© Simeon Keates 2008
Usability with ProjectLecture 3 – 16/9/09Dr. Simeon Keates
© Simeon Keates 2008
Friday’s exercise – part 1
Look at your product selection page
Confirm that your products are in the correct families• Done for most groups – I will check the last 2 groups today…
Develop three (brief) personas/descriptions for users of your site. Explain why each person would want to visit your site and complete this task.
Page 2
© Simeon Keates 2008
A note on your personas/user descriptions
The final stage of the project will be to compare the usability of your original and final designs
In the final report you will have to explain any design changes that you made
These should be rationalised in terms of the personas that you developed
Note: you can modify your personas/descriptions as the project progresses
Page 3
© Simeon Keates 2008
Interesting persona attributes
Try to identify persona features that affect how the site is used
For example:• “Taste for the high life” or “Get as much as you can”?• “Time to browse” or “Time is money”?• “Children” or “No children”?• “Experienced computer shopper” or “Novice”?
Page 4
© Simeon Keates 2008
Notes on different search techniques
“Expert”• Knows exactly what product they are looking for
“Novice”• Probably wants to see everything first before deciding
“Forager”• Keeps looking until they find something worth having• [Picture a wild animal hunting for food – keeps going until something worth
eating is found]
Need to reflect these approaches in the personas…
Page 5
© Simeon Keates 2008
Friday’s exercise – part 2
Estimate the minimum, maximum and expected number of button/key presses for the user to select their desired products
Minimum• Select the 5*, a 4* and a 1* product or 2 x 4* and a 2 *, etc.
• 3 presses for a simple list (2 presses if repeat selection allowed)• 6 presses for product clusters (assuming none in the same category)• 5 presses more likely for product clusters (low * product in same category as one
of the high * ones)• e.g. 5* category, 5* product, 4* category, 4* product, 1* product
• Could be 4 if the 5*, 4* and 1* (or 4*, 3*, 3* or 4*, 4*, 2* …) are in the same category … or if there is a repeat selection (i.e. same 3* product or 4* products chosen)
• … and 3 if that is the default category (or 2 if that includes the 5* product)
Page 6
© Simeon Keates 2008
Friday’s exercise – part 2
Estimate the minimum, maximum and expected number of button/key presses for the user to select their desired products
Maximum• Assume no exploring or changes of mind• Select 10 x 1* products
• 10 presses for a simple list • 20 presses for 10 product clusters (assuming none in the same category)• If <10 product clusters:• 2 x no_of_product_clusters + (10 – no_of_product_clusters)
Page 7
© Simeon Keates 2008
Friday’s exercise – part 2
Estimate the minimum, maximum and expected number of button/key presses for the user to select their desired products
Expected• Assume no exploring or changes of mind• Very complex calculation because of 10 * limit!!!• Need to map all of the possible combinations of 10* and then calculate their
probabilities…• Need a computer program for this
Page 8
© Simeon Keates 2008
Friday’s exercise – part 2
Estimate the minimum, maximum and expected number of button/key presses for the user to select their desired products
Average• 107 stars / 62 products = 1.7258 stars / product• 10 stars => 5.794 products on average • 5.794 presses (on average) for a simple list
Page 9
© Simeon Keates 2008
Friday’s exercise – part 3
Sketch at least one other layout for the 62 products• Suggestions: Simple list, menus, product families, etc.
Compare and discuss the merits of your original design and the alternative one sketched here
Page 10
© Simeon Keates 2008
Layout options
All groups have tried to cluster products
Many groups have included pictures
Is this necessarily good?
Page 11
Tesco.com vs. tesco.com/access
© Simeon Keates 2008
Tesco.com
Page 12
© Simeon Keates 2008
Tesco.com/access
Page 13
© Simeon Keates 2008
Layout options
All groups have tried to cluster products
Many groups have included pictures
Is this necessarily good?
Page 14
Tesco.com vs. tesco.com/access
It depends on your selected personas!!!
© Simeon Keates 2008
Friday’s exercise – part 3
Q: How would your answer differ for 5 products and for 500 products?
