Organizing the UX Checklist and How-to material

[Daphne Ogle]

Hi Paul,

This makes a lot of sense to me to organize in the 3 categories.  And  
I like the references...although someone with more robust  
accessibility background should probably confirm those references.

Thanks so much for all you're doing with this.  Looking good!

-Daphne

On Oct 25, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Paul Zablosky wrote:

> Thanks Colin,
>     Yes, I did plan to include the material from the UX Walkthrough
> Accessibility Working Group that is currently referenced by  the
> Accessibility Walkthrough section.  Originally, I thought it should
> remain with the Cognitive Walkthrough method section, but looking  
> at it
> again, it may fit better under the Heuristics approach.  I'll reread
> everything and try to avoid shoehorning.
>
> Regards,
> Paul
>
> Colin Clark wrote:
>> Paul,
>>
>> Thanks for looking into this. I wonder if we should also include the
>> simple accessibility walkthrough procedure documented here?
>>
>> http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Accessibility+UX 
>> +Walkthrough+Group
>>
>>
>> Other than that, I think you're right to break it down into three,
>> rather than four, sections with accessibility checklists and  
>> questions
>> rolled into the heuristics and cognitive walkthroughs.
>>
>> Colin
>>
>> Paul Zablosky wrote:
>>> I have been doing a lot of editing and wordsmithing on the UX
>>> Checklist material
>>> <http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/UX+Walkthrough 
>>> +Checklists>,
>>> which also contains a lot of guidelines for prospective reviewers  
>>> and
>>> evaluators. The page suggests that there are four methods or  
>>> approaches:
>>>
>>>    1. Heuristic Evaluation
>>>    2. Cognitive Walkthrough
>>>    3. Accessibility Walkthrough (very similar to the Cognitive
>>> Walkthrough)
>>>    4. Code inspection
>>>
>>> In going over the reference material however, I'm not sure this is
>>> the right breakdown.  Looking at the reference documents, it  
>>> seems to
>>> me that we really only have three methods, which can each address
>>> both accessibility and usability.  That is: 3 methods and 2 targets.
>>> So it makes more sense to me (as a non-expert) to organize the
>>> checklists something like this::
>>>
>>>    1. Heuristic Evaluation
>>>           * Addressing usability with the Nielsen and Molich  
>>> heuristics
>>>
>>> <http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/UX+Walkthrough 
>>> +Checklists#UXWalkthroughChecklists-heuristic>
>>>
>>>           * Addressing accessibility with the Paddison and  
>>> Englefield
>>>             <http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=957205.957228>
>>>             heuristics
>>>           * Addressing accessibility with the IBM Web Accessibility
>>>             guidelines
>>>             <http://www-03.ibm.com/able/guidelines/web/ 
>>> accessweb.html>
>>>    2. Cognitive Walkthrough
>>>           * Goal and persona based, with usability questions at each
>>> step
>>>           * Goal and persona based, with accessibility questions  
>>> at each
>>>             step
>>>    3. Code Inspection
>>>           * Addressing usability with the questions listed in our  
>>> "under
>>>             the covers" section
>>>           * Addressing accessibility with the IBM Web Accessibility
>>>             guidelines
>>>             <http://www-03.ibm.com/able/guidelines/web/ 
>>> accessweb.html>.
>>>
>>> Of course we  want to encourage  reviewers to keep all of the
>>> principles in mind, whatever their method of approach.  As we have
>>> discussed, it is theoretically possible to do an heuristic  
>>> evaluation
>>> or cognitive walkthrough, addressing both usability and  
>>> accessibility
>>> in a single pass.
>>>
>>> Before I go to the trouble of reorganizing the material under this
>>> scheme, I want to ask the experts if my suggested structure makes  
>>> sense.
>>> Also, while I have the feeling we should keep our list of primary
>>> reference documents short ("If you're only going to read one thing,
>>> read this.") and we can certainly include a section with "If you  
>>> want
>>> to read more about this, here is a whole list of useful material",
>>> I'd like to be sure that we're in general agreement that the three
>>> sources I mention are the ones we want to suggest.
>>>
>>> So.  Are people comfortable or uncomfortable with:
>>>
>>>    1. The proposed organization?
>>>    2. The primary references?
>>>
>>> I look forward to hearing what people think.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>    1. Does it make sense to organize the material as I suggest:
>>>    2. Are the references I have mention
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> ----
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> fluid-work mailing list
>>> fluid-work at fluidproject.org
>>> http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list
> fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work

Daphne Ogle
Senior Interaction Designer
University of California, Berkeley
Educational Technology Services
daphne at media.berkeley.edu
cell (510)847-0308



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20071025/dabd96e6/attachment.html>