Võrdle meetodeid

	Kognitiivne läbikäimine	Heuristic Evaluation
Valdkond	Inimese ja arvuti interaktsioon	Inimese ja arvuti interaktsioon
Perekond	Hypothesis test	Hypothesis test
Tekkeaasta	1990	1990
Looja	Clayton Lewis, Peter Polson, Cathleen Wharton, John Rieman	Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich
Tüüp	Evaluative walkthrough examining how users learn to use an interface	Expert-based inspection using established design principles
Algallikas	Lewis, C., Polson, P. G., Wharton, C., & Rieman, J. (1990). Testing a walkthrough methodology for specifying and evaluating user interface designs. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 387–392).	Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 249–256).
Rööpnimetused	Cognitive Walkthrough, CW Analysis	HE, Expert Evaluation, Nielsen's Heuristics
Seotud	4	4
Kokkuvõte	Cognitive Walkthrough is an inspection method for evaluating interface designs by simulating and analyzing how users will learn to use a system through exploration and trial. Developed by Clayton Lewis, Peter Polson, Cathleen Wharton, and John Rieman in 1990, this method is grounded in cognitive psychology and focuses specifically on learnability—whether first-time or occasional users can discover how to perform tasks without formal training. Evaluators role-play user actions, answer a set of critical questions about feedback and discovery at each step, and document usability problems.	Heuristic Evaluation is a usability inspection method in which small teams of expert evaluators examine an interface and judge its compliance with established usability principles (heuristics). Developed by Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich in 1990, this method is rapid and low-cost, identifying 60–90% of usability problems with as few as 3–5 evaluators. Nielsen's Ten Usability Heuristics—visibility of system status, match between system and real world, user control and freedom, consistency and standards, error prevention and recovery, recognition over recall, flexibility and efficiency, aesthetic and minimalist design, error recovery, and documentation—form the basis of most evaluations.