Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
public:papers:cacm2018 [2017-12-24 11:39] – [A large-scale comparative study of beta testers and standard users [CACM 2018]] xukrop | public:papers:cacm2018 [2020-05-14 11:38] (current) – xukrop | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
~~NOTOC~~ | ~~NOTOC~~ | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | <col xs=" | ||
<TEXT size=" | <TEXT size=" | ||
- | \_{{fa> | + | |
+ | \_{{fa> | ||
{{fa> | {{fa> | ||
{{fa> | {{fa> | ||
+ | |||
+ | \_{{fa> | ||
</ | </ | ||
+ | </ | ||
- | <panel type="default" | + | <col xs="12" |
- | There have been many studies exposing poor usability of security software for the common end user. However, only a few inspect the usability challenges faced by more knowledgeable users. | + | <TEXT align=" |
- | We conducted an experiment to empirically assess usability of the command line interface of OpenSSL, a well known and widely used cryptographic library. Based on the results, we try to propose specific improvements that would encourage more secure behavior. | + | |
- | We observed 87 developers/ | + | <button type=" |
- | Based on the overall results, we deem the OpenSSL usability insufficient according to both user opinions and standardized measures. Moreover, the perceived usability seems to be correlated with previous experience and used resources. There was a great disproportion between the participant views of a successful task accomplishment and the reality. A general dissatisfaction with both OpenSSL interface and its manual page was shared among the majority of the participants. | + | |
- | As hinted by a participant, | + | <button type="info" icon="fa fa-external-link"> |
- | </panel> | + | |
- | <popover trigger=" | ||
- | <button type=" | ||
- | </ | ||
- | \_ | ||
<button collapse=" | <button collapse=" | ||
- | + | </ | |
+ | </ | ||
+ | </ | ||
< | < | ||
- | @Article{2017-cacm-stavova, | + | @Article{2018-cacm-stavova, |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | |
- | | + | Number = {2}, |
+ | | ||
+ | Publisher | ||
+ | Doi = {10.1145/ | ||
} | } | ||
</ | </ | ||
- | ---- | + | <panel type=" |
- | + | ||
- | ===== Key insights ===== | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Our research produced the following actionable takeaways for software developers: | + | |
- | * **Using data**\\ Data you can collect can help you learn who your users and beta testers are. Consider country of origin, software and hardware configuration, | + | |
- | * **Selecting testers**\\ The fewer testers you have, the pickier you should be about their selection. | + | |
- | * **Identifying usability issues**\\ When testing international products, ensure beta testers are culturally representative of regular users to help identify potential localization and cultural usability issues. | + | |
- | * **Ensuring representation**\\ Most important, testers should be representative of regular users. Keep checking that this is the case or pursue additional rigorous analyses to reach the most credible and applicable conclusions possible. | + | |
- | ===== Summary ===== | + | |
Beta testers are the first end users outside a software company to use its product. They have been used for decades and are rightly credited not only with finding and reporting bugs, but also with improving general product usability through their feedback and/or the ways they use the product. | Beta testers are the first end users outside a software company to use its product. They have been used for decades and are rightly credited not only with finding and reporting bugs, but also with improving general product usability through their feedback and/or the ways they use the product. | ||
Line 53: | Line 50: | ||
We conclude that - at least in our study - beta users represent standard users well in terms of hardware and operating system in large scale beta testing. However, populations differ significantly in the distribution of users and testers between countries. This may cause a problem when a testing includes localization and usability issues that may be influenced by regional differences. | We conclude that - at least in our study - beta users represent standard users well in terms of hardware and operating system in large scale beta testing. However, populations differ significantly in the distribution of users and testers between countries. This may cause a problem when a testing includes localization and usability issues that may be influenced by regional differences. | ||
+ | </ | ||
===== Summarizing video ===== | ===== Summarizing video ===== | ||
{{ youtube> | {{ youtube> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== Key insights ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Our research produced the following actionable takeaways for software developers: | ||
+ | * **Using data**\\ Data you can collect can help you learn who your users and beta testers are. Consider country of origin, software and hardware configuration, | ||
+ | * **Selecting testers**\\ The fewer testers you have, the pickier you should be about their selection. | ||
+ | * **Identifying usability issues**\\ When testing international products, ensure beta testers are culturally representative of regular users to help identify potential localization and cultural usability issues. | ||
+ | * **Ensuring representation**\\ Most important, testers should be representative of regular users. Keep checking that this is the case or pursue additional rigorous analyses to reach the most credible and applicable conclusions possible. | ||
===== How did we make the research video ===== | ===== How did we make the research video ===== |