Team name Usability testing plan for Belle Views

Team name Usability testing plan for Belle. Views School of Business and Information Management Oulu University of Applied Sciences

Team members n List of team members, with emails

Case description n Describe the case generally n n What are you testing? For whom are you testing?

Focus n If you are concentrating/focusing on some aspect of the product, describe it here n E. g. you want to focus on general playability, first impressions, graphics, bugs

Test persons n Describe how many test person you want to have, age distribution, sex, general background

Test protocol n Describe the test protocol n n As detailed description as possible E. g. users have 10 minutes to complete the test, they will be given written instructions (include the instructions in separate slide), they are asked to perform certain tasks (e. g. play one game, play two songs),

Test protocol 2 n Describe the test protocol n n Are you using before testing questionnaire? Are test users asked to talk out loud, e. g. describing problems and what they are thinking After testing users will be interviewed/asked to fill in a questionnaire Make new slides if needed

Team members’ roles n Describe what the team members will do during the test session n Some will be observing the test Some will write down all the things that happen during the test Some will be the one talking to users, giving them instructions etc

Time and location n n Where will you do the testing? When will you do the testing?

Demographic n n n How many testers did you get? How many male/female Age distribution Other background info (maybe draw a table)

Results 1 n Depending on your questionnaire Calculate mean answers and discuss written answers n Make as many slides as needed n n

Test session 1 n Who participated in the session Team roles (if applicable) Date, time & location Main findings n Make as many slides as needed n n n

Summary of results n Positive feedback / strong points

Summary of results n Areas of improvement / negative feedback

Conclusion n What was good in the game What was not so good What aspects would need more testing