Difference between revisions of "Renaissance:IsoMetrics Results"
From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
m (→Table 1: Mean values and stadard deviation for Writer, Calc and Impress.: typo) |
m (Categorizing) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{User Experience Community}} | ||
==== Comments ==== | ==== Comments ==== | ||
* Please note that the amount of participants for Impress does not suffice to produce significant results. Hence, be aware when making conclusions that the data reflects merely a trend. | * Please note that the amount of participants for Impress does not suffice to produce significant results. Hence, be aware when making conclusions that the data reflects merely a trend. | ||
Latest revision as of 22:45, 17 March 2010
|
|
|---|
|
Quick Navigation
Team |
Contents
Comments
- Please note that the amount of participants for Impress does not suffice to produce significant results. Hence, be aware when making conclusions that the data reflects merely a trend.
- The fact that each application has a different amount of participants is due to the organizational structure and the tasks of the work force inside the company this survey was distributed in
Table 1: Mean values and standard deviation for Writer, Calc and Impress.
| Suitability for the task | Self descriptiveness | Controllability | Conformity with user expectations | Error tolerance | Suitabilty for learning | Suitability for individualization | |
| Writer (N=131) | 3.25 (0.76) | 3.15 (0.76) | 3.50 (0.74) | 3.43 (0.72) | 3.07 (0.99) | 3.38 (0.74) | 3.22 (0.76) |
| Calc (N=31) | 3,28 (0.64) | 3,11 (0.68) | 3,66 (0.66) | 3,60 (0.73) | 3,19 (0.98) | 3,20 (0.71) | 3,30 (0.78) |
| Impress (N=9) | 2,54 (0.79) | 2,72 (0.57) | 2,98 (0.84) | 2,95 (0.64) | 2,43 (0.83) | 2,68 (0.60) | 2,74 (0.63) |
Figure 1: Writer, Calc and Impress compared (Rating scale: 1 -> negative, 5 -> positive)
Table 2: Negative items that exceed their category mean by one standard deviation
| Suitability for the task | Self descriptiveness | Suitabilty for learning |
| A.8 “Too many different steps need to be performed to deal with a given task” (Writer, Calc) | S.5* “It is easy to retrieve information about a certain entry field” (Writer) | L.3* “The explanations provided help me understand the software so that I become more and more skilled at using it” (Writer, Impress) |
| A.10* “The software is well suited to the requirements of my work” (Impress) | S.7* “If I want, the software will display not only general explanations but also concrete examples to illustrate points” ( Calc, Impress) | L.7 “In order to use the software properly, I must remember a great many details” (Calc) |
| A.15* “I can easily adapt the software for performing new tasks” (Impress) | S.9* “If I want, the software displays basic information about conceptual aspects of the program” (Calc) | |
| A.16* “The important commands required to perform my work are easy to find” (Writer, Calc) | S.11* “I can tell straight away which functions are invoked by the various menu items”(Writer) |
(*) These statements have to be negated.
Discussion
- Overall, the quality of Writer and Calc is perceived as mediocre while the quality of Impress is perceived as unsatisfying or even very unsatisfying.
- For Writer and Calc, around 20% of participants rate either negative or very negative. For Impress, negative ratings exceed 38%.
- There are two categories that are somewhat better rated than the rest. Controllability and conformity with user expectations seem to cause fewer problems among users in this context. This might be due to the fact that there were almost no novice users; some even participated in workshops and trainings, although that turned to be insignificant when related to average ratings.
- Overall, according to the quality of OOo as users perceive it, all three applications have substantial opportunities for improvement. Most of all, the categories "suitability for the task" and "self descriptiveness" are perceived of less quality. This might indicate that the applications of OOo that were subject to evaluation do not cover the needs as required by this context and the tasks. In addition, users seem to have difficulties in understanding the things the applications present them via the interface e.g. string, icons, feedback etc.