Button press calculations suggest big long list works best for 62 products
Also works best for 5 products
Would not work well for 500 products• Too long to read
Page 15
© Simeon Keates 2008
The need for critical thinking
Page 16
© Simeon Keates 2008
The need for critical thinking…
Before we look at methods of usability assessment… Need to consider what we are doing …and how we are doing it See “Stable boy” example from last week
Bad experimental design leads to bad data and wrong conclusions
Page 17
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” – Benjamin Disreali
© Simeon Keates 2008
How can we get “bad” data?
Examples: Not using a balanced experimental design Not using the right participants Asking the wrong questions
Page 18
© Simeon Keates 2008
Critical thinking exercise – 1
Read the factsheet on DHMO
Q – Do you support a ban on DHMO?
Now read the opposing factsheet
Q – Do you support a ban on DHMO?
Page 19
© Simeon Keates 2008
Critical thinking exercise – 1
What is DHMO?• Dihydrogen monoxide
Page 20
Hydrogen H
Dihydrogen H2
Monoxide O
Dihydrogen monoxide H2O
© Simeon Keates 2008
How can we get “bad” data?
Examples: Not using a balanced experimental design Not using the right participants Asking the wrong questions Asking the right questions in the wrong way
Page 21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo
© Simeon Keates 2008
Critical thinking - summary
Never take results at face value
Always ask how the data was collected and from whom
Then ask if you believe a sound methodology was used
Have the results been interpreted appropriately?
Have any obvious counter-theories been addressed?
Page 22
© Simeon Keates 2008
Critical thinking in practice – Speed cameras
Wigantoday.net reports:
Speed cameras cut road fatalities• Published Date: 09 February 2009
“Speed cameras have helped reduce road deaths in Wigan by half, police have revealed.
Six people died on the borough's roads over the past 12 months, compared with a dozen between February 2006 and January 2007.
Countywide, say police, the death toll has also been slashed over the past five years.”
Page 23
Q – Do you believe these claims?
© Simeon Keates 2008
Speed cameras – the proof!
UK has highest concentration of speed cameras per mile of highway in the world
Reductions in road deaths are often attributed to speed cameras European Transport Safety Council's first road safety report states that
UK deaths decreased by 7% in past years Speed cameras have increased significantly in the same time:
Page 24
Camera types 2000 2009
Fixed cameras 1,935 5,562
Mobile cameras 173 2,373
=> Reduction is due to increased use of cameras
© Simeon Keates 2008
Speed cameras – the counter arguments
In the same time period 25% drop in Sweden and the Netherlands and 35% in France• … and no increase in speed camera use
5 other countries are safer to drive in Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway and Malta• …and minimal use of cameras
Page 25
© Simeon Keates 2008
Speed cameras – contributing factors
Cars are getting safer Cameras are often used as a cost-cutting tool• Reduced police presence
Cannot deal with unregistered drivers Differences in driver behaviour
Page 26
© Simeon Keates 2008
Speed cameras – local data
“But the council put that speed camera in where there were 3 accidents last year and there have been none this year. Surely that shows that it is working!”
No – not necessarily If you assume that accidents are randomly distributed, any reduction
could be pure chance• “Regression to the mean”• Any extreme score - high or low - at one point in time will probably be less
extreme the next time it's tested for purely statistical reasons• If you are at the top of a list of accident hotspots, there's only way to go and
that's down
Page 27
© Simeon Keates 2008
Introduction to “discount” usability…
Page 28
© Simeon Keates 2008
Simple list is best?
Button press calculation is very simplistic
No allowance for:• Effects of download time• User decision time• User uncertainty, etc.
We will look at this further later in the course
Page 29
© Simeon Keates 2008
Better methods of evaluating interfaces
“Button press”-type calculations are too simplistic
Need more comprehensive methods of evaluation
Most common: user observation / user trials / user testing*
However, we also need to be fast and fit in with iterative development cycle• c.f. Inclusive design knowledge loop
Page 30
* Note: try not to use this name… The “t” word is generally best avoided
© Simeon Keates 2008
Q: Why not user observation sessions?
