p-ISSN
2722-7782 | e-ISSN 2722-5356
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46799/jsa.v4i7.671
USABILITY
ANALYSIS OF C-ACCESS COMMUTERLINE APPLICATIONS USING THE SYSTEM USABILITY SCALE
(SUS)
Safrudin Kurniawan, Ary
Putra I, Ahmad Ependi���������
Management
Transportation Railways Railway
Polytechnic Indonesia M a diun
Email: [email protected]
Abstract
: Trend enhancement Commuterline KRL passengers who are almost
approach number before pandemic of course also need enhancement service in the
field information . one _ service the information provided to commuterline KRL passengers is
provision application C-Access which is development from application KRL
- Access that can downloaded on the Play Store. As application new
and still in development C-Access naturally need input and feedback
from user For can give experience best and service best . follow up matter on
so writer need For do research so you can get description from user related
experience user during using C-Access. On
research This writer use method study quantitative descriptive with approach
use System Usability Scale (SUS). SUS method itself is tool the test
results end later will produce global assessment of aspects usability .
Objective from study This is For get evaluation from user to use application C-Access
Commuterline and get interpretation from results
evaluation the . The sampling technique used is Simple Random Sampling
with population of users C-Access application . Research results on applications C-Access use method System
Usability Scale (SUS) gain score of 66.125 scale 0 � 100. The score If
interpreted use Acceptability Score is in the range Marginal , if
interpreted use School Grading Scale is in grade D and if
interpreted use Adjective Ratings is on a scale on OK However
under good .
Keyword : Usabilty , System Usability Scale, SUS, C-Access,
Applications .
During
the Covid Pandemic � 19 total commuterline KRL
passengers experience very sharp decline . this _ caused Because exists
restrictions activity community that followed with restrictions activity
transportation of people to suppress and prevent transmission of the Covid
virus � 19. Along with start ending The Covid � 19 pandemic then amount KRL Commuterline passengers also experienced
improvement .
had time experience decline drastic in 2020
and 2021, total commuterline KRL
passengers start experience increase in 2022. According to PT Kereta Commuter Indonesia (KCI) report , average number commuterline KRL users reached 538,537 people per day since
beginning January until August 2022. In 2020 the amount passenger daily KRL Commuterline is of 422,382 people per day
decrease drastic from amount passenger daily in 2019 ie
_ of 921,297 people per day . Whereas in 2021 the average volume of Commuterline KRL users only 350,210 people
per day . In this year 2023 until with month February the average number of passengers
daily was 738,028 passengers per day (
Statistics, BPS, 2023) .
Table 1
Average _ Amount Railroad passengers
|
Year |
Amount Passenger Average Daily |
|
2019 |
921,297 |
|
2020 |
422,382 |
|
2021 |
350,210 |
|
2022 |
538,537 |
|
2023 sd
February |
738,028 |
Source
: Central Bureau of Statistics
trend
enhancement commuterline KRL passengers
this is close approach number before pandemic of course also need enhancement
service in the field information . one _ service the information provided to commuterline KRL passengers is
provision C-Access application which is development from KRL application -
Access that can downloaded on the Play Store.
C- Access is more applications _ user
friendly because applicative function , more _
easy use and display more _ millennials ( Son,
2023) . C-Access is development from KRL Access, where C-Access was
introduced feature new like purchase QR Code for a maximum of 4 people and top-up KMT
balance with NFC ( Near Field Communication ) system . C-Access was
created none other than because KAI Commuter is trying become ecosystem urban
transportation that can collaborate with transportation other .
Collaboration the is KAI Commuter journey planner which will be
accomplished in 2026. Later on in C-Access No only can used For message
ticket but also can used For order food ( Son,
2023) .
Figure 1
Appearance C-Access application
Figure 2
Purchase Features Tickets at C-Access
As application new and still in development
of C-Access of course need input and feedback from user For can give
experience best and service best . Don't until C-Access
also received a low rating from user as happened in KRL Access .
follow up matter on so writer need For do research so you can get description
from user related experience user during using C-Access. Study the entitled
" Analysis Application Usability
C-Access Commuterline Use System Usability
Scale ( SUS) �.
