Adapting usability testing for oral, rural users
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, Page: 1437-1440
2011
- 18Citations
- 15Usage
- 58Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations18
- Citation Indexes18
- 18
- CrossRef15
- Usage15
- Abstract Views15
- Captures58
- Readers58
- 58
Conference Paper Description
Traditional usability methods are of limited use when evaluating systems designed for distant, diverse populations. In this paper, we describe a study conducted in two Ghanaian villages that evaluated an audio computer designed for people living in oral cultures. Informed by ICTD and orality-grounded HCID, we modified existing usability testing practices and we reflect on the utility of these adaptations. We found that conducting a culturally appropriate study often meant forgoing more traditional approaches in favor of flexible, opportunistic methods. We acknowledge the challenges of adapting traditional usability methods for oral, rural users. However, we found that by implementing strategic modifications led by local staff, our study produced valuable, actionable results. Copyright 2011 ACM.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=79958079831&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979153; https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1978942.1979153; https://digitalcommons.tacoma.uw.edu/ias_pub/487; https://digitalcommons.tacoma.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1486&context=ias_pub
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know