Abstract

Thinking-aloud protocols traditionally have been used by academic researchers as a qualitative data collection method. This method is currently gaining acceptance in industry usability testing. The Usability Group at Microsoft has adopted the thinking-aloud protocol as a primary method for obtaining data from users. We have found the method valuable not only because it is valid for gathering qualitative data, but also because it is responsive to the constraints we face and the organizational culture we work within. The issue of validity has been discussed in detail by researchers such as Deffner & Rhenius and Ericcson & Simon. Our case study further pursues the validity of thinking-aloud protocols and also discusses how this method allows the researcher to work within industry constraints and incorporate changes into the product within a small time frame. Finally, our case study demonstrates how thinking-aloud protocols fit in well with Microsoft corporate culture where understandable and persuasive results are needed. This case study will have particular relevance for usability practitioners in industry.

Keywords

Think aloud protocolUsabilityComputer scienceProtocol analysisProtocol (science)Product (mathematics)Relevance (law)Pluralistic walkthroughFrame (networking)Data collectionKnowledge managementHuman–computer interactionPsychologySociology

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

Interpreting Qualitative Data

Part I: Theory and Method in Qualitative Research What Is Qualitative Research? Designing a Research Project Generalizing from Case Study Research Credible Qualitative Research ...

2024 3534 citations

Publication Info

Year
1990
Type
article
Volume
34
Issue
17
Pages
1285-1289
Citations
33
Access
Closed

External Links

Social Impact

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

33
OpenAlex

Cite This

Susan M. Denning, DEREK E. HOIEM, Mark Simpson et al. (1990). The Value of Thinking-Aloud Protocols in Industry: A Case Study at Microsoft Corporation. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting , 34 (17) , 1285-1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129003401723

Identifiers

DOI
10.1177/154193129003401723