METHODOLOGY
On research This writer use method study quantitative
descriptive with approach use System Usability Scale (SUS). SUS method
itself is tool the test results end later will produce global assessment of
usability aspects (
effectiveness , efficiency and satisfaction ) ( Broke, 2013) . SUS has used as an industry
standard with used by thousands articles and publications .
Steps
_ in study This can explained as following :
1. Determination
population and sample :
First
step in study This is determine target population and retrieve sample from
population the . Population in research This is user application C-Access Commuterline . After target population is determined ,
step furthermore is determine samples. The sampling technique used is Simple Random Sampling . For amount
sample will use Formula
Slovin . Formula This used For count amount sample in
large population . _ The formula are :
n = N / (1 + N(e^2))
where : n = amount sample required _
N = size target population
e = margin of error or
sampling error
Amount population C-Access users on an ongoing basis
appropriate No known , however in accordance description in Playstore
, C-Access has downloaded and used more than 100,000 times. For That so in
study This used population of 100,000. If we enter in the formula on with a
margin of error of 10% then will got result :
���������������������������� n = 100,000 /
(1+100,000(0.1^2))
���������������������������� n = 100,000 /
(1+100,000(0.01))
���������������������������� n = 99.90
So
for study This with a 10% margin of error is required a minimum sample of 99.90
is rounded off to 100 people.
2. Development
instrument .
After
sample selected , step furthermore is prepare instrument measurement , namely
SUS ( System Usability Scale ). SUS consists from ten measuring
statement _ convenience use something product or system .
First
step use of SUS ie participant requested For rate 10
statement items with choose score response in 5 scale from the lowest i.e.
Strongly No Agree to the highest is Strongly Agree (Figure 3)
Figure 3
Rating Scale in SUS
10
statements in SUS is as following :
1) I
think I am will often use system this .
2) I
found system This complicated and there things that don't necessary .
3) I
think system This easy used .
4) I
think I need help from a technical person For can use system this .
5) I
found various function in system This integrated with ok .
6) I think
There is too Lots inconsistency in system this .
7) I
imagine most people will Study use system This very fast . _
8) I
found system it's very tricky For used .
9) I
feel very confident self use system .
10) I
need Study Lots matter before I Can use system this .
Statement
on the number odd (1,3,5,7,9) is meaningful statement _ positive whereas
statement on the number even (2,4,6,8,10) means negative.
3. collection
.
After
instrument developed , step furthermore is collecting data. Data collected with
send SUS questionnaire to respondent . Questionnaire This will shipped online
to users _ _ C-Access through social media platforms , namely Facebook
and Whatsapp .
4. processing
.
After
the data is collected will done data processing ie
with give score on each answer respondent Where lowest score _ is 1 for
Strongly No statement Agree and score 5 for Strongly Agree statement . Then
answer from each respondent For each statement For statement numbered odd minus
1 and statement numbered even minus 5, p This done For balancing score between
statement positive and negative statements . After That score each statement
multiply by 2.5 and add up Then the average is calculated . Function
multiplication with 2.5 here is For make it easy in presentation results end
Because more easy for people to see score in scale 0 to with 100 rather than 10
to by 50. ( source ) Final results from the SUS method is score between 0 to
with 100.
5. Interpretation
result .
After
the data is analyzed , then can interpreted result . from here can determine is
product or system own good usability _ or bad based on SUS score . There
are several method For can interpret SUS score , in
study This writer will use developed method _ by ( Bangor, 2008) that is Adjective
Rating, Acceptability Score and School Grading Scale (Bangor, 2009) . Method This used Because
Already through testing and getting very accurate and valid results ( Bangor, 2008) . In
interpretation use Adjective Ratings SUS scores are interpreted with 7
adjectives namely Worst Imaginable, Awful, Poor, OK, Good, Excellent and
Best Imaginable ( see table 3).
Table 2
SUS scores were compared with Adjective
Ratings
While the interpretation of using the School Grading Scale
is to use a scoring system that is generally used in schools namely A, B,
C, D and F where A is worth between 90-100, B is worth between 80-89, C is
worth between 70-79, D is 60-69 and F is under 60.
In addition (Bangor, 2008) also developed another interpretation (see figure), namely Acceptability
Score which is divided into 3 categories, namely: Not Acceptable,
Marginal and Acceptable , where Marginal is further divided
into Low and High. Acceptable on the System
Usability Scale (SUS) shows level reception user to application .
