This paper presents the results of a study that compared two types of remote usability testing methods: the synchronous and asynchronous methods. The two methods were compared through an evaluation of hospital websites and involved three points of comparison: number and nature of usability problems discovered, overall task performance, and participants’ testing experiences. The results show significant differences between the two methods. The asynchronous method led to the detection of a greater number of usability problems relating to content and navigation. The participants also found the asynchronous method to be more comfortable and convenient for them to use. They also felt it was easier to concentrate on tasks. However, no differences were found between the methods in terms of tasks performance metrics. The study concludes that the asynchronous method seems to outperform the synchronous one for testing hospital websites, as it is equally useful in revealing high-severity problems, and more profitable for detecting considerable number of usability issues, as well as ensuring that the usability testing experience is as natural as possible for participants. Moreover, it can be conducted with a larger sample size and without the need for the presence of any evaluators during the testing sessions, thus reducing financial and temporal costs.

This paper presents the results of a study that aimed to compare the utility and validity of the traditional concurrent think-aloud and the co-discovery usability testing methods. The study was conducted in Saudi Arabia and involved three points of comparison: number and nature of usability problems discovered, test participants’ experiences, and overall task performance. The results show significant differences between the two types of testing methods. The co-discovery method led to the detection of a greater number of minor usability problems relating to layout and functionality. The participants also found the co-discovery method to be easier and less tiring to perform and more natural for them than the concurrent think-aloud method. No difference was found between the methods in terms of participants’ task performance. The study concludes that the co-discovery method seems to be appropriate for identifying numerous minor issues and ensuring that the usability testing experience is as natural as possible for participants. However, the classic method seems to be a more cost-effective method, as it is equally useful in revealing high-severity problems and requires only one participant per test session.

Educational institutions currently favor the adoption and use of modern information and communication technology for teaching and learning. As a result, many learning management systems have been developed over recent years and established in education systems. This paper reports the results of a study that examines the usability level of the Blackboard system from the perspectives of the academic members of Umm Al-Qura University in Saudi Arabia by using two of the most commonly used measures of perceived usability, namely, SUS and CSUQ. It also examines the association between these measures, and the effect of faculty demographics attributes on their scores. The results of the study revealed that the usability of Blackboard at the current institution is inadequate and needs to be further enhanced. It also showed that SUS and CSUQ questionnaires correlated highly and largely appear to be measuring the same thing, presumably, perceived usability. The results also indicated the significant effect of Blackboard frequency of use on both SUS and CSUQ scores.

This paper presents the results of a study that compared three think-aloud methods: concurrent think-aloud, retrospective think-aloud, and a hybrid method. The three methods were compared through an evaluation of a library website, which involved four points of comparison: task performance, participants' experiences, usability problems discovered, and the cost of employing the methods. The results revealed that the concurrent method outperformed both the retrospective and the hybrid methods in facilitating successful usability testing. It detected higher numbers of usability problems than the retrospective method, and produced output comparable to that of the hybrid method. The method received average to positive ratings from its users, and no reactivity was observed. Lastly, this method required much less time on the evaluator's part than did the other two methods, which involved double the testing and analysis time.