Comments on Recording Screen Activity During Usability Testing

Karl Fast — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:42:22 GMT

Can you redirect screen capture to a second computer?

I think so, but perhaps not the way you are thinking. The best solution is not to redirect the screen capture, but to split the video. One video source goes to the users monitor, the second goes to the observing room. You could record the screen capture on either monitor. (I have never split the video signal this way so advice from others is appreciated; correct me if I’m wrong).

As for integrating everything into a single package, I don’t know. Best to ask someone who’s used to built a full-blown usability lab.

—karl

James — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:33 GMT

Good information.

Question:
Is it possible to redirect the screen capture from the test computer to a second computer, for viewing and recording in a nearby room with audio. Our need is to allow a person to do a usability test with an observer.
Perhaps redirected recording would be possible on a LAN shared drive?

Another related issue not directly part of your test purpose (so you may not have an answer, but it is worth asking).
We still want to veiw the client, with whom the observer will need to interact. Two video cameras and two sets of microphone audio are also desired for capture. Do you know of a way to integrate PC screen, video, and audio capture in one session for live or future review. ie. the whole lab capture package.

The second question is off target in response to your stated goal, but you may have looked at this issue as well….

Thank you

Karl Fast — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 03:39:59 GMT

Claudia:

The “special video driver” is installed as part of the ScreenCam installation process. You don’t need to download anything extra. If you’re already running ScreenCam this driver is already installed.

As for ScreenCam and XP, Lotus says on their site that ScreenCam (a) does NOT support Windows 2000 or XP and (b) it “has no plans to create a version of ScreenCam to work on Windows 2000 or Windows XP” (I quoted this on page 2 of the article). This was my major complaint about ScreenCam and why I didn’t recommend it.

Perhaps you meant Windows 98? ScreenCam works on Win95 and WinNT, and *should* work on Win98 depending on the video card. That’s according to this note on the ScreenCam site:

“The Windows 95 release of the ScreenCam recorder does work on Windows 98 (and its variants) with certain limitations due to some video cards driver/chip set manufacturers that do not completely comply with Microsoft recommendations and standards. The known video card drivers/chip set manufacturers that do not work with ScreenCam are detailed in technical support document #178038.”

http://www.lotus.com/products/screencam.nsf

I’m not sure where technical support document #178038 is, but if you visit the ScreenCam site I’m sure you can find it in the support documents.

Karl Fast — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 03:39:59 GMT

Claudia:

Perhaps you meant Windows 98? ScreenCam works on Win95 and WinNT, and *should* work on Win98 depending on the video card. That’s according to this note on the ScreenCam site:

http://www.lotus.com/products/screencam.nsf

I’m not sure where technical support document #178038 is, but if you visit the ScreenCam site I’m sure you can find it in the support documents.

Claudia Hurtado — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:42:22 GMT

I find your article very helpful since we are a company that has been using ScreenCam for quite a while years.
I got a question.. On page 2 you mention that screencam “Requires special video driver (easy to install).” can you explain? Also where can I find information about which video card will help me work with Windows XP and screencam?
Thanks for the help

Morgan Roberson — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:42:21 GMT

I very much appreciate your review of the screen recordingWe are a small company that wants to use screen recording demos of our products on the marketing cds we make and I was starting with absolutely no knowledge.
The review was very helpful in not only knowing what to test for but also how to test.
Thank you.

Morgan Roberson — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:42:21 GMT

Karl Fast — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:42:21 GMT

Several people have pointed out an error in the Camtasia section. In “The Bottom Line” it says that Camtasia does not run on Windows 2000 or XP, yet at the start of the page and in the Pros section it says it runs on all versions of Windows except Win95. Oops! It’s the latter that’s correct.

Camtasia runs on just about everything (so does Hypercam). It’s Lotus Screencam that doesn’t suppport Windows 2000/XP.

As for “FrontCam” at http://www.maxfeel.com/, I was previously unaware of the product. If I had heard of it before I might have included it in the review.

—karl

Troy Stein — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:42:21 GMT

Karl,

thanks for the review! Just two comments:

Camtasia supports Windows 2000 and XP. We’ve supported each OS within months of their respective releases.

On page four you talk about using HyperCam and TSCC. Its a cool trick. As an FYI, you need Camtasia installed on the same machine as Hypercam to make it work. The TSCC alone won’t do it. You likely had both installed and that’s why it was successful.

Thanks again for your review and recommendations! I hope you enjoyed your backpacking!

Troy Stein
Camtasia Marketing Manager

Tricia Tenpenny — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:42:21 GMT

Regarding the “Bottom Line” on the third page: It now says “Camtasia” but the content is still incorrect. Camtasia DOES run on Windows 2000 and XP.

Hey, nobody’s perfect!

Ron Zeno — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:42:20 GMT

Thanks very much, Karl, for an excellent clarification of your article!

Notes on scan conversion vs screen capture: Scan conversion to video (even S-VHS video) results in a poorer-quality image. It’s good enough for highlights, but bad for capturing 640×480 for analysis, and very bad for 800×600 or higher. Screen-capture software provides far better still image quality (lossless is possible), but the capture of movement will usually be poorer due to the slower frame rate.

George Olsen — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:42:20 GMT

Note: We’ve fixed the aforementioned typo on the third page.

Bryan — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:32 GMT

Karl:

Read your article with interest. Noticed on your 3rd page that your “Bottom Line” was from the Screencam product, not Camtasia.

Haven’t looked at these tools in a while, may do so again thanks to your review.

anu — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:32 GMT

We use camtasia as part of our usability testing toolset. Whether we use it on its own, or in conjunction with our mobile usability lab, we find it very useful. Screen cap on a [relatively] powerful laptop give enough fidelity to tell what a user did at any point in the test, and the abilty to capture sound alongside this is great, especially when we’re not taking the rest of our kit – asking the user to think aloud or make vocal notes during the session goes a long way to capturing essential info that you don’t get just from doing screen capture, and allows for after session review and analysis. I do agree that observer notes are as vital though.

A 30 minute session generates an .avi file of less than 100Mb, often a lot less.

Hope this helps

Jess — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:41:29 GMT

>to be of real use in usability testing

Well, Karl did say he was looking for 10 frames/sec. and he used a screencam for his “thinkafter” project. So that seems to be “real” usability testing. But the key consideration here is *cost*. Does a screencam tool provide value to low-budget usability evaluations? It can, but no guarantees (good notes from good observers go a long ways, without any fancy equipement. Video may not be needed at all, whether screencammed, camcordered, or scan converted.)

People looking to record screens who have a bit more money might also consider a consumer level scan converter to record computer monitor >> VCR.