Figure 4
�Comparison of Acceptability Range, Grade Scale
and Adjective rating with SUS Score
6. Presentation
result .
Final
step is serve results research . Research results form
score However can served in form table or chart For make it easy reader in
understand results research .
7. Conclusions,
and suggestions for study next .
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
Based
on results deployment SUS questionnaire that has been done to 100 respondents ,
obtained results form characteristics respondent .
those results can explained as following :
Table 3
Characteristics Respondents
|
Characteristics respondent |
Amount respondent |
Percentage % |
|
|
Type
Sex |
man
_ _ |
79 |
79% |
|
Woman |
21 |
21% |
|
|
25 yrs
or not enough |
82 |
82 % |
|
|
26 � 35 yrs |
8 |
8 % |
|
|
36 � 45 yrs |
9 |
9 % |
|
|
45 yrs
or more |
1 |
1 % |
|
|
Student / student |
52 |
52 % |
|
|
PNS/TNI/ Polri
/BUMN |
17 |
17 % |
|
|
Private |
13 |
13 % |
|
|
Self-employed |
8 |
8 % |
|
|
Other |
10 |
10 % |
|
System Usability Scale Score Calculation
After obtained score from every
respondent for each statement so then the data is processed in accordance SUS
method ie with with way :
1)
Reduce score For statement
numbered odd by 1 and subtract statement numbered even with 5, p This done For
balancing score between statement pitched positive and statement pitched
negative .
2)
Step two that is with sum up
whole score from each respondent with 2.5, p This done to get results score end
between 0 � 100 so later score end easy read and understood .
3)
After score of each respondent
summed up Then totaled For all respondents and divided amount respondent For
get average score . The final SUS score will be range between 0 and with 100.
Need remembered that This No percentage .
������������� Following this is initial data from
sheet spreadsheet (google form) that
has been processed use method System
Usability Scale (SUS ):
SUS Score Processing Results
|
Respondents |
Count Result
Score (Data) |
Amount |
Mark |
|||||||||
|
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q5 |
Q6 |
Q7 |
Q8 |
Q9 |
Q10 |
( Total x 2.5) |
||
|
Respondent 1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
30 |
75.00 |
|
Respondent 2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
21 |
52.50 |
|
Respondent 3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
28 |
70.00 |
|
Respondent 4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
24 |
60.00 |
|
Respondent 5 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
20 |
50.00 |
|
Respondent 6 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
26 |
65.00 |
|
Respondent 7 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
40 |
100.00 |
|
Respondent 8 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
30 |
75.00 |
|
Respondent 9 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
29 |
72.50 |
|
Respondent 10 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
32 |
80.00 |
|
Respondent 11 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
31 |
77.50 |
|
Respondent 12 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
31 |
77.50 |
|
Respondent 13 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
22 |
55.00 |
|
Respondent 14 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
14 |
35.00 |
|
Respondent 15 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
27 |
67.50 |
|
Respondent 16 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
29 |
72.50 |
|
Respondent 17 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
31 |
77.50 |
|
Respondent 18 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
29 |
72.50 |
|
Respondent 19 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
37 |
92.50 |
|
Respondents 20 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
28 |
70.00 |
|
Respondent 21 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
23 |
57.50 |
|
Respondent 22 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
23 |
57.50 |
|
Respondent 23 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
27 |
67.50 |
|
Respondent 24 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
30 |
75.00 |
|
Respondents 25 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
18 |
45.00 |
|
Respondent 26 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
21 |
52.50 |
|
Respondent 27 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
34 |
85.00 |
|
Respondent 28 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
37 |
92.50 |
|
Respondent 29 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
20 |
50.00 |
|
Respondents 30 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
27 |
67.50 |
|
Respondent 31 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
20 |
50.00 |
|
Respondent 32 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
21 |
52.50 |
|
Respondent 33 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
26 |
65.00 |
|
Respondent 34 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
32 |
80.00 |
|
Respondents 35 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
36 |
90.00 |
|
Respondent 36 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
30 |
75.00 |
|
Respondent 37 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
36 |
90.00 |
|
Respondent 38 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
22 |
55.00 |
|
Respondent 39 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
21 |
52.50 |
|
Respondent 40 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
26 |
65.00 |
|
Respondent 41 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
20 |
50.00 |
|
Respondent 42 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
26 |
65.00 |
|
Respondent 43 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
