Order ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee!
Note: All our papers are written from scratch by human writers to ensure authenticity and originality.
Check your essay before you submit. See exactly what your professor sees.
See your AI and plagiarism results before your instructor does.Get the exact same report your professor uses. Trusted by 50,000+ students worldwide.
STUDENTS NAME
INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION
USABILITY QUESTIONS
The company would like to know the usability of the new user guide that was installed recently. Therefore, filling in the questionnaire will help us reach a conclusion of the efficiency of the machine. The information provided in this questionnaire will be purely used for the research only and will not be availed to any other third party. Please fill/tick on the appropriate answer.
Usability
Thank you for dedicating part your time to participate in this survey. Your responses shall go along into improving the application user experience and user interface and make it more robust and responsive. The main aim of measurability experience is to measure application’s effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction as defined by System Usability Scale (Brooke, 1555) and IBM’s Computer System Usability Questionnaire (Lewis, 1995; Lewis & Lauro, 2009).
Usability questions
| Variables of measurement | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Strongly agree |
| More interesting and helpful | 10 | 25 | 5 | 15 |
| Easy to use | 10 | 25 | 5 | 15 |
| Less technical | 10 | 15 | 10 | 20 |
| Well organized system modules | 15 | 25 | 10 | 15 |
| Complicated and cumbersome to use | 10 | 15 | 10 | 20 |
| Easy to navigate and interactive to use | 15 | 25 | 5 | 10 |
| Willing to learn functionalities | 7 | 8 | 10 | 20 |
| Inconsistent &hard to navigate | 9 | 10 | 6 | 20 |
| Friendly and comfortable to complete assignments | 10 | 25 | 8 | 12 |
| Responsive & respond to errors | 5 | 10 | 3 | 37 |
| Easy to understand interface and interact | 10 | 15 | 10 | 20 |
| Graphics are bright & can be used in low light | 5 | 10 | 5 | 35 |
The respondents pointed out that the system’s help was good. However, the use of the system was hard. 15% of the respondents agreed that the machine was not as easy to use as they had previously thought. On technicality 20% of the respondents found the usability to be more technical with only 10% of them disagreeing. The system’s application in terms of graphics and ability to use in low light was agreed with by 35% respondents. Many respondents disagreed that the interface of was easy to understand and that the easiness to complete the assignment. However, 37% agreed that the system responsive to an error made while using it was effective. 25% of the respondents agreed that the system was easy to navigate and 20% of them would learn more about the functionalities of the system if given a chance. 25% of the respondents disagreed that the system had been well arranged with 20% saying that the use was very complicated. 20% of the respondents also strongly agreed that the system usability was hard. The system is poorly organized and hard to navigate.
To improve on the usability of the system, a few changes would be made. The interface of the machine although remaining as it is, the navigation and organization should be made user-friendly and customized to different users. The system is said to be complicated, however, it is because the machine is new and many people have no inner knowledge of the machine. Therefore, a user guide should first be attached to the system for inexperienced users on how to use before they are left to use it on their own.
Section 3. Application function specific questions.
| Variables of measurement | % Yes | % Neutral | % No | |
| Is the system first enough | 20 | 0 | 35 | |
| Is the system easy to familiarize with | 25 | 10 | 20 | |
| Do you feel in control while using it | 15 | 5 | 35 | |
| Is the design creative | 28 | 10 | 17 | |
| Is it efficient | 29 | 5 | 21 | |
| Is it Easy to log in | 45 | 0 | 10 | |
| Is it easy to navigate | 15 | 10 | 30 | |
| Compatibility with your device | 28 | 7 | 20 | |
| It is accurate | 35 | 5 | 15 | |
| Do you understand the terms and languages used in the system | 30 | 0 | 25 |
On measuring the systems speed when using, 35% of the respondents disagreed saying that the system takes a long time to process the information. 25% of the respondents agreed that when given a chance to familiarize themselves with the system, they would happily do so with only 20% opposing the idea. However, 25% of the respondents agreed to feel being in control of the system when they used it. 10% were not sure and 20% did not feel in control of the system when they used it. A larger percentage of 28% agreed that the system was creatively designed to help tourists in the country with a small percentage of 17 refuting. Despite the system being slow, a larger percentage of 28% agree that it is very efficient when using it. However, 21% did not agree with the majority as they said that the system was not efficient enough in its application. The system is easier to log in when one needs to use since it only requires one to enter the password and username. However, a few of the respondents opposed saying the log in sometimes may fail. When it comes to navigation, only 15% found it easier to navigate with 30% finding it difficult. 28% of the respondents found the system is compatible with their phones. On accuracy, 35% agreed that the system was accurate and would give accurate information on the questions keyed in. on whether the respondents understood the terms and languages used in the system, 30% agreed to be familiar and understand well the language. However, a 25% refuted the claim saying the system se technical words which cannot be universally understood (Chiao, Chen & Huang, 2018).
On the evaluation of the demography, the individual results were affected by them in various ways. Most of the respondents were middle age and old people (Bezerra, 2014). Although they may be familiar with the technology, they take a longer time to learn and to change. Most of the tourist also come from different countries. Most of them are not well acquainted with English, therefore understanding the software becomes difficult. However, this is a small percentage. Another problem came from the people who were unemployed and were still looking for employment with pay. Most of this people have banner phones which cannot be able to access the software.
The research found out that the demography of people can affect the use and adaptability of innovative technology. Also, poverty undermined the use of the software system (Boletsis & Chasanidou, 2018). On looking at the usability of the software, the research found out that the software is technical and the user interface is not flexible enough to allow easy access and use of the software. However, the system was found to be accurate and efficient in its usability. In its application, the system was slow with most of the respondents saying they did not feel to be in control of the system when using it.
With a few changes in the system, the system can perform, better and efficiently serve the purpose for which it was created. Some of the recommendations were to improve the user interface and improve on the navigation of the system.
Bezerra, C., Andrade, R., Santos, R. M., Abed, M., de Oliveira, K. M., Monteiro, J. M., … & Ezzedine, H. (2014, October). Challenges for usability testing in ubiquitous systems. In Proceedings of the 26th Conference on l’Interaction Homme-Machine (pp. 183- 188). ACM.
Boletsis, C., & Chasanidou, D. (2018, June). Smart Tourism in Cities: Exploring Urban Destinations with Audio Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 11th PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments Conference (pp. 515-521). ACM.
Chiao, H. M., Chen, Y. L., & Huang, W. H. (2018). Examining the usability of an online virtual tour-guiding platform for cultural tourism education. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 23, 29-38.
Groth, A., & Haslwanter, D. (2015). Perceived usability, attractiveness and intuitiveness of responsive mobile tourism websites: a user experience study. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015 (pp. 593-606). Springer, Cham.
Kaulich, T., Heine, T., & Kirsch, A. (2017). Indoor Localisation with Beacons for a User- Friendly Mobile Tour Guide. KI-Künstliche Intelligenz, 31(3), 239-248.
Yang, S. Y., & Hsu, C. L. (2016). A location-based services and Google maps-based information master system for tour guiding. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 54, 87-105.
