Fluid UX Walkthrough protocol - reorganized, looking for feedback.

[Paul Zablosky]

The 3-way approach it is!  That's pretty much what we have now, and I'm 
happy to stick to it.  As I said, I think we can present it in a way to 
address Jonathan's concerns about confusion.  I hope to contribute 
(sporadically) over the coming week.

Paul

Jess Mitchell wrote:
> Paul,
>
> My own preference would be to show *and* do.  In other words, we have 
> the how-to-do-it plus the how-we-did-it.
>
> I think we're headed there.  I'm copying in a thread that we had on 
> the list a few weeks ago about this.  I think there was a 3-way 
> suggestion.  How does that fit into what we're talking about here?
>
> Best,
> Jess
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jess Mitchell
> Boston, MA, USA
> Project Manager / Fluid Project
> jess at jessmitchell.c soNormal">/ w / 617.326.7753  / c / 919.599.5378 
> <mailto:jess at jessmitchell.com>
> jabber: <mailto:jess at jessmitchell.com>jessmitchell at gmail.com 
> <mailto:jessmitchell at gmail.com>
> http://www.fluidproject.org
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2009, at 6:24 PM, Paul Zablosky wrote:
>
>> 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?  
>
>
> Sounds like Allison's suggestion of the 3 approaches jives with what 
> Paul and Jonathon have said.  I also think this is a good approach.
>
> I also think it is an important point that you do not need to have 
> created personas to do a cognitive walkthrough.  You need to und so 
> you can put yourself in their shoes as you walk through  the system 
> (which should be the case even when doing a heuristic evaluation). 
>  And you need to understand the tasks they will complete in the system 
> so you can step through through those activities and get a feel for 
> what their experience should be.  If we've made it sound like user 
> studies and personas are a prerequisite than we should probably make 
> some changes.  They make it easier to "be the user" for all the 
> reasons we use them in design.
>
> -Daphne
>
> On Feb 6, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Allison Bloodworth wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> I think you can perform a modified version of a cognitive 
>> walk-through without "official" personas...perhaps using something 
>> more like provisional personas and scenarios. The key point I think 
>> we'd like to preserve is that you are trying to walk through the 
>> interface from r as they complete tasks that they'd often be 
>> performing. So maybe the answer is provide three methods: 1) 
>> heuristic eval, 2) cognitive walkthrough, and 3) combined heuristic 
>> eval & cognitive walkthrough--what we were originally calling the 
>> "Fluid UX Walkthrough."
>>
>> Thanks much for your help in making sure we present these things in a 
>> way all potential users will be able to use! Feel free to ping me if 
>> you need any help or advice.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Allison
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2009, at 2:21 PM, Paul Zablosky wrote:
>>
>>> I've been struggling with this since I started working on the pages. 
>>>  In reviewing the text I found tha e Fluid approach of combining the 
>>> two techniques and I didn't want to lose it.  Having read Daphne's, 
>>> Allison's and Jonathan's messages, I think we must preserve the 
>>> idea, but find a way to present the techniques separately for 
>>> beginners, or those who are not ready to step up to persona 
>>> creation.   At the same time we could talk about how the Fluid 
>>> project employed and recommended this way of doing things.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Allison Bloodworth wrote:
>>>> Hi there,
>>>>
>>>>>>> I had the same thoughts I read Paul's email. I feel like one of 
>>>>>>> the things we were doing that was a bit unique in Fluid was 
>>>>>>> recommending that we combine the two: the heuristic evaluation 
>>>>>>> was performed by reviewing the interface using a cognitive 
>>>>>>> walk-though. I feel like that's often what happens in practice 
>>>>>>> (at least good practice) in a heuristic evaluation. I am a big 
>>>>>>> fan of performing the techniques together myself. Would it help 
>>>>>>> to explain the two separately first, then talk about how we 
>>>>>>> combine them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Allison
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 5, 2009, at 3:23 PM, Daphne Ogle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this sounds right.  The one aspect I'm not sure about is 
>>>>>> seperating out the Heuristics from the cognitive walkthroughs.  I 
>>>>>> hadn't looked at these in quite some time and it looks like the 
>>>>>> change has already been made so I'm not sure what it looked like 
>>>>>> before.  As I recall, we did some good work to combine these 2 
>>>>>> activities in a way we thought would allow users to get a lot out 
>>>>>> of them efficiently.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -Daphne

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20090220/b1be3b88/attachment.html>