EVALUASI USABILITY WEBSITE MATAJARI MENGGUNAKAN COGNITIVE WALKTHROUGH

Hanif Athar Yuana Putra; Bayu Waspodo

doi:10.23960/jitet.v12i3S1.4920

Hanif Athar Yuana Putra
Department of Information System UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
Bayu Waspodo
Department of Information System UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23960/jitet.v12i3S1.4920

Abstract Views (Last 12 Months)

717 Abstract Views

511 Downloads

Abstract

Matajari Mitra Solusi (MMS) adalah perusahaan yang bergerak di sektor jasa teknologi digital yang memiliki media pemasaran untuk produknya dan pengenalan perusahaan melalui halaman web perusahaan di matajari.co.id. Segala bentuk evaluasi kegunaan situs web tidak pernah dilakukan. Namun, ada laporan mengenai kesulitan pengunjung saat mengunjungi website, oleh karena itu perlu dilakukan evaluasi kegunaan menggunakan panduan kognitif yang mencakup think-aloud dalam total 4 skenario untuk mengidentifikasi potensi kesalahan pengunjung. Temuan dalam penelitian ini telah menunjukkan bahwa situs web memiliki skor kegunaan keseluruhan yang baik, 80% pada efektivitas dan 79% dalam efisiensi keseluruhan. Para evaluator juga meninggalkan beberapa catatan untuk perbaikan. Rekomendasi perbaikan diberikan dalam bentuk prototipe user interface (UI) yang diusulkan kepada MMS dan dibuat berdasarkan 8 Golden Rules Shneiderman dan catatan evaluator. Meski begitu, beberapa keterbatasan diidentifikasi, termasuk pemilihan skenario yang ternyata mirip.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

B. Lányi, M. Hornyák, and F. Kruzslicz, “The effect of online activity on SMEs’ competitiveness,” Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 477–496, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1108/CR-01-2020-0022.

J. R. Lewis and J. Sauro, “Usability and User Experience: Design and Evaluation,” in Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, wiley, 2021, pp. 972–1015. doi: 10.1002/9781119636113.ch38.

T. Tullis and B. Albert, “Chapter 4 - Performance Metrics,” in Measuring the User Experience, T. Tullis and B. Albert, Eds., San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 2008, pp. 63–97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-373558-4.00004-2.

International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 9241-11: Ergonomics of human-system interaction Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts,” 2018

H. Sharp, J. Preece, and Y. Rogers, “Evaluation Studies: From Controlled to Natural Settings,” in Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, 5th Edition, 2019, pp. 523–548.

M. Schrepp et al., “On the Importance of UX Quality Aspects for Different Product Categories,” International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 232–246, 2023, doi: 10.9781/ijimai.2023.03.001.

J. Dumas, “The great leap forward: The birth of the usability profession (1988-1993),” J Usability Stud, vol. 2, no. 2, 2007.

W. T. Nakamura, L. C. Marques, B. Ferreira, S. D. J. Barbosa, and T. Conte, “To inspect or to test? what approach provides better results when it comes to usability and UX?,” in ICEIS 2020 - Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, SciTePress, 2020, pp. 487–498. doi: 10.5220/0009367904870498.

M. Farzandipour, E. Nabovati, and M. Sadeqi Jabali, “Comparison of usability evaluation methods for a health information system: heuristic evaluation versus cognitive walkthrough method,” BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, vol. 22, no. 1, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-01905-7.

B. Shneiderman and C. Plaisant, Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. 2010.

H. Cho et al., “Assessing the Usability of a Clinical Decision Support System: Heuristic Evaluation,” JMIR Hum Factors, vol. 9, no. 2, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.2196/31758.

B. Novirahman, H. B. Santoso, and R. Y. K. Isal, “Usability evaluation and user interface design of university staffing information system,” in 2020 5th International Conference on Informatics and Computing, ICIC 2020, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Nov. 2020. doi: 10.1109/ICIC50835.2020.9335917.

