through 24-09-2003",

}

TY - CONF

T1 - Exploring two methods of usability testing: concurrent versus retrospective think-aloud protocols

AU - van den Haak, M.J.

AU - de Jong, Menno D.T.

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - Think-aloud protocols are commonly used for the usability testing of instructional documents, Web sites and interfaces. This paper addresses the benefits and drawbacks of two think-aloud variations: the traditional concurrent think-aloud method and the less familiar retrospective think-aloud protocols. It also offers an outline of a long-term research project designed to empirically investigate the value of both variants. The results of a first comparative study indicate that, although the two methods have distinct differences, they do seem to produce a similar outcome. A more detailed description of the results will be offered during the presentation.

AB - Think-aloud protocols are commonly used for the usability testing of instructional documents, Web sites and interfaces. This paper addresses the benefits and drawbacks of two think-aloud variations: the traditional concurrent think-aloud method and the less familiar retrospective think-aloud protocols. It also offers an outline of a long-term research project designed to empirically investigate the value of both variants. The results of a first comparative study indicate that, although the two methods have distinct differences, they do seem to produce a similar outcome. A more detailed description of the results will be offered during the presentation.

KW - IR-55838

U2 - 10.1109/IPCC.2003.1245501

DO - 10.1109/IPCC.2003.1245501

M3 - Paper

SP - 285

EP - 287

T2 - IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, IPCC 2003

Y2 - 21 September 2003 through 24 September 2003

ER -