Papan putih maya interaktif (IVBoard): Penilaian tahap interaksi dan kepuasan pengguna
A virtual whiteboard prototype, called Interactive Virtual whiteboard (IVBoard) was developed for online discussion and decision-making purposes. The IVBoard is a Computer-supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) application, built to enable up to 50 users interacting at full duplex mode with the ability...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
2005
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://repo.uum.edu.my/1321/1/Zulikha_Jamaluddin.pdf http://repo.uum.edu.my/1321/ http://pkukmweb.ukm.my/~jitm/vol2_2005_33-48.html |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Universiti Utara Malaysia |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | A virtual whiteboard prototype, called Interactive Virtual whiteboard (IVBoard) was developed for online discussion and decision-making purposes. The IVBoard is a Computer-supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) application, built
to enable up to 50 users interacting at full duplex mode with the ability to transmit texts, bitmap graphics as well as audio. A multi user server and a multi user interface component were used to enable real time interactions
performed among all IVBoard users at a time. The prototype has been used by the academic staffs and students (including the distance learning students) of Universiti Utara Malaysia. After a year period of released, it is incumbent upon us to investigate whether or not the IVBoard is efficient in terms of interaction activities (during the online discussion) and user satisfaction. Thus far, a great deal of attention is given to evaluation, either as a part of the improvement process of the prototype design (formative evaluation) or as a quality assurance mechanism of the IVBoard. The evaluation described in this paper measures (1) user interaction level while using IVBoard, (2)
comparison between IVBoard interaction level and traditional discussion, and (3) subjective user satisfaction. Evaluations for (1) and (2) were performed using laboratory experiment, observation, and video recording analysis whereas evaluation for (3) was carried out using questionnaires based on the established user interface evaluation model, QUIS. The results of the above mentioned evaluations are detailed out in this paper. |
|---|