Purdue Usability Testing Questionnaire

Purdue Usability Testing Questionnaire
Based on: Lin, H.X. Choong, Y.-Y., and Salvendy, G. (1997) A Proposed Index of Usability: A Method for Comparing the Relative Usability of Different Software Systems. Behaviour & Information Technology, 16:4/5, 267-278. Reproduced by permission. (The ratings of importance are not included in this online version, but could be incorporated into the comments.) \| About quest.cgi

Please rate the usability of the system.

Try to respond to all the items.
For items that are not applicable, use: NA
Make sure these fields are filled in: System: Email to:
Add a comment about an item by clicking on its icon, or add comment fields for all items by clicking on Comment All.
To mail in your results, click on: Mail Data

System: Email to:

Optionally provide comments and your email address in the box.

1. COMPATIBILITY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
1. Is the control of cursor compatible with movement? bad good
2. Are the results of control entry compatible with user expectations? bad good
3. Is the control matched to user skill? bad good
4. Are the coding compatible with familiar conventions? bad good
5. Is the wording familiar? bad good
2. CONSISTENCY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
6. Is the assignment of colour codes conventional? bad good
7. Is the coding consistent across displays, menu options? bad good
8. Is the cursor placement consistent? bad good
9. Is the display format consistent? bad good
10. Is the feedback consistent? bad good
11. Is the format within data fields consistent? bad good
12. Is the label format consistent? bad good
13. Is the label location consistent? bad good
14. Is the labelling itself consistent? bad good
15. Is the display orientation consistent? -- panning vs. scrolling. bad good
16. Are the user actions required consistent? bad good
17. Is the wording consistent across displays? bad good
18. Is the data display consistent with entry requirements? bad good
19. Is the data display consistent with user conventions? bad good
20. Are symbols for graphic data standard? bad good
21. Is the option wording consistent with command language? bad good
22. Is the wording consistent with user guidance? bad good
3. FLEXIBILITY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
23. Does it have by-passing menu selection with command entry? bad good
24. Does it have direct manipulation capability? bad good
25. Is the design for data entry flexible? bad good
26. Can the display be controlled by user flexibly? bad good
27. Does it provide flexible sequence control? bad good
28. Does it provide flexible user guidance? bad good
29. Are the menu options dependent on context? bad good
30. Can user name displays and elements according to their needs? bad good
31. Does it provide good training for different users? bad good
32. Are users allowed to customize windows? bad good
33. Can users assign command names? bad good
34. Does it provide user selection of data for display? bad good
35. Does it handle user-specified windows? bad good
36. Does it provide zooming for display expansion? bad good
4. LEARNABILITY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
37. Does it provide clarity of wording? bad good
38. Is the data grouping reasonable for easy learning? bad good
39. Is the command language layered? bad good
40. Is the grouping of menu options logical? bad good
41. Is the ordering of menu options logical? bad good
42. Are the command names meaningful? bad good
43. Does it provide no-penalty learning? bad good
5. MINIMAL ACTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
44. Does it provide combined entry of related data? bad good
45. Will the required data be entered only once? bad good
46. Does it provide default values? bad good
47. Is the shifting among windows easy? bad good
48. Does it provide function keys for frequent control entries? bad good
49. Does it provide global search and replace capability? bad good
50. Is the menu selection by pointing? -- primary means of sequence control. bad good
51. Is the menu selection by keyed entry? -- secondary means of control entry. bad good
52. Does it require minimal cursor positioning? bad good
53. Does it require minimal steps in sequential menu selection? bad good
54. Does it require minimal user control actions? bad good
55. Is the return to higher-level menus required only one simple key action? bad good
56. Is the return to general menu required only one simple key action? bad good
6. MINIMAL MEMORY LOAD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
57. How are abbreviations and acronyms used? bad good
58. Does it provide aids for entering hierarchic data? bad good
59. Is the guidance information always available? bad good
60. Does it provide hierarchic menus for sequential selection? bad good
61. Are selected data highlighted? bad good
62. Does it provide index of commands? bad good
63. Does it provide index of data? bad good
64. Does it indicate current position in menu structure? bad good
65. Are data items kept short? bad good
66. Are the letter codes for menu selection designed carefully? bad good
67. Are long data items partitioned? bad good
68. Are prior answers recapitulated? bad good
69. Are upper and lower case equivalent? bad good
70. Does it use short codes rather than long ones? bad good
71. Does it provide supplementary verbal labels for icons? bad good
7. PERCEPTUAL LIMITATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
72. Does it provide coding by data category? bad good
73. Is the abbreviation distinctive? bad good
74. Is the cursor distinctive? bad good
75. Are display elements distinctive? bad good
76. Is the format for user guidance distinctive? bad good
77. Do the commands have distinctive meanings? bad good
78. Is the spelling distinctive for commands? bad good
79. Does it provide easily distinguished colours? bad good
80. Is the active window indicated? bad good
81. Are items paired for direct comparison? bad good
82. Is the number of spoken messages limited? bad good
83. Does it provide lists for related items? bad good
84. Are menus distinct from other displayed information? bad good
85. Is the colour coding redundant? bad good
86. Does it provide visually distinctive data fields? bad good
87. Are groups of information demarcated? bad good
88. Is the screen density reasonable? bad good
8. USER GUIDANCE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA
89. System feedback: How helpful is the error message? bad good
90. Does it provide CANCEL option? bad good
91. Are erroneous entries displayed? bad good
92. Does it provide explicit entry of corrections? bad good
93. Does it provide feedback for control entries? bad good
94. Is HELP provided? bad good
95. Is completion of processing indicated? bad good
96. Are repeated errors indicated? bad good
97. Are error messages non-disruptive/informative? bad good
98. Does it provide RESTART option? bad good
99. Does it provide UNDO to reverse control actions? bad good
100. Is the sequence control user initiated? bad good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NA

