Fluid UX Walkthrough protocol - reorganized, looking for feedback.

[Allison Bloodworth]

Keep up the great work guys! I know this section is a monster, but it  
sounds like you're on the right track to me. Wherever we can simplify  
things or reduce duplicate content, I think that will be very helpful.

Cheers,
Allison

On Mar 18, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Paul Zablosky wrote:

> Hi Jonathan,
>   The pages are in a state of transition, as you have observed.  The  
> "UX Inspection Methods and Techniques" is a renamed version of the  
> old "UX Walkthrough Protocols and Checklists" document. It should be  
> deprecated and eventually removed, since it duplicates all the  
> material in both the new Protocols and Checklists page, as well as  
> the individual pages for each technique.  The problem is that it has  
> many ancient links to it (some now inappropriate) which we have to  
> fix before we can remove it.  Many of the links can be pointed to  
> the "Heuristic Evaluation" page.
> What I'm working on right now is turning the main "User Experience  
> Walkthroughs" page into something that is more Fluid-focused, as  
> well as promoting links to the "Heuristic Evaluation", "Cognitive  
> Walkthrough" pages to the "Design Handbook" page. We're also  
> renaming some of the child pages to not have the "UX Walkthrough"  
> prefix.
>
> I think we're on the same track here.  Revising the individual  
> techniques pages as you have been doing is really great.  Also, the  
> "Preparation and Execution" page needs some attention.
> Does this all make sense to you?  The new hierarchy is almost in  
> place. When it is, I'm hoping the pages will form a clear and  
> coherent unit.
>
> Regards,
> Paul
>
> Jonathan Hung wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> Last night I went through the emails regarding the UX Walkthrough and
>> I am still trying to orient myself with the work that needs to be
>> done.
>>
>> Right now I am looking at the individual Heuristic and Cognitive
>> walkthrough documents ((http://wiki.fluidproject.org/x/FwJa and
>> http://wiki.fluidproject.org/x/FAJa).
>>
>> So far I have updated them to match the revisions done in the larger
>> UX Walkthrough Protocols and Checklist document. That's all I have
>> done so far. I did not want to go any further before talking to you.
>>
>> With respect to the duplication of information in these two  
>> documents:
>>
>> 1. http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/UX+Walkthrough+Protocols+and+Checklists
>> 2. http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/UX+Inspection+Methods+and+Techniques
>>
>> I don't think we need "UX Inspection Methods and Techniques" any  
>> more.
>> UX Walkthrough Protocols and Checklists was created with the thinking
>> it was to be the successor to "Inspection Methods and Techniques".
>>
>> - Jonathan.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Jonathan Hung / jhung.utoronto at gmail.com
>> Fluid Project - ATRC at University of Toronto
>> Tel: (416) 946-3002
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Paul Zablosky  
>> <Paul.Zablosky at ubc.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> I spent some time today working on the UX Walkthrough pages in the  
>>> Design
>>> Handbook.  I was just about to report on what I've done when  
>>> Allison's
>>> message came through, so I'll do this as a reply.
>>>
>>> I revised the User Experience Walkthroughs page to emphasize the  
>>> Fluid way
>>> of doing things. I put the "Fluid Approach" text into a prominent  
>>> box in the
>>> upper right of the page so that people will see it when they land  
>>> on the
>>> page. This could use a bit of polishing, but I think it has the  
>>> right
>>> effect.
>>> I Renamed the "UX Walkthrough Protocols and Checklists" to  
>>> "Inspection
>>> Methods and Techniques" so that I could re-use the name for the page
>>> Jonathan created as suggested by Allison.  The Methods and  
>>> Techniques page
>>> has a ton of incoming links that need to be tweaked, but we can  
>>> defer that
>>> until we decide what to do with it ultimately.
>>> I linked to the new UX Walkthrough Protocols and Checklists page  
>>> from the
>>> User Experience Walkthroughs page in the section on how to do a
>>> walkthrough.  It now emphasizes doing a Fluid-type walkthrough  
>>> rather than
>>> just selecting from the other inspection methods.
>>>
>>> We now have to decide what to do with the "Inspection Methods and
>>> Techniques" page.  As I mentioned, it has a lot of incoming links,  
>>> and it is
>>> really just a sort of omnibus collection of all the different  
>>> methods, which
>>> someone might like to read from top to bottom.  It occurs to me  
>>> that we
>>> could keep this page and just use anchored links to refer to the  
