If you could only ask one question, use this one.

Posted Comments

There are 8 Comments

October 7, 2012 | Paul Smith wrote:

I agree with this as a most useful question to help define measurable ux metrics. However, I don't like your example of 'very difficult' then 5 unlabeled choices and then 'very easy'. You're going to get arbitrary results on people who pick radio 4 & 5 etc. I prefer scoring it this way, in buckets that so far work for most test subjects I've reviewed: 0 - unable to perform (within a minute or two), 1 - very difficult, 2 - difficult 3 - okay (acceptable, not too difficult), 4 - easy, 5 - very easy 

---

February 18, 2012 | Jeff Sauro wrote:

@Ryan,

Good questions. You know, the original version of that scale had no labels--it came from some studies from Tullis and Stetson. Since the original publication of this blog and the CHI paper I HAVE labeled my radio buttons from 1 to 7 with the labels over the 1 and 7 only. I agree with your sentiment on giving users that number. I'm guessing there would be a modest difference between the label and unlabelled version but I don't have data on that. Given what I've seen, I'm inclined to lean in the favor of easier to respond to for the user unless I find data to contradict my intuition.

I have been using the SEQ for quite a while now and have built up a normed database that I'll be releasing as a downloadable product--it will convert raw scores to percentile ranks. In the absence of that data for now, using 5.6 (or something close) is a good idea.

Let me know if you find anything different.  

---

February 17, 2012 | Ryan Knutzen wrote:

Your SEQ question is a 7-point rating scale, but the points are not numbered. Is that intentional? Do you know if it has an impact on the ratings they give? I prefer to number each point as well as label the endpoints, to help users scan and select the right response (7 radio buttons always feels a little dizzying at first glance).
Also, similar to Timo's last question, do you have an "average" score for this SEQ question? Do you think the 5.6 average from Nielsen's 1994 article applies in this case?
 

---

November 1, 2011 | sahil wrote:

Why railways having sleeper on ralway track.........................................................................................?rn 

---

April 7, 2010 | Timo Jokela wrote:

David: a bit delayed comment. My setting is creating usability requirements into a RFP. I would like to set a verifiable usability requirements as acceptance criteria for the system to be developed. 

---

March 18, 2010 | David Bishop wrote:

Timo, Jeff, we've found that in many cases, it's more important to show that usability is improving than to have a specific numerical requirement for 'good.' Pessimists could chalk this up to state of the art (usability is generally poor enough that any raising of the bar will be of value). Optimists can point out that an organization that measuring usability and aiming for improvement is an organization that has a mature process (à la CMM), which may be more important that setting a specific target. 

---

March 13, 2010 | Jeff Sauro wrote:

Timo, Great question. Rating scale data is only as good as what you can compare the results to. With the SEQ I have used it for over 100 tasks so my raw scores can be expressed as a percentile rank. Later this year I'll talk more about that database so others can generate standardized ease scores by task. 

---

March 11, 2010 | Timo Jokela wrote:

I would be most interested to use a question such as SEQ for usability requirements.

But what would be the value for 'good' usability? Is 7 good enough? Or 8?

How would you comment on this? 

---

Post a Comment

Comment:

Your Name:

Your Email Address:

To prevent comment spam, please answer the following :
What is 4 + 1: (enter the number)