List the most negative aspect(s):

List the most positive aspect(s):

Top of Form |

1. COMPATIBILITY			1	2	3	4	5	6	7		NA
1.	Is the control of cursor compatible with movement?	bad								good
2.	Are the results of control entry compatible with user expectations?	bad								good
3.	Is the control matched to user skill?	bad								good
4.	Are the coding compatible with familiar conventions?	bad								good
5.	Is the wording familiar?	bad								good
2. CONSISTENCY			1	2	3	4	5	6	7		NA
6.	Is the assignment of colour codes conventional?	bad								good
7.	Is the coding consistent across displays, menu options?	bad								good
8.	Is the cursor placement consistent?	bad								good
9.	Is the display format consistent?	bad								good
10.	Is the feedback consistent?	bad								good
11.	Is the format within data fields consistent?	bad								good
12.	Is the label format consistent?	bad								good
13.	Is the label location consistent?	bad								good
14.	Is the labelling itself consistent?	bad								good
15.	Is the display orientation consistent? -- panning vs. scrolling.	bad								good
16.	Are the user actions required consistent?	bad								good
17.	Is the wording consistent across displays?	bad								good
18.	Is the data display consistent with entry requirements?	bad								good
19.	Is the data display consistent with user conventions?	bad								good
20.	Are symbols for graphic data standard?	bad								good
21.	Is the option wording consistent with command language?	bad								good
22.	Is the wording consistent with user guidance?	bad								good
3. FLEXIBILITY			1	2	3	4	5	6	7		NA
23.	Does it have by-passing menu selection with command entry?	bad								good
24.	Does it have direct manipulation capability?	bad								good
25.	Is the design for data entry flexible?	bad								good
26.	Can the display be controlled by user flexibly?	bad								good
27.	Does it provide flexible sequence control?	bad								good
28.	Does it provide flexible user guidance?	bad								good
29.	Are the menu options dependent on context?	bad								good
30.	Can user name displays and elements according to their needs?	bad								good
31.	Does it provide good training for different users?	bad								good
32.	Are users allowed to customize windows?	bad								good
33.	Can users assign command names?	bad								good
34.	Does it provide user selection of data for display?	bad								good
35.	Does it handle user-specified windows?	bad								good
36.	Does it provide zooming for display expansion?	bad								good
4. LEARNABILITY			1	2	3	4	5	6	7		NA
37.	Does it provide clarity of wording?	bad								good
38.	Is the data grouping reasonable for easy learning?	bad								good
39.	Is the command language layered?	bad								good
40.	Is the grouping of menu options logical?	bad								good
41.	Is the ordering of menu options logical?	bad								good
42.	Are the command names meaningful?	bad								good
43.	Does it provide no-penalty learning?	bad								good
5. MINIMAL ACTION			1	2	3	4	5	6	7		NA
44.	Does it provide combined entry of related data?	bad								good
45.	Will the required data be entered only once?	bad								good
46.	Does it provide default values?	bad								good
47.	Is the shifting among windows easy?	bad								good
48.	Does it provide function keys for frequent control entries?	bad								good
49.	Does it provide global search and replace capability?	bad								good
