Heuristic Evaluation Report

3.1 Evaluation Methodology

{Describe what a HE is and how it was done. Write between 300 to 500 of your own words. Explain the method, do not just list the heuristics. Replace my sample text below with your own.}

Heuristic evaluation is ... ... by Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich in 1990 [Nie1990]. ... as can be seen in Moran and Gordon's guide [Mor2023].

For this evaluation, the "Andrews General Usability Heuristics", shown in Appendix A.1, were used. These are based on and slightly adapted from Nielsen's revised set of ten usability heuristics [Nie1994].

{Cite at least two more references of your own in this section and include them in the References section below. Use only indirect quotations (paraphrasing), no direct quotations. You may remove or retain my sample citations and references as you wish.}

3.2 User Profiles

{Describe the kinds of user the site is trying to attract.}

{Group these users into categories according to their characteristics.}

{Describe the goals and typical tasks for each of these user groups.}

{Do not create personas for these user groups.}

3.3 Extent of the Evaluation

{Describe which parts of the interface were evaluated and which parts were not.}

3.4 Evaluators and Evaluation Environments

{Tabular overview of the different evaluators and the evaluation environments they used: i.e. the demographic data, hardware, browser, type and speed of internet connection, etc.}

The evaluation environments used by each evaluator are shown in Table 1. For this evaluation, mobile devices were operated in portrait mode.

{Note: the recording resolution is the resolution of the actual recorded video of your browser window.}

{Enter the name, version, and platform of the video editing software and any transcoding software you used.}

4.1 Top Three Positive Findings

The top three positive findings according to their average (mean) positivity ratings are described in more detail below. The positivity rating scheme used to rank the positive findings is shown in Table 2.

{Describe the top three positive findings which emerged during the evaluation, according to the mean positivity ratings.}

{For each finding, include at least one paragraph of text and select the best (most representative) available video clip(s) to illustrate the finding.}

4.2 List of All Positive Findings

{Aggregated list of all positive findings, in descending order of mean positivity.}

{For each positive finding, include a link to the best (most representative) available video clip(s) to illustrate the finding. The name of each video clip should be linked to the corresponding video clip.}

Table 3 shows a list of all the positive findings which emerged from the evaluation, sorted in descreasing order of average (mean) positivity, i.e. the most positive are at the top of the table. The name codes assigned to each evaluator are shown in Table 4.

{Individual positivity ratings are integer values between 0 and 4 (no fractions allowed). The mean positivity is a fractional value given to 2 decimal places.}

4.3 Top Five Problems

The top five problems according to their average (mean) severity ratings are described in more detail below. Problem number 1 is the problem (negative finding) with the highest mean severity. The severity rating scheme used to rank the problems is shown in Table 5.

{Describe the top five most severe problems (negative findings) which emerged during the evaluation, according to the mean severity ratings.}

{For each problem, include at least one paragraph of text describing the problem and select the best (most representative) available video clip(s) to illustrate the problem. After the problem description, make a recommendation for how the problem might be addressed.}

4.4 List of All Problems Found

{Aggregated list of all problems found (negative findings), in descending order of mean severity.}

{For each problem, include a link to the best (most representative) available video clip(s) to illustrate the finding. The name of each video clip should be linked to the corresponding video clip.}

Table 6 shows a list of all the problems found (negative findings) in the evaluation, sorted in descreasing order of average (mean) severity. The name codes assigned to each evaluator are shown in Table 7.

{Individual severity ratings are integer values between 0 and 4 (no fractions allowed). The mean severity is a fractional value given to 2 decimal places.}

A.1 Heuristics

The evaluators used the Andrews General Usability Heuristics 2013 found in file: heuristics.pdf.

A.2 Individual Evaluation Logs

The individual log files for each evaluator are provided below:

• Harald Roth: log-hr.txt.
• Christian Traum: log-ct.txt.
• Thomas Gelb: log-tg.txt.
• Sabine Schwarz: log-ss.txt.