H. B. Santoso, M. Schrepp, L. M. Hasani, R. Fitriansyah, and A. Setyanto, “The use of User Experience Questionnaire Plus (UEQ+) for cross-cultural UX research: evaluating Zoom and Learn Quran Tajwid as online learning tools,” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 11, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11748.

M. Schrepp, “User Experience Questionnaire Handbook,” Hockenheim, 2023. [Online]. Available: www.ueq-online.org

I. Maslov and S. Nikou, “Usability and UX of Learning Management Systems: An Eye- Tracking Approach,” in Proceedings - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation, ICE/ITMC 2020, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Jun. 2020. doi: 10.1109/ICE/ITMC49519.2020.9198333.

M. Țichindelean, M. T. Țichindelean, I. Cetină, and G. Orzan, “A comparative eye tracking study of usability—towards sustainable web design,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 13, no. 18, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.3390/su131810415.

R. Davis, J. Gardner, and R. Schnall, “A Review of Usability Evaluation Methods and Their Use for Testing eHealth HIV Interventions,” Curr HIV/AIDS Rep, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 203–218, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11904-020-00493-3.

R. Khajouei, M. Zahiri Esfahani, and Y. Jahani, “Comparison of heuristic and cognitive walkthrough usability evaluation methods for evaluating health information systems,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, vol. 24, no. e1, pp. e55–e60, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw100.

H. W. Alomari, V. Ramasamy, J. D. Kiper, and G. Potvin, “A User Interface (UI) and User eXperience (UX) evaluation framework for cyberlearning environments in computer science and software engineering education,” Heliyon, vol. 6, no. 5, May 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03917.

J. Sauro, “What Is A Good Task-Completion Rate?,” Measuring U. Accessed: Jul. 08, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://measuringu.com/task-completion/

A. Subiyakto, V. Adhiazni, E. Nurmiati, N. Hasanati, S. Sumarsono, and M. Irfan, “Redesigning User Interface Based on User Experience Using Goal-Directed Design Method,” in 2020 8th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management, CITSM 2020, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Oct. 2020. doi: 10.1109/CITSM50537.2020.9268822.

L. Faulkner, “Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing,” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, vol. 35, pp. 379–383, 2003.

R. A. Virzi, “Refining the Test Phase of Usability Evaluation: How Many Subjects Is Enough?,” Hum Factors, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 457–468, Aug. 1992, doi: 10.1177/001872089203400407.

R. Alroobaea and P. J. Mayhew, “How many participants are really enough for usability studies?,” in Proceedings of 2014 Science and Information Conference, SAI 2014, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., Oct. 2014, pp. 48–56. doi: 10.1109/SAI.2014.6918171.

O. D. Alao, E. A. Priscilla, R. C. Amanze, S. O. Kuyoro, and A. O. Adebayo, “User-Centered/User Experience Uc/Ux Design Thinking Approach for Designing a University Information Management System,” Ingenierie des Systemes d’Information, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 577–590, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.18280/isi.270407.

A. Relawati, Y. Primanda, and G. M. Zamroni, “Unmoderated Remote Usability Testing: An Approach during Covid-19 Pandemic,” IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 13, no. 1, 2022, [Online]. Available: www.ijacsa.thesai.org

Y. Yanfi and P. D. Nusantara, “UI/UX design prototype for mobile community-based course,” in Procedia Computer Science, Elsevier B.V., 2022, pp. 431–441. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.155.

Z. B. Agustyn, S. Wibowo, and A. J. Furqon, “USABILITY TESTING APLIKASI GETCONTACT MENGGUNAKAN METODE POST STUDY SYSTEM USABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE (PSSUQ),” Jurnal Informatika dan Teknik Elektro Terapan, vol. 12, no. 2, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.23960/jitet.v12i2.3999.

G. Cockton, D. Lavery, and A. Woolrych, “Inspection-Based Evaluations,” pp. 1118–1138, Mar. 2009, doi: 10.1201/9781420088892.ch14.