A: Users are not always available
A: User observation sessions are resource-intensive• Time to find users• Time to find location• Time to set up location• Time to brief users• Time for sessions themselves• Time for debrief• Time for data analysis
Page 31
© Simeon Keates 2008
So they invented “discount usability”…
One interpretation: • How to do usability without users…
Can you think of methods of testing a product that do not involve users?
User models/avatars
Self-assessment
Simulation
Expert assessment
Page 32
© Simeon Keates 2008
User models/avatars
Method: Use a simulated model of the user to test the product design
Advantages: Great for ergonomic issues
Disadvantages: Hard to correct for user cognitive effects, deviations in behavioural
patterns, etc.
Page 33
© Simeon Keates 2008
Example
Page 34
© Simeon Keates 2008
Self-assessment
Method: Design team tests its own design
Advantages: Very fast Very cheap Can be done at any time
Disadvantages: Highly unreliable Results extremely variable
Page 35
If you can find the problem with a simple test,
why did you design it that way in the first place?
© Simeon Keates 2008
Simulation
Method: Assessor physically recreates the context of use and user
characteristics
Advantages: More reliable than self-assessment More repeatable than self-assessment Can be done at any time, quickly and cheaply
Disadvantages: Only as good as the simulation Recreates “symptoms” not “causes”
Page 36
© Simeon Keates 2008
Example of simulation in use
Page 37
© Simeon Keates 2008
Ford focus and the third age suit
Page 38
© Simeon Keates 2008
Ford Focus and the third age suit
Page 39
© Simeon Keates 2008
[An aside – The marketing of the Focus]
Page 40
© Simeon Keates 2008
Discount (DIY) simulation
i.e. discount discount usability
Page 41
© Simeon Keates 2008
Expert assessment
Method: Find and employ an appropriate “expert” to examine the usability of
your product
Advantages: Perceived to be cheap (no need to acquire expensive skills in-house) Can be very cost-effective
Disadvantages: How do you know you have the “right” expert? Depends on the availability of the expert
Page 42
© Simeon Keates 2008
Adding rigour to assessments
Need frameworks for ensuring that testing is as reliable, repeatable and robust as possible
Examples: Performance estimates Checklists
Page 43
© Simeon Keates 2008
Performance estimates
Method: Estimate user performance based on critical path (typically) + known
user performance parameters
Advantages: Great for verifying underlying information architecture
Disadvantages: As discussed with PIP exercise
Page 44
© Simeon Keates 2008
Checklists
Method: Use a pre-prepared list of questions and ensure that each item is met
Advantages: Fast Can be completed by a non-expert (maybe!)
Disadvantages Culture of “minimum compliance” Only as good as the list
Page 45
© Simeon Keates 2008
Introducing heuristic evaluation
Page 46
© Simeon Keates 2008
Other methods of discount usability
Another interpretation: • Discount usability methods are about simplifying the methods of data
collection
Examples: Low-fidelity prototypes Scenarios Thinking aloud usability tests Heuristic evaluation
Page 47
© Simeon Keates 2008
Low fidelity prototypes
Example: paper prototypes from last week
Page 48
Scroll up
Scroll down
<Back
Select
Help
Quit
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
…
© Simeon Keates 2008
Low fidelity prototypes – Why use them?
Discount usability is good for checking “obvious” problems
Best to identify them early
…and fix them early
…then test again…
…and fix again…
…and test again…
Page 49
Case studies
Design iterations
© Simeon Keates 2008
Scenarios
Scenarios are “extreme” prototyping They reduce level of functionality and number of features to a bare
minimum
As a result, they are cheap to design and implement … but can only simulate the UI as long as the user follows the chosen
path
Page 50
Source: http://www.useit.com/papers/guerilla_hci.html
© Simeon Keates 2008
Scenarios – a conceptual model
Page 51
Fu
nc
tio
nal
ity
Horizontal prototypeDifferent features
Vertical prototype FULL SYSTEM
Scenario
© Simeon Keates 2008
“Thinking aloud” usability
A small number of users• Or user stand-ins
Asked to perform typical tasks
Asked to talk through their actions and thoughts while they try to navigate the task
Typically identifies many usability “issues”, not just “problems”
Page 52
© Simeon Keates 2008
Heuristics
Method: Variant on checklists – a list of attributes (heuristics) to be evaluated Can be done by user or designer
Advantages Fast Well structured
Disadvantages: Can be difficult to interpret Still often a third-party’s best guess of user behaviour
Page 53
© Simeon Keates 2008
Nielsen on formal usability
Q: How many programmers does it take to change a light bulb? A: None – it’s a hardware problem!