50.	Is the menu selection by pointing? -- primary means of sequence control.	bad								good
51.	Is the menu selection by keyed entry? -- secondary means of control entry.	bad								good
52.	Does it require minimal cursor positioning?	bad								good
53.	Does it require minimal steps in sequential menu selection?	bad								good
54.	Does it require minimal user control actions?	bad								good
55.	Is the return to higher-level menus required only one simple key action?	bad								good
56.	Is the return to general menu required only one simple key action?	bad								good
6. MINIMAL MEMORY LOAD			1	2	3	4	5	6	7		NA
57.	How are abbreviations and acronyms used?	bad								good
58.	Does it provide aids for entering hierarchic data?	bad								good
59.	Is the guidance information always available?	bad								good
60.	Does it provide hierarchic menus for sequential selection?	bad								good
61.	Are selected data highlighted?	bad								good
62.	Does it provide index of commands?	bad								good
63.	Does it provide index of data?	bad								good
64.	Does it indicate current position in menu structure?	bad								good
65.	Are data items kept short?	bad								good
66.	Are the letter codes for menu selection designed carefully?	bad								good
67.	Are long data items partitioned?	bad								good
68.	Are prior answers recapitulated?	bad								good
69.	Are upper and lower case equivalent?	bad								good
70.	Does it use short codes rather than long ones?	bad								good
71.	Does it provide supplementary verbal labels for icons?	bad								good
7. PERCEPTUAL LIMITATION			1	2	3	4	5	6	7		NA
72.	Does it provide coding by data category?	bad								good
73.	Is the abbreviation distinctive?	bad								good
74.	Is the cursor distinctive?	bad								good
75.	Are display elements distinctive?	bad								good
76.	Is the format for user guidance distinctive?	bad								good
77.	Do the commands have distinctive meanings?	bad								good
78.	Is the spelling distinctive for commands?	bad								good
79.	Does it provide easily distinguished colours?	bad								good
80.	Is the active window indicated?	bad								good
81.	Are items paired for direct comparison?	bad								good
82.	Is the number of spoken messages limited?	bad								good
83.	Does it provide lists for related items?	bad								good
84.	Are menus distinct from other displayed information?	bad								good
85.	Is the colour coding redundant?	bad								good
86.	Does it provide visually distinctive data fields?	bad								good
87.	Are groups of information demarcated?	bad								good
88.	Is the screen density reasonable?	bad								good
8. USER GUIDANCE			1	2	3	4	5	6	7		NA
89.	System feedback: How helpful is the error message?	bad								good
90.	Does it provide CANCEL option?	bad								good
91.	Are erroneous entries displayed?	bad								good
92.	Does it provide explicit entry of corrections?	bad								good
93.	Does it provide feedback for control entries?	bad								good
94.	Is HELP provided?	bad								good
95.	Is completion of processing indicated?	bad								good
96.	Are repeated errors indicated?	bad								good
97.	Are error messages non-disruptive/informative?	bad								good
98.	Does it provide RESTART option?	bad								good
99.	Does it provide UNDO to reverse control actions?	bad								good
100.	Is the sequence control user initiated?	bad								good
			1	2	3	4	5	6	7		NA