Abstract

The instructions used in think-aloud studies can range from a simple request to think-aloud, to an explicit instruction to include certain types of content. The present study compared two think-aloud instructions: the classic neutral think-aloud instruction and an explicit instruction requesting explanations and content that is relevant to the user experience. Data from task performance, mental workload, think-aloud protocols and usability problems were collected from 16 participants, equally distributed between the two think-aloud instruction conditions. No differences were found in task performance, however, participants in the explicit instruction condition reported higher mental workload and a focus on finding interface problems. The explicit instruction condition also yielded more utterances about the user experience, expectations and explanations of behaviour than the neutral condition. An analysis of the resultant usability problems revealed that the explicit instruction led to a larger number of dialogue, navigation, layout and functionality problems, but that the problems which were unique to this condition were, in the main, at a low level of severity.