>>> sections on
>>> Cognitive Walkthrough, Heuristic Evaluation, etc. Jonathan has  
>>> created
>>> separate pages for all these, but their content is identical to  
>>> the section
>>> of the Inspection Methods and Techniques page. We could have the  
>>> same
>>> logical structure as Allison suggests below, but fewer pages over  
>>> all.
>>>
>>> What do you all think of the idea of keeping all the stuff in one  
>>> page?  My
>>> next step was going to be to link all the stuff together according  
>>> to
>>> Allison's structure, but I have to decide whether it's one page or  
>>> many.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Allison Bloodworth wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> When we talked about the UX Walkthrough pages today in the design  
>>> meeting, I
>>> realized the way I'd suggested structuring the pages below was a  
>>> little off,
>>> so I corrected it here. We'd also talked about bringing the UX  
>>> Accessibility
>>> Walkthroughs to the top level, so I've added them.
>>> 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 Walk valuation' pages
>>>  - UX Walkthrough Preparation and Execution (suggest removing  
>>> section
>>> called "The Fluid Approach" and putting any helpful part of it on  
>>> the front
>>> page of the "User Experience Walkthroughs" page, as we've  
>>> established 'UX
>>> Walkthrough' is a Fluid-coined term)
>>>  - UX Walkthrough Protocols and Checklists
>>>  - 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)
>>> - UX Accessibility Walkthroughs (placed in the "Evaluation and  
>>> Assessment"
>>> section; suggest renaming it from the current "UX Accessibility  
>>> Walkthrough
>>> Protocols" and make the page content more descriptive of the  
>>> protocols
>>> underneath it).
>>> I'm also pasting in a tree view of t here for comparison's sake.  
>>> It looks
>>> like there is a whole "UX Inspection Methods and Techniques"  
>>> section that
>>> needs to be dealt with. A couple of those pages (for Cognitive  
>>> Walkthrough
>>> and Heuristic Evaluation) will probably come to the top level  
>>> (with User
>>> Experience Walkthrough), but we'll have to find good places for  
>>> the others.
>>> I will say there appears to be quite a bit of duplicate content  
>>> out there,
>>> so whatever we can do to delete pages that are just re-stating the  
>>> same
>>> information I think would be very helpful.
>>>  User Experience Walkthroughs
>>>
>>>  Tips to help evaluate usability
>>>  UX Accessibility Walkthrough Protocols
>>>
>>>  Comprehensive Accessi l for Macintosh
>>>  Comprehensive Accessibility Review Protocol for PC
>>>  Simple Accessibility Walkthrough Protocol  UX Inspection Methods  
>>> and
>>> Techniques
>>>
>>>  Additional Questions for All Reviews
>>>  UX Walkthrough - Accessibility in Cognitive Walkthrough
>>>
>>> dproject.org/display/fluid/UX+Walkthrough+-+Code+Review%2C+a+look 
>>> +under+the+covers"
>>> style="color: rgb(85, 107, 47); ">UX Walkthrough - Code Review, a  
>>> look under
>>> the covers
>>>  UX Walkthrough - Cognitive Walkthrough
>>>  UX Walkthrough FAQ
>>>  UX Walkthrough - Heuristic Evaluation
>>>
>>>  UX Walkthrough Preparation and Execution
>>>  UX Walkthrough Protocols and Checklists
>>>  UX Walkthrough Report Template
>>>
>>>  Sakai User Experience Walkthrough Report
>>>  uPortal User Experience Walkthrough Report
>>>
>>>
>>> I think Paul is now going to run with editing and reorganizing  
>>> this section,
>>> so just let us know Paul if we can be of any more help.
>>> Cheers,
>>> On Feb 27, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Allison Bloodworth wrote:
>>>
>>> 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' n 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 t
>>> href="http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/User+Experience+Walkthroughs) 
>>> ">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 rea  
>>> id 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
>>>
>>> - 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 n 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 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 i ail  
>>> 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 relat s,"  
>>> 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
>>>
>>> c 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
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> < lockquote type="cite">Checklist.
>>>
>>> Old version: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/x/VAEa
>>>
>>> New version: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/x/8QZa
>>>
>>> The new ve 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 v 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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