Analytic evaluation

An analytic evaluation is an evaluation where a usability expert inspects the prototype and compares it with usability principles. These usability principles are when used in an analytic evaluation called heuristics. The heuristics are scored and the expert gives his comments and recommendations. The original set of heuristics for evaluation user interfaces were developed by Jakob Nielsen and his colleagues. A revised version of these is used in the evaluation. ¹⁰

The grading in this evaluation is from 0-1 where 1 completely satisfies the heuristic.

Visibility of system status

The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time.

Evaluation:

User is always able to find out where he is in the application. The current workspace is highlighted and the menu point the user is currently using is bold. When the system is loading a load bar appears to show the user that something is happening.

Score: 1.0

Match between system and the real world

The system should speak the users' language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. Follow real-world conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order.

Evaluation:

The terms and language used through the whole application matches the language used in the acquirering business. So the users should be able to understand labels and menu points.

Score: 1.0

User control and freedom

Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked

"emergency exit" to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.

10 [4] Nielsen, Jakob. (2005). Ten Usability Heuristics. [online]. Available from:

Evaluation:

Generally the user has good possibilities to go back and forth between screens without losing the current state of the application. E.g. the workspace remembers the current acquirer. The user can cancel the creation and editing of bank account, output recipients etc.

There is one exception. If the user does not click the right merchant in the result list after doing a search there is no way back. The user has to do the whole search again. There should be some kind of undo in this case.

Score: 0.9

Consistency and standards

Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions.

Evaluation:

The different pages, actions, words always mean the same thing.

Score: 1.0

Error prevention

Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a problem from occurring in the first place. Either eliminate error-prone conditions or check for them and present users with a confirmation option before they commit to the action.

Evaluation:

Error prevention is implemented in the design some places. When a user is editing an output recipient this is object is displayed in the table and has a delete button.

But if the button is clicked nothing happens. The same output recipient cannot be opened at the same time.

Error prevention could have been used when filling in forms. Here errors could be prevented by checking if required fields are empty real time. An alternative solution is to make a help text telling the user from the start that this is a required field.

Score: 0.8

Recognition rather than recall

Minimize the user's memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible.

The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate.

Evaluation:

All actions and options are visible and important information is remembered from screen to screen.

Help texts is only provided in the search page. It is not clear for the users how to use the tabs and auto completion. A little help text to get them started would be good practice.

Score: 0.5

Flexibility and efficiency of use

Accelerators -- unseen by the novice user -- may often speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both inexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions.

Evaluation:

All the auto completing combo fields are accelerators. The experienced user knows exactly what to write in these and can do it quicker with the help of auto completion. The inexperienced will use the drop down functionality to find the value.

Score: 1.0

Aesthetic and minimalist design

Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility.

Evaluation:

Every page has an aesthetic and minimalist design. Only relevant data is shown.

Score: 1.0

Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors

Error messages should be expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.

Evaluation:

When the user submits a form and something is missing the application will mark the field to show something is missing. If e.g. an email address does not have the correct format message informing the user will be shown.

Score: 1.0

Help and documentation

Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to search, focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large.

Evaluation:

There is no documentation built in the system.

Score: 0.0