Usability Testing: Making it Work for the Army

Abstract

During an early formative usability test, representative end-users perform a set of tasks using a prototype or simulation of a system. While performing tasks and thinking aloud, a skilled specialist observes and takes notes recording how easily a participant performs the tasks and logging issues encountered. Sessions are conducted in a usability test lab, while interested parties watch from a separate observation room through a one-way mirror. Due to cost, schedule, and resource constraints many elements of conventional usability testing are not viable for use when testing equipment with Warfighters. To overcome these challenges and meet the needs of system developers, usability test procedures were modified and hybrid solutions developed. Descriptions and examples of these modifications are provided as are lessons learned and insights gained through their use during the course of seven usability tests.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Drillings

(2003, January). The U.S. Army MANPRINT Program. Paper presented at the MANPRINT Practitioner's Workshop. Available from HQDA, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, MANPRINT Directorate, 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310–0300.

Landsburg

A. C.

Avery

Beaton

Bost

J. R.

Comperatore

Khandpur

Malone

T. B.

Parker

Popkin

Sheridan

T. B.

(2008). The art of successfully applying human systems integration. Naval Engineers Journal, 120(1), 77–107.

Pew

R.W.

Mavor

A. S.

(Eds.). (2007). Human-system integration in the system development process: A new look. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Savage-Knepshield

P. A.

(2009). Applying a warfighter-centric system design process to a department of defense acquisition program. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 1(3), 47–66.

Wierwille

W. W.

Casali

J. G.

(1983). A validated rating scale for global mental workload measurement applications. Proceedings of the 27^th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society (pp. 129–133).