Loading Profile...
Windows version?
Are you planning a Windows version? Dare I even ask at the risk of being laughed at? I guess I do dare. :-)
I’m expectant
7
people have this question
I have this question, too!
Tell me when someone answers.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The best answer from the company
-
We'd love to do a Windows version, but we decided to focus on the Mac platform for the initial release for a couple of reasons.
* All modern Macs come with a built in iSight camera and mic, so the hardware is more predictable
* There are a few usability apps for Windows, but none for Macs
* We're primarily a Mac shop so it made sense for us to focus on a Mac app to start
However if the app is popular and we see a demand, we'd be more than happy todo a Windows version.
I’m happy
The company and 3 other people say
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?We'd love to do a Windows version, but we decided to focus on the Mac platform for the initial release for a couple of reasons.
* All modern Macs come with a built in iSight camera and mic, so the hardware is more predictable
* There are a few usability apps for Windows, but none for Macs
* We're primarily a Mac shop so it made sense for us to focus on a Mac app to start
However if the app is popular and we see a demand, we'd be more than happy todo a Windows version.
I’m happy
The company and 3 other people say
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?Thanks for the reply, Andy; a fair response. I do hope there is enough demand for a Windows version. If there is, that's all the better for you I suppose.
One question remains for me: what are these usability apps for Windows you speak of?
I’m happy
-
Inappropriate?The main usability testing app for Windows is Morae, but it costs $1,495.00!2 Comments Add a comment
This answers the question
-
Morae does a lot more than record the screen and camera. You may call it bloated and expensive.
NB: I didn't test their product. -
I'd love to see a PC based verion too - not fussed about OS. I'm currently PC based and there's not much out there in this price range. If I add the mac to run it, it starts to come pretty close to Morae in terms of £££.
-
Inappropriate?Gulp! That being the case I would urge Mac users: make Silverback a success; and to Windows users: start demanding a Windows version.
-
Inappropriate?Hi there,
Silverback looks great but I'd really like to see a Windows version too, mainly because most of the testers I'd be working with will be pc/windows users. I think that current market share is still under 10% for OS X?
Asking users to test on a Mac may skew the results for both performance and behaviour. I'm not a native Mac user but very proficient on a pc and I find my performance is slower on a Mac ... -
Inappropriate?For windows, I've used something BB Flashback. No video, but it does record audio, keyboard and mouse events and runs on any dirtbag PC. (I used a P3 laptop with less than 1GB of memory.) The best part is that it exports to flash, so you can quickly post relevant snippits to the web and they'll work for basically everyone.
I think it cost something like $199 USD.
I've used Morae, but really $1500 is way too much cash for what it does.1 Comment Add a comment
This answers the question
-
Mhm, BB Flashback seems to do webcam video now. Thanks for the tip safish.
I'd still love to have Silverback for Windows though, if only for the price. -
Inappropriate?If you're testing a web application the users interaction with the OS should be fairly minimal. We tend to find that people are so focused on the task they rarely even notice they are using a different OS. However to minimise problems we usually test in Firefox and use a traditional 2 button mouse.
If any issues are OS related, they should be very obvious and easy to pick up and discount during the test. We do all our testing using Macs and have never run into an OS issue. So while I do understand the concerns I personally feel it's a non-issue.
I’m confident
3 Comments Add a comment
This answers the question
-
Could you elaborate more on this topic (maybe on your blog)? I was always unsure about how the subjects testing web sites/apps react to being seated at a Mac. I always had to make sure we had some Wintel machines handy for usability tests.
-
I agree with Jan, it would be interesting to hear of some evidence and/or research that the platform the website is being tested on doesn't affect the user's experience and thus reaction to the website.
For instance, one of the things I so often see users doing on a Windows machine - almost by unconcious compulsion - is maximize the browser. You can't maximize as such on a Mac, and the maximize button is in a different place. Then there's the browser chrome, which can be radically different on a Mac. Does this not affect the user's response?
These points remind me of a recent Boagworld podcast and post regarding context. See: http://boagworld.com/usability/conten... and http://boagworld.com/podcast/127/ -
All valid and interesting points. I'd agree that context is important if you're trying to map exact behaviour. So if you were running a highly scientific test for an academic paper you would probably want to test a large sample size in their natural environment to minimise any potential errors. You also have the issue of cognitive load which will be slightly higher if people are using an unfamiliar OS.
However none of these issues really reflect the usability of the site, only the users interaction with the browser and OS. For instance, how does maximising the browser window affect the usability of a particular navigation schema, UI widget or process flow? There are some specific instances where this could become a problem, such as where the main activity of the website is tightly coupled with the browser or OS. But they are pretty niche and unlikely to come up for the majority of sites.
If you've got a good moderator they should be able to determine the difference between problems with the site and problems resulting from an unusual OS or environment. For instance users not being able to find files to upload because of unfamiliar widget controls rather than the complexity of the site GUI. Also the effect of the OS is going to be minor compared to things like poor task design or bad moderation. So good processes are a much bigger factor to the success of your test.
The ultimate goal of guerilla usability testing is to to gain design insight rather than statistical validity. It's essentially formative, qualitative testing rather than evaluative, quantitate testing. So small variances like environment become much less important than big issues like the user not being able to complete the sign-up process. As such, we believe that a small amount of guerilla testing is better than no testing at all.
I don't have any hard stats, but we run lots of usability tests at Clearleft, and we've never come across a test subject having problems with the OS, let alone confusing an OS problem with a site usability problem. So you should be safe :-) -
Inappropriate?How about running VMware or Parallels Desktop fullscreen?
Or even Remote Desktop Connection.
Would Silverback work as expected then?2 Comments Add a comment
This answers the question
-
Silverback has been tested on the latest version of Parallels and it seems to work pretty well - http://www.vimeo.com/1423054
-
I'm having a brain blockage (nothing new there). Do you mean you're running OS X (and Silverback) on Parallels or VMware on an OS X host? Or something else? I'm intrigued as to what you're doing . :-)
-
Inappropriate?My problem is, I need to run this software on my Mac, but the user I'm observing may have a PC. I'm not sure how to resolve this problem, but I have a serious need to do remote testing of a web-based application in the next month or two. If anyone has a solution aside from Morae, which is a bit more than budget/need allows, please email me!
I’m in need of a Mac-PC solution
EMPLOYEE