Q: How many usability specialists does it take to change a light bulb? A: Four• 2 to conduct a field study and task analysis to determine whether people really
need light• 1 to observe the user who actually screws in the light bulb• 1 to control the video camera filming the event
Alternative answer:• It depends!!!
Page 54
Source: http://www.useit.com/papers/guerilla_hci.html
© Simeon Keates 2008
Nielsen’s usability heuristics – in his own words
“I originally developed the heuristics for heuristic evaluation in collaboration with Rolf Molich in 1990 [Molich and Nielsen 1990; Nielsen and Molich 1990]. I since refined the heuristics based on a factor analysis of 249 usability problems [Nielsen 1994a] to derive a set of heuristics with maximum explanatory power, resulting in this revised set of heuristics [Nielsen 1994b].”References:• Molich, R., and Nielsen, J. (1990). Improving a human-computer dialogue,
Communications of the ACM 33, 3 (March), 338-348.• Nielsen, J., and Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces, Proc.
ACM CHI'90 Conf. (Seattle, WA, 1-5 April), 249-256.• Nielsen, J. (1994a). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics.
Proc. ACM CHI'94 Conf. (Boston, MA, April 24-28), 152-158.• Nielsen, J. (1994b). Heuristic evaluation. In Nielsen, J., and Mack, R.L. (Eds.),
Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Page 55
© Simeon Keates 2008
Nielsen’s 10 usability heuristics – The list…
Visibility of system status Match between system and the real world User control and freedom Consistency and standards Error prevention Recognition rather than recall Flexibility and efficiency of use Aesthetic and minimalist design Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors Help and documentation
Page 56
© Simeon Keates 2008
Recap – Jordan’s 10 principles of usable design
Consistency Compatibility Consideration of user resources Feedback Error prevention and recovery User control Visual clarity Prioritisation of functionality and information Appropriate transfer of technology Explicitness
Page 57
© Simeon Keates 2008
Visibility of system status
The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time.
Page 58
© Simeon Keates 2008
Match between system and the real world
The system should speak the users' language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. Follow real-world conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order.
Page 59
ConcurDemur
Please depress the third rod linkage with your
dextral lower appendage by rotating it about your talus
OKCancel
Please press the accelerator pedal with your right foot
© Simeon Keates 2008
User control and freedom
Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked "emergency exit" to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.
Page 60
OKCancel
Format your hard disk?
© Simeon Keates 2008
Consistency and standards
Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions.
Page 61
© Simeon Keates 2008
Consistency and standards
Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions.
Page 62
OK Cancel
Format your hard disk?
Windows
OKCancel
Format your hard disk?
Apple OSX
© Simeon Keates 2008
Submit
Error prevention
Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a problem from occurring in the first place. Either eliminate error-prone conditions or check for them and present users with a confirmation option before they commit to the action.
Page 63
Error! You must complete all required fields!
© Simeon Keates 2008
Error prevention
Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a problem from occurring in the first place. Either eliminate error-prone conditions or check for them and present users with a confirmation option before they commit to the action.
Page 64
Submit
Field 1*
Field 2*
Field 3*
Field 4*
Field 5*
5 required fields still be completed
© Simeon Keates 2008
Recognition rather than recall
Minimize the user's memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate.
Page 65
Submit
Select product > Confirm payment > Delivery address > Confirmation
Field 1*
Field 2*
Field 3*
Field 4*
© Simeon Keates 2008
Flexibility and efficiency of use
Accelerators -- unseen by the novice user -- may often speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both inexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions.
Page 66
© Simeon Keates 2008
Aesthetic and minimalist design
Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility.
Page 67
Payment information:
MastercardCredit card type*
Number*
mm/yyExpiry date*
CVV2*
Submit
?
