Fluid UX Walkthrough protocol - reorganized, looking for feedback.
Paul Zablosky
Paul.Zablosky at ubc.ca
Tue Mar 24 17:17:21 UTC 2009
Hello Jonathan,
I remember that when we were first creating the material, we tried
to use the terms you list in distinct and specific ways. I think that
over time, we gradually reverted to using them more interchangeably,
concentrating more on clarity of style than consistent terminology,
except for the words we wanted to put a very precise spin on such as
"walkthrough" and "heuristic". I will read through the document and see
if I detect intended or unintended nuances and get back to you.
Paul
Jonathan Hung wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I am going through the Preparation and Execution page
> <http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/UX+Walkthrough+Preparation+and+Execution>
> and half-way through the document there is noticeable change to the
> use of the word "inspection".
>
> Most of our documents use words like "evaluate", "examine" and
> "inspect" interchangeably, but "inspect" is repeated quite often in
> the Procedure section.
>
> Do you recall any particular reason for this shift in vocabulary?
> OItherwise I was going to finesse the wording to make it flow a little
> better.
>
> - Jonathan.
>
> ---
> Jonathan Hung / jhung.utoronto at gmail.com <mailto:jhung.utoronto at gmail.com>
> Fluid Project - ATRