Web Usability - Science topic

You can try UI Automator

A think aloud protocol would be a better way to validate the usage scenario.

As Dirk mentions above, optimal is dependent on the context of the overlay. If the overlay is unobtrusive, easily dismissed, and does not block further engagement (such as continuing to read within a paragraph of text), a short delay of 0.2 - 0.3 seconds will work just fine.

If the overlay is larger or more visually involved (text + images, etc.), consider an intermediate cue to the user- such as underlining the word with a 0.1 - 0.2 second fade, then fading the overlay in sometime between 0.4 and 0.6 seconds. This will assist in training the user to anticipate the overlay when they see the underline appear, give them immediate feedback that the hover means something, and allow them to avoid unanticipated UI changes.

Hi,

Did you see this reference?

Ankur Pant , (2015) "Usability evaluation of an academic library website: Experience with the Central Science Library, University of Delhi", The Electronic Library, Vol. 33 Iss: 5, pp.896 - 915

best,

Preben

integration - ability to integrate with existing materials, methods, etc.

Your question is not specific enough. What are you trying to prove? That one web based learning application is easier to use than another. This does not say that subjects are able to acquire more skills through an easier to use application as learnign depends on the content proposed by the application. 

While there are numerous ways to measure usability, once you have measured the usability of an application, what will you do with the results? I guess, you would recommend the use of an easier to use application. However, you need to ensure that the contents in the two applications, you are comparing, are the same to be able to make your recommendation. 

In one of my publications, I measured the usability of two versions of a web-based info retrieval application. In one version, some usability heuristics were implemented while in the second application, all web usability heuristics were implemented. Through usability trials, the study tried to identify if the extra efforts to implement all usability heuristics had a significant positive impact on usability. The study showed that it took less time to find the information in the second version. However, subjects committed more errors using the second version. Moreover, subjects had higher "Ease of use perceptions" for the first version. Finally, there was no significant statistical difference between the three measures (time, error EOU perceptions) between the two groups. This led to the conclusion that the extra efforts was not worthhwhile for an application developed without user participation and user task analysis.  

The above study shows that while usability experts will find the second version as easier to use due to the implementation of all user interface design heuristics, subjects undertaking a usability trial find the first version as easier to use. So which of the two applications should we recommend to users? To find out, as well as usability, other criteria should be measured.  

Dear Marwan,

Find the attachment.

Hi,

Please refer to the attached paper

Source: http://goo.gl/k0B2g1

Rather than associating reading difficulty with the embedding of hyperlinks, your referenced paper

found the source of difficulty was the use of underlining as the highlighting mechanism and that the use of other forms of visual clues , e.g. the use of  translucent overlays, had advantages.

Other papers with related research are:

On Measuring the Impact of Hyperlinks on Reading²,  Fitzsimmons, et.al

which used used eye tracking measurements and concluded:

" ... that hyperlinked text [without underlining]  did not generally have a negative impact upon reading behaviour. However, participants did show a tendency to re-read sentences that contained hyperlinked uncommon (low frequency) words. This suggests that hyperlinks highlight important information to the reader and the hyperlinks add additional content which for more difficult concepts, invites rereading of the preceding text."

Effects of Visible and Invisible Hyperlinks on Vocabulary Acquisition and Reading Comprehension for High- and Average-Foreign Language Achievers³, Nikolova

confirming a previous study⁴

"... that visible links do not act as distractors for any of the groups represented in this study. Since, in addition, their impact on the average-achievers group was positive, our recommendation for people creating software would be to use marked [i.e. visible] links for annotated words"

 

The following study:

acquisition⁵by AbuSeileek

has the information you seek concerning embedded versus other locations:

"...The data suggest that reading passages with hypermedia annotations significantly benefits passage comprehension and vocabulary (compared to reading passages with no annotations). The best performance was observed in the condition where glosses were placed [immediately] after the glossed word"

 

hope this helps

 

 

Thank you Hajara and Maya.

Taxonomy is about actually doing the work.. describing, classifying and making systematic sense of the relationships between taxa.

Information architecture is about the way you organise and disseminate the results.

Thw two are to my mind completely different