© Simeon Keates 2008
Aesthetic and minimalist design
Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility.
Page 68
Payment information:
MastercardCredit card type*
Number*
mm/yyExpiry date*
CVV2*
Submit
?
© Simeon Keates 2008
Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors
Error messages should be expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
Page 69
ConcurDemur
XML failure.
Guru meditation code: X001532442XML34542 !
OKCancel
Our coders messed up. Sorry!!
© Simeon Keates 2008
Help and documentation
Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to search, focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large.
Page 70
© Simeon Keates 2008Page 71
The science of the heuristics…
© Simeon Keates 2008
Scientific basis for the heuristics (source: Nielsen CHI ’94 paper in reading material)
As mentioned earlier, Nielsen analysed 7 sets of usability heuristics He had 249 usability problems from 11 earlier projects• 7 evaluated by heuristics• 4 evaluated with usability sessions
Stage of project:• 4 were early in their development lifecycle• 7 were later in their development lifecycle
Types of interfaces:• 2 were character-based• 6 were GUIs• 3 were telephone-operated
Page 72
© Simeon Keates 2008
Comparing the heuristics
The 7 sets of usability heuristics:• Nielsen’s 10 heuristics• “Usability principles for the Star user interface”• “Usability principles” from Holcomb and Tharp• “Design principles for successful guessing” from Polson and Lewis• “Artifact claims analysis questions” from Carroll and Rosson• “Human interface principles” from Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines• “SunSoft usability guidelines”
Page 73
© Simeon Keates 2008
Comparing the heuristics
Nielsen took each set of heuristics and rated each of the 101 heuristics Rated for how well they explained each of the 249 usability problems• 0 = does not explain at all• 1 = may superficially address some aspect of the problem• 2 = explains a small part of the problem, but major areas unexplained• 3 = explains a major part of the problem, but some aspects unexplained• 4 = fairly, but not totally, complete explanation of why this is a problem• 5 = complete explanation of why this is a problem
Page 74
© Simeon Keates 2008
Analysing the results
Nielsen performed a “Principal Components Analysis” on the data PCA is a statistical technique for identifying the major factors in a set of
data It reduces the “dimensions” of the data Its aim is to transform the data (through eigenvectors) such that:• The component that explains most of the variance is on the first co-ordinate• The compenent that explains the next most variance is on the second• etc.
“Explains most of the variance”• The proportion to which a mathematical model accounts for the variation (i.e.
apparent randomness) of a given data set
Page 75
© Simeon Keates 2008
How many factors?
The 2 most important factors (heuristics) only account for 6% of the variation each
The top 7 factors (>3% of variance) only account for 30% of the total The top 25 factors (>1%) account for 62% of total No clear drop-off point• Gradual decline in significance of factors
Page 76
No “core factor” set
i.e. no “definitive” list of heuristics
© Simeon Keates 2008
Identify meta-heuristics
The seven most “important” factors were:• Factor 1: “Visibility of system status”• Factor 2: “Match between system and real world”• Factor 3: “User control and freedom”• Factor 4: “Consistency and standards”• Factor 5: “Error prevention”• Factor 6: “Recognition rather than recall”• Factor 7: “Flexibility and efficiency of use”
Page 77
Variance explained:6.1%
5.9%
4.6%
4.2%
3.7%
3.1%
2.8%
Note: These are Nielsen’s names for the factors – hence the relationto the names of his own heuristics.
Other names could have been chosen.
© Simeon Keates 2008
Explanatory coverage
53 factors needed for 90% of variance Too many for a heuristic evaluation!