26 |
65.00 |
|
Respondent 44 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
33 |
82.50 |
|
Respondent 45 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
32 |
80.00 |
|
Respondent 46 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
22 |
55.00 |
|
Respondent 47 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
40 |
100.00 |
|
Respondent 48 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
24 |
60.00 |
|
Respondent 49 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
21 |
52.50 |
|
Respondents 50 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
29 |
72.50 |
|
Respondent 51 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
21 |
52.50 |
|
Respondent 52 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
28 |
70.00 |
|
Respondent 53 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
20 |
50.00 |
|
Respondent 54 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
23 |
57.50 |
|
Respondents 55 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
30 |
75.00 |
|
Respondent 56 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
17 |
42.50 |
|
Respondent 57 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
24 |
60.00 |
|
Respondent 58 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
33 |
82.50 |
|
Respondent 59 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
29 |
72.50 |
|
Respondents 60 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
26 |
65.00 |
|
Respondent 61 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
25 |
62.50 |
|
Respondent 62 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
29 |
72.50 |
|
Respondent 63 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
30 |
75.00 |
|
Respondent 64 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
28 |
70.00 |
|
Respondent 65 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
34 |
85.00 |
|
Respondent 66 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
31 |
77.50 |
|
Respondent 67 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
29 |
72.50 |
|
Respondent 68 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
30 |
75.00 |
|
Respondent 69 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
22 |
55.00 |
|
Respondents 70 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
20 |
50.00 |
|
Respondent 71 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
27 |
67.50 |
|
Respondent 72 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
20 |
50.00 |
|
Respondent 73 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
24 |
60.00 |
|
Respondent 74 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
23 |
57.50 |
|
Respondents 75 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
30 |
75.00 |
|
Respondent 76 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
40 |
100.00 |
|
Respondent 77 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
24 |
60.00 |
|
Respondent 78 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
28 |
70.00 |
|
Respondent 79 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
18 |
45.00 |
|
Respondents 80 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
20 |
50.00 |
|
Respondent 81 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
11 |
27.50 |
|
Respondent 82 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
30 |
75.00 |
|
Respondent 83 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
21 |
52.50 |
|
Respondent 84 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
26 |
65.00 |
|
Respondent 85 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
27 |
67.50 |
|
Respondent 86 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
14 |
35.00 |
|
Respondent 87 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
25 |
62.50 |
|
Respondent 88 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
31 |
77.50 |
|
Respondent 89 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
31 |
77.50 |
|
Respondents 90 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
33 |
82.50 |
|
Respondent 91 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
30 |
75.00 |
|
Respondent 92 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
27 |
67.50 |
|
Respondent 93 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
27 |
67.50 |
|
Respondent 94 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
23 |
57.50 |
|
Respondents 95 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
25 |
62.50 |
|
Respondent 96 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
28 |
70.00 |
|
Respondent 97 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
19 |
47.50 |
|
Respondent 98 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
19 |
47.50 |
|
Respondents 99 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
34 |
85.00 |
|
Respondents 100 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
19 |
47.50 |
|
Amount |
6612.50 |
|||||||||||
Based
on table above _ results count use method System
Usability Scale (SUS) above , the total SUS score is 6612.50. And if
counted average score _ with dividing 100 respondents result is 66.125.
Data Interpretation
Based
on the average SUS score obtained from results SUS questionnaire data analysis
, then can done interpretation results based on 3 methods variation , that is Adjective
Rating, Acceptability Score and School Grading Scale . Following
location score from results questionnaire System
Usability Scale (SUS) against third method interpretation that ( figure 5)
Figure 5. Position of SUS Score against Interpretation
������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������
Based on scale SUS measurements
in fig on then , the interpretation of each variation
method interpretation score System
Usability Scale (SUS) for application C-Access is as following :
2.
