Fluid UX Walkthrough protocol - reorganized, looking for feedback.

[Paul Zablosky]

Hello Jonathan,
    It could be confusing without some explanatory text.  I was thinking 
that should we flesh out the top UX Walkthroughs page to say "here are 
the techniques you have to choose from, depending on your purpose"  -- a 
sort of Fluid-independent approach.  Then we say, "and here's how the 
Fluid folks do it, it works really well, and you might like to do it the 
same way". 

Whether we do this or not depends on our main objective for this part of 
the handbook.  Do we want to present some general how-to-do-it 
information, as well as how-we-did-it, or do we want to just showcase 
the Fluid way?  I have to admit that at this point I'm not sure which is 
better.  Originally, this material by Clayton, Allison, and Daphne was 
aimed at "how to do it in the Fluid project", and we have re-targeted 
somewhat for people outside of the Fluid project.  When we started 
working on this a few weeks ago, I thought the "give them a choice" 
approach was what we wanted -- even though it's more work.  But we could 
go with the Fluid-only approach, which your recent work largely fulfills. 

Jess, you have been taking the higher-level view of all this; what is 
your take on it? 

Paul

Jonathan Hung wrote:
> I wonder if it will be confusing if we provide those individual
> checklists in addition to our Fluid UX walkthrough? Perhaps we can
> make those individual checklists as PDF attachments. We would then
> communicate in the Fluid UX Walkthrough that they can optionally
> perform the evaluations separately and link to the individual PDF
> files.
>
> I added the procedure for selecting a Persona to the Preparation and
> Execution page. I think that page will be very helpful when combined
> with the Fluid UX Walkthrough document.
>
> Does anyone else have an opinion as to how we should present the Fluid
> UX Walkthough, Heuristic Walkthrough, and the Cognitive Evaluation?
>
> - Jonathan.
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Paul Zablosky <Paul.Zablosky at ubc.ca> wrote:
>   
>> Hi Jonathan,
>>     Your "Fluid UX Walkthrough" page looks good.  I agree that there's a lot
>> of material, and it's a bit dense, but the idea was to capture the Fluid
>> approach all in one page, and I think you have done it.   The question
>> remains: are we going to provide pages on the individual techniques as well
>> as the bundled description?
>>
>> With our current page hierarchy, which looks something like this:
>>
>> User Experience Walkthroughs
>>
>> Fluid UX Walkthrough
>> UX Walkthrough Preparation and Execution
>> UX Walkthrough Protocols and Checklists
>>
>> Additional Questions for all reviewers
>> UX Walkthrough - Heuristic Evaluation
>> UX Walkthrough - Cognitive Walkthrough
>> ... other current children
>>
>> we could enhance the top level page to give the user a choice -- they can
>> either follow the Fluid way (with your new page), or they can just select
>> one or more of the techniques.  I'm not committed to one way or the other --
>> I'd like to hear what others think about this.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> Jonathan Hung wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As part of the effort to reorganize the UX Walkthrough protocol, I
>> have made a draft revision of the UX Walkthrough Protocol and
>> Checklist.
>>
>> Old version: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/x/VAEa
>> New version: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/x/8QZa
>>
>> The new version attempts to deliver the following:
>> 1. Convey the parallel nature of the Heuristic and Cognitive evaluations.
>> 2. Incorporate accessibility heuristic and cognitive evaluations.
>> 3. Lay out the walkthrough in a more check-list manner.
>>
>> All the content from the old version is present in the new version,
>> but with some modifications where necessary.
>>
>> My concern is that the new document is a bit dense, but I hope that,
>> in context of being a checklist / reference for executing a UX
>> evaluation, the content density would be okay.
>>
>> Do you think the new version of the walkthrough is more beneficial to
>> a would-be implementer compared to the old version? Are there areas
>> for improvement? Any concerns?
>>
>> - Jonathan.
>>
>> ---
>> Jonathan Hung / jhung.utoronto at gmail.com
>> Fluid Project - ATRC at University of Toronto
>> Tel: (416) 946-3002
>>
>>
>>