Need to find a reduced set …but one that offers “pretty good” coverage…
Page 78
© Simeon Keates 2008
Top heuristics to explain all the usability problems
% explained
Cumulative % explained
A4: Consistency: same thing, same way 23% 23%
A2: Speak user’s language 16% 39%
F7: Feedback: show receipt of user’s input 13% 52%
B2: Seeing/pointing vs. remembering/typing 7% 59%
F10: Aesthetic integrity, keep design simple 7% 65%
A7: Shortcuts and accelerators 6% 71%
G18: Real-world conventions 4% 76%
E18: Help error recognition/recovery 4% 80%
F8: Forgiveness: reversible computer actions 3% 83%
D1: Salient repertoire of available actions 2% 85%
Page 79
© Simeon Keates 2008
Importance of “serious’ usability problems
Heuristics are known to identify many “minor” problems Often cited as a criticism of this approach
Of the 249 problems, 82 are “serious” Top four heuristics give 70% of coverage c.f. 65% for “all” problems
Table follows…
Page 80
© Simeon Keates 2008
Top heuristics to explain the serious usability problems
% explained
Cumulative % explained
B2: Seeing/pointing vs. remembering/typing 22% 22%
F4: Consistency: same thing looks the same 18% 40%
G5: Feedback timely and accurate 17% 57%
D1: Salient repertoire of available actions 12% 70%
F8: Forgiveness: reversible computer actions 7% 77%
B1: Familiar user’s conceptual model 5% 82%
F7: Feedback: show receipt of user’s input 5% 87%
A9: Prevent errors from occurring 4% 90%
D5: East to discriminate action alternatives 2% 93%
B7: Modeless interaction 2% 95%
Page 81
© Simeon Keates 2008
Nielsen’s heuristics applied to real life…
(From: http://www.zenhaiku.com/archives/usability_applied_to_life.html) User control and freedom: • If anything takes up too much of my time, I take a step back and make sure
that it's not taking over me.
Consistency and standards: • I'm very concerned with consistency and standards when it comes to
technology, but my personal life has very little of either.
Error prevention: • I listen to my mom.
Page 82
© Simeon Keates 2008
Heuristic evaluation of web-sites
Need 3 volunteers…
Perform “think aloud” navigation of 3 web-sites
Page 83
© Simeon Keates 2008
Perform a “think aloud” walkthrough on this site
http://www.leoburnett.ca/FLASH/index.htm
Task 1: Find out what they do…
Task 2: Try to use the menus at the bottom of the page
Everyone else: What you liked about the site What you did not like about the site Which of the heuristics do these sites break? Suggestions for how to make the site better
Page 84
© Simeon Keates 2008
Perform a “think aloud” walkthrough on this site
http://www.bow-wowbooks.com/ Task: Find the book “Bow-Wow Attracts Opposites”
Everyone else: What you liked about the site What you did not like about the site Which of the heuristics do these sites break? Suggestions for how to make the site better
Page 85
© Simeon Keates 2008
Perform a “think aloud” walkthrough on this site
http://www.havenworks.com/ Task: Find all news stories related to transportation
Everyone else: What you liked about the site What you did not like about the site Which of the heuristics do these sites break? Suggestions for how to make the site better
Page 86
© Simeon Keates 2008
Summary of discount usability
Designed for rapid testing of products
Great as an integral part of an iterative design approach
Great for identifying problems early in the design lifecycle
Not so great at telling you: “How usable is this system?”
Also not so great at telling you: “How does this compare with my competitors?”
Page 87
© Simeon Keates 2008
Exercise
Page 88
© Simeon Keates 2008
Exercise – part 1
Each group will be given a web-site on which to perform a heuristic evaluation
Analyse the site for the particular task that you have been given
Work as a group to analyse the site and identify as many usability shortcomings as possible
Page 89
© Simeon Keates 2008
Task
A group of Danish students working on a project about British produce decide to find out if British food really is as unhealthy as it sounds…
[…and to bring some back for their lecturer!] The 4 (or 5) students book a cheap flight with Easyjet / SAS to
Stansted / Heathrow and want to hire a car for 3 days to explore the culinary delights of England
Car needs to be large enough for all 4 (or 5) plus luggage. Also needs a child safety seat (for testing the baby products) And 0 GBP insurance excess collision damage cover
Page 90
© Simeon Keates 2008
Exercise – part 2
Prepare a 5 minute presentation for Friday morning
E-mail it to me, Susanne and Stina by Thursday lunchtime at the latest!
Presentation must address:• Name of site• Type/purpose of site• Task analysed• What you liked about the site• What you did not like about the site• Problems found (number, type, severity)• Suggestions for fixing the problems
Page 91
Top Related