white paper on the usability of online calendar applications

8/10/2019 White Paper on the Usability of Online Calendar Applications

1/6


2/6

Matt Zeller The Usability of Live Calendar and Google Calendar Page| 1

INTRODUCTION

This white paper reports the usability testing of Windows Live Calendar and Googles

Google Calendar. These are two online calendar applications, capable of forming schedules.

These products were tested in order to determine which product performed best. The usability

test applies to university student users. Its expected that a potential user would have a lifetime

of experience working with computers. The writer of this document did the testing.

METHODOLOGY

The usability test consisted of carrying out ten tasks. The tasks are as follows.

1. Schedule an all-day event for the eighth of November.

2. Set a 24-hour reminder for this event. In addition to the 24-hour reminder, set a 1-week

reminder.

3.

Schedule an event that occurs every Monday from 9:00 A.M. Mountain Time to 10:00

A.M. Mountain Time between the dates of October 12, 2014 and November 12, 2014.

4. Schedule an event that occurs every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday from 9:00 A.M.

Mountain Time to 10:00 A.M. Mountain Time between the dates of November 12, 2014

and December 12, 2014.

5. Delete the event that occurs on Monday, November 3, 2014 without deleting any other

of the re-occurring events.

6. Look at a weekly view of the week between November 2 and November 8, 2014.

7. Look at a daily view of November 2, 2014

8.

Assign a location of 174 Oak St. to the event on the eighth of November.

9. Describe or note the event of the eighth of November as Meet with Dr. Andrews.

10.Change the time zone from Mountain Time to Pacific Time for the reoccurring Monday

event that begins on October 12, 2014. Make sure the time stays 9:00 A.M. to 10:00

A.M. Pacific Time.

The tests were done one after another, with the first test starting at 6:30 P.M. on a

Saturday night. A keyboard, mouse, and widescreen monitor were used during the test. The

computer used to run the test operates on Windows 7. The computer runs on eight GB of RAM

and two 1.7 GHz processors, along with an upgraded video card.

After each task was completed, the time it took to complete the task was recorded, notes

about the experience were written down, and Likert scales were completed. The Likert scales

used the following statements.

- I didn't feel lost.

- This task was easy.

- I didn't make a lot of errors.


3/6


- I would enjoy using this in the future

Each statement received a score between negative two and positive two, with negative two

meaning strongly disagree. These points were then added up to indicate an overall rating of

usability.

The average duration to complete a task was also calculated.

RESULTS

Live Calendar AVERAGE DURATION TO COMPLETE A TASK: 47.4 SECONDS

Tasks I didn't

feel lost.

This task

was easy.

I didn't

make a lot

of errors.

I would enjoy using

this in the future

Sum of scores

1 2 2 0 1 5

2 2 2 2 2 8

2 0 1 0 2 3

4 2 1 2 1 6

5 2 2 2 2 8

6 -1 0 -2 1 -2

7 -1 0 -1 1 -1

8 1 1 0 1 3

9 0 1 1 1 3

10 2 2 2 1 7

Total 9/20 12/20 6/20 13/20 40Table 2: Score of Likert Scales from each task. Scale ranges from -2 to 2. The more points, the better.

Affordance: I was able to make complete all tasks.

Constraint: I was able to complete all tasks to the fullest

extent.

Ease-of-Use: The tasks were completed easily.

Aesthetics: The calendar looks clean. The colors add

some pop, making it interesting. When

scheduling an event, clicking on the date andhitting view details (figure 1) slides a panel

(figure 2) onto the left side of the page smoothly. This gives a tactile

sensation. Finding days or months functions just as it might with a real

calendar, the interface makes sense.

Visibility/

Functionality: Features are easily found while scanning the calendar.

Figure 1. Window popping up

after clicking on a day


4/6


Feedback: A window appears to notify you any time

you complete a command.

Mapping: The calendar is easy to navigate.

Completing complex tasks, like task four,

can lead to some errors, but the errors areeasy to correct.

Time/False Starts: All tasks are completed quickly. Completing

complex tasks, like task four, can lead to a

few false starts.

Google Calendar AVERAGE DURATION TO COMPLETE A TASK: 19 SECONDS

Task

No.

I didn't

feel lost.

This task

was easy.

I didn't make a lot

of errors.

I would enjoy using this

in the future

Sum of

scores

1 2 2 2 2 8

2 2 2 2 2 8

3 1 1 2 2 6

4 1 1 2 2 6

5 2 2 2 2 8

6 1 2 -1 1 3

7 2 2 2 2 8

8 2 2 1 2 7

9 2 2 2 2 8

10 1 1 2 2 6

Total 16/20 17/20 16/20 19/20 68/80Table 3: Score of Likert Scales from each task. Scale ranges from -2 to 2. The more points, the better.

Affordance: I was able to do the tasks.

Constraint: There were no constraints.

Ease-of-Use: The tasks were completed easily.

Figure 2: Window displaying extra

information


5/6


6/6


RECOMMENDATIONS

Live Calendar and Google Calendar are strong competitors. Each provides the same

functionality, albeit in slightly different ways. Each allows the user to complete tasks in a time

that is expected for using a calendar. Both applications run smoothly and look good.

The two applications are neck in neck, but the quantitative data provided here shows a

strong lead for Google Calendar. On average, Google Calendar is twice as fast when it comes to

getting things done. Secondly, Google Calendar appears to be 70% more usable. Live Calendar

and Google Calendar will both do just as well to help you plan. But if were being picky, Google

Calendar is the right choice.

Figure 5: Graphical representations of the differences in usability and average task duration between Live Calendar and

Google Calendar

40

68

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Total Score of Likert Scales

Live Calendar

Google Calendar

47.4

27.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

Seconds

Average Task Duration

Live Calendar

Google Calendar

white paper on the usability of online calendar applications

Documents