Vertaile menetelmiä

	Kognitiivinen läpikäynti	Heuristiikka-arviointi
Tieteenala	Ihmisen ja tietokoneen vuorovaikutus	Ihmisen ja tietokoneen vuorovaikutus
Menetelmäperhe	Hypothesis test	Hypothesis test
Syntyvuosi	1990	1990
Kehittäjä	Clayton Lewis, Peter Polson, Cathleen Wharton, John Rieman	Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich
Tyyppi	Evaluative walkthrough examining how users learn to use an interface	Expert-based inspection using established design principles
Alkuperäislähde	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).
Rinnakkaisnimet	Cognitive Walkthrough, CW Analysis	HE, Expert Evaluation, Nielsen's Heuristics
Liittyvät	4	4
Tiivistelmä	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.