Fluid UX Walkthrough protocol - reorganized, looking for feedback.
Allison Bloodworth
abloodworth at berkeley.edu
Fri Feb 27 21:54:02 UTC 2009
Thanks Paul for catching that -- I'd added to the list of pages after
I wrote that, and didn't realize the '2 pages' reference no longer
made sense. I've corrected it below. And thanks for all your work on
these pages--have fun at the JASIG conference!
Allison
On Feb 27, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Paul Zablosky wrote:
> Hello Allison,
> I like your ideas about how to structure the information, and your
> point about the coinage of "UX Walkthrough" is something I wasn't
> aware of, but it's something important to keep in mind as we frame
> this stuff. I thought I understood the details of your proposed
> structure when I first read your message, but on a re-reading I'm
> not quite sure what "references the 2 pages below means".
> You're right about duplication of content -- I did some merging and
> purging on my first pass through this stuff, but there's more to do
> yet.
>
> Paul
>
> Allison Bloodworth wrote:
>> Hi Jonathan,
>>
>> Thanks much for your work on this! I would lean toward Paul's
>> suggestion of giving specific descriptions of all three methods
>> (probably on their own pages): the cognitive walk-through, the
>> heuristic evaluation, and the combined method used in the Fluid UX
>> Walkthroughs. If we can pull out the content for the cognitive
>> walkthroughs and heuristic evaluations into their own pages, then
>> we can also refer to them without putting all that content inline
>> in the same page (e.g. on http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/User+Experience+Walkthroughs)
>> . As the Fluid UX Walkthroughs also include an HTML code review
>> (for accessibility), we could consider making that its own page as
>> well. There may be versions of these pages as children under: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/UX+Walkthrough+Protocols+and+Checklists
>> , but I think they would need some updating--it appears they may
>> just be the parts of the parent page.
>>
>> One important point: a UX Walkthrough was something we invented for
>> Fluid--at least I'd never heard that term before and if you google
>> it all the hits are Fluid Pages. So I think the UX Walkthrough page
>> really *should* describe Fluid UX Walkthroughs and perhaps their
>> component parts (e.g. heuristic eval, cognitive walkthrough, code
>> review). With that in mind, here's the structure for the pages that
>> I'd recommend:
>>
>> User Experience
>> - Fluid User Experience Walkthroughs (How we do and did them in
>> Fluid - this is a different page from the one Jonathan created
>> called "Fluid UX Walkthroughs": http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Fluid+User+Experience+Walkthroughs)
>>
>> Design Handbook
>> - User Experience Walkthroughs (placed in the "Evaluation and
>> Assessment" section) - this actually describes the Fluid approach
>> and references the 'Cognitive Walkthrough' and 'Heuristic
>> Evaluation' pages
>> - Fluid UX Walkthroughs (I'd suggest renaming this "UX Walkthrough
>> Protocols and Checklists")
>> - UX Walkthrough Preparation and Execution
>> - Tips to help evaluate usability
>> - UX Walkthrough Report Template
>> - Cognitive Walkthough (placed in the "Evaluation and Assessment"
>> section)
>> - Heuristic Evaluation (placed in the "Evaluation and Assessment"
>> section)
>>
>> Perhaps this was Jonathan's eventual intention, but I don't think
>> the "Fluid UX Walkthroughs" page (http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Fluid+UX+Walkthrough
>> ) *and* the original UX Walkthrough Protocols and Checklists page (http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/UX+Walkthrough+Protocols+and+Checklists
>> ) should both exist--I reviewed the content on both pages to ensure
>> it's all been captured, and I'd suggest deleting or archiving the
>> original. Additionally, the name of the final page should probably
>> not be "Fluid UX Walkthroughs" as that could be confused with the
>> "Fluid User Experience Walkthroughs" page (which gives info on the
>> walkthroughs we did in Fluid) in the "User Experience" section. I'd
>> suggest keeping the name of the combined page "UX Walkthrough
>> Protocols and Checklists." However, one thing I wasn't able to
>> resolve was the fact that there are somewhat different instructions
>> on these pages: Jonathan's new page seems to infer that you must do
>> a heuristic evaluation, cognitive walkthrough, and assess
>> accessibility, and the other says, "It is not necessary for you to
>> use all three methods to contribute to the Fluid UX walkthrough
>> endeavour. Nor must you address both accessibility and usability."
>> So we'll have to figure out what we really want to recommend.
>>
>> I also made some edits to the User Experience Walkthroughs, Fluid
>> UX Walkthroughs & UX Walkthrough Preparation & Execution pages to
>> clarify a few things we'd talked about in our emails re: the
>> approach. For instance, in Jonathan's email below he mentions a
>> heuristic walkthrough and a cognitive evaluation, and I noticed the
>> term "cognitive evaluation" used in a couple places on the web
>> pages. To ensure that people know what we are talking about, I
>> think we want to consistently use the terms "heuristic evaluation"
>> and "cognitive walkthrough" so I made that change in any wiki page
>> where I saw an alternative term used. I also tried to specify "UX
>> walkthrough" when we are talking about the "Fluid UX Walkthrough"
>> instead of just "walkthrough" so it's not confused with a
>> "cognitive walkthrough."
>>
>> Another change I made involved making sure it was clear that
>> personas weren't *required* to do a cognitive walkthrough and
>> describing a bit about what to do if you didn't have them. Finally,
>> there were references to usability relating to the heuristics and
>> accessibility relating to "cognitive concerns," but I don't think
>> that's quite right as the cognitive walkthrough is a usability
>> inspection method which can also be used to assess accessibility so
>> I changed that a bit.
>>
>> I've also noticed quite a bit of repeated content among these
>> pages, so I think it would be great if someone with fresh eyes
>> could a holistic look at all of them and an effort remove
>> duplicated content. For instance, there is overlap between "UX
>> Walkthrough Preparation & Execution" and "UX Walkthrough Protocols
>> & Checklists"/"Fluid UX Walkthroughs" (/'d because they are
>> essentially the same page).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Allison
>>
>> On Feb 20, 2009, at 7:58 AM, 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Allison Bloodworth
>> Senior User Interaction Designer
>> Educational Technology Services
>> University of California, Berkeley
>> (415) 377-8243
>> abloodworth at berkeley.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Allison Bloodworth
Senior User Interaction Designer
Educational Technology Services
University of California, Berkeley
(415) 377-8243
abloodworth at berkeley.edu