On interpretation School Grading Scale , SUS score of 66.125 is in
value D. Interpretation This based on the system assessment at school
general , then For the value of D is in the range value 60 to with 69 on the
scale measurement 0 � 100. By general For score graduation on the School
Grading Scale is 70. So that can concluded that app SUS scores C-Access
Not yet meet the threshold graduation .
3.
For interpretation use Adjective Ratings, SUS scores are in the OK and
Good ranges . Rating OK on the Adjective Rating are on average score
50.9 with plus minus 1 standard error of the mean , meanwhile Rating
Good at a score of 71.4 plus minus 1 standard error of the mean . So
for the score is 66.125 between these ratings .
CONCLUSION
In
accordance with analysis in Chapter 4 inside study This obtained results as following :
- Measurement results score C-Access Commuter Line application with
use the System Usability Scale method gets a score of 66.125.
- The score obtained by the application C-Access after be
measured with the SUS method , namely 66.125, can
be interpreted as following :
- Use interpretation Acceptability Score , SUS score of
66.125 is in the range Marginal High , p the means that level
reception user to C-Access is Enough low and can accepted by the
user , will be but need done repair repeat in application .
- Use interpretation School Grading Scale , the SUS score
of 66.125 is at a value of D where in a manner general passing grade
mark is 70.
- Use interpretation Adjective Ratings, SUS score of 66.125
is in the range on OK however under good.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ISO 9241-11, I. (1998). Ergonomic
Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals,. Geneva: ISO.
Anggraini, WN (2020). Analysis on
Student Academic Information Systems. Journal of Research , 185.
Arikunto, S. (2011). The
research procedure : a practical approach . Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Bangor, AK (2008). An empirical
evaluation of the System Usability Scale. International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction , 574-594.
Bangor, AK (2009). Determining
what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal
of Usability Studies , 114-123.
Broke. (2013). SUS: A
Retrospective. Journal of Usability Studies , 36.
Brooke, J. (1986). SUS: A
"quick and dirty" usability scale. In BTPW Jordan, Usability
Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor and Francis.
Khuntari. (2022). Usability
Analysis of Google Workspace for Education in Universities.
Kurniawan, EN (2022). Application
of the usability scale system in measuring the usability of study program
websites at STMIK royal. Science and social research.
Lee, JY, Kim, JY, You, SJ, Kim,
YS, Koo, HY, Kim, JH, . . . Kim, H. (2019). Development and Usability of a
Life-Logging Behavior Monitoring Application for Obese Patients. Journal of
Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome , 194 - 202.
Nielsen, J. (2012, 01 03). nngroup.com.
Retrieved 04 10, 2023 from nngroup.com:
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/
Nielsen, J. (2023, 04 10). Usability
101: Introduction to Usability. Retrieved 04 10, 2023 from
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usabi: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usabi
Pertiwi, V. (2019). Evaluation of
Usability in KRL Access Applications Using. Journal of Information
Technology Development and Computer Science , 2235-2242.
Primary, AF (2021). Usability
Level Analysis . Edutic Science .
Son, RP (2023, 01 19). redigest.web.id
. Retrieved 04 10, 2023 from redigest.web.id:
https://redigest.web.id/2023/01/kai-commuter-doing-soft-launching-gratis-c-access/#.ZDQbZPtBzHa
Sauro, J. (2011). A practical
guide to the System Usability Scale: Background, benchmarks, & best
practices. Denver: Measuring Usability LLC.
Setiawan, MS (2021). Usability
Level Analysis Using the SUS Method. National Seminar on Industrial
Engineering and Management and Call for Papers .
Smith, KT (2011). Needs
Analysis: Or, How Do You Capture, Represent, and Validate User Requirements in
a Formal Manner/Notation before Design. CRC Press.
Statistics, BP (2023, 04 10). BPS.
Retrieved 04 10, 2023 from BPS:
https://www.bps.go.id/indicator/17/72/1/nomor-penumpang-kereta-api.html
Statistics, BP (2023). Number
of KRL Passengers. Jakarta: BPS.
Tullis, TS (2004). A comparison
of questionnaires for assessing website usability. Proceedings of UPA 2004
Conference. Minneapolis,Minnesota.
|
Copyright holders: Safrudin
Kurniawan, Ary Putra I, Ahmad Ependi
(2023) |
|
First publication right: |
|
This article is licensed
under:
|
