It could also mean either suspicious or suspect. Not necessarily both of the word at the same time. In an easy way to use SUS is by simply typing the word in your text message. It can be used as part of a sentence or to just replace the word suspicious or suspect. Check the Growth Mindset Kit designed to raise confident kids growing up with tech. For example, a friend posted a story about eating in a cafe that has the best chocolate in the world.
Usually used to define someone or something that looks suspicious or untrustworthy. Top 5 pumpkin carving ideas based around Among Us. Among Us: The types of players usually found in games. Among Us: Taking over the world a murder at a time. Edited by Nikhil Vinod Login to post your comment. Show More Comments. No thanks Delete. Cancel Update. Login to reply. The concept of applying a letter grade to the usability of the product was appealing because it is familiar to most of the people who work on design teams regardless of their discipline.
Having an easy-to-understand, familiar reference point that can be easily understood by engineers and project managers facilitates the communication of the results of testing. Like the standard letter grade scale, products that scored in the 90s were exceptional, products that scored in the 80s were good, and products that scored in the 70s were acceptable. Anything below a 70 had usability issues that were cause for concern.
While this concept was intuitive, we believed that a validated scale in which the usability of a product could be assigned an adjective description might be even more useful. Bangor, Kortum, and Miller reported the results of a pilot study that sought to map descriptive adjectives e. This paper presents the final results of that study. There are five positive statements and five negative statements, which alternate. While the SUS has been demonstrated to be fundamentally sound, our group found that some small changes helped participants complete the SUS.
First, a short set of instructions were added that reminded them to mark a response to every statement and not to dwell too long on any one statement. Second, the term cumbersome in the original Statement 8 was replaced with awkward. This same change was independently made by Finstad, Finally, the term system was changed to product , based on participant feedback. The current SUS form being used in our laboratories is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1.
We have used this version of the SUS in almost all of the surveys we have conducted, which to date is nearly 3, surveys within studies. It has proven to be a robust tool, having been used many times to evaluate a wide range of interfaces that include Web sites, cell phones, IVR, GUI, hardware, and TV user interfaces.
In all of these cases, participants performed a representative sample of tasks for the product usually in formative usability tests and then, before any discussion with the moderator, completed the survey. Table 1 lists survey count and mean scores by user interface type. The overall mean of about 70 has remained constant for some time now. It is slightly lower than the median score of The quartile breakdown of study mean scores is shown in Table 2.
Having a large database of SUS scores to use as a benchmark is useful because it allows the practitioner to make relative judgments of product usability, either from iteration-to-iteration or to comparable applications. However, instead of following the SUS format, a seven-point, adjective-anchored Likert scale was used to determine if a word or phrase could be associated with a small range of SUS scores.
A subjective image quality rating scale Bangor, ; Olacsi, was adapted, with the terms Marginal and Passable dropped as being too similar to OK for the diverse user population that participate in our studies. The phrasing of the prompt has three components.
First, it preserves the overall wording from the original rating scale. Second, it uses the term user-friendliness because it is a widely known synonym for the concept of usability. Finally, the term product is used consistently with our version of the SUS. Figure 2 shows the adjective rating scale. The adjective rating scale statement was added at the bottom of the same page as the SUS and participants filled it out immediately after they gave their SUS ratings. The SUS with the added adjective scale was administered to participants.
The modified SUS was used in all studies in which we would have normally administered the SUS during this data collection period. For analysis, numerical equivalents of 1 through 7 were assigned to the adjectives from Worst Imaginable to Best Imaginable, respectively. First, a correlational analysis was conducted to determine how well the ratings using the adjective rating scale matched the corresponding SUS scores given by participants i.
Results are highly significant a The mean score for each adjective rating for the current study is listed in Table 3 and show in Figure 3. All of the adjectives are significantly different, except for Worst Imaginable and Awful.
The seven adjectives span almost the entire point range of SUS scores, although the end points have relatively few data points. Figure 3.
Given the strength of the correlation, it may be tempting to think about using the single question adjective rating alone, in place of the SUS. Certainly administration of a single item instrument would be more efficient, and the result would be an easy to interpret metric that could be quickly shared within the product team.
However, there are several reasons why using a single item scale alone may not be the best course. First, in the absence of objective measures, like task success rates or time-on-task measures, we cannot adequately determine whether the SUS or the adjective rating scale is the more accurate metric. Indeed, anecdotal evidence in our lab suggests that a test participant may provide a favorable SUS score, yet fail to complete the tasks being tested.
The reverse has also been observed. Collecting this kind of corroborating data is an effort that we will be undertaking in future studies. Second, psychometric theory suggests that multiple questions are generally superior to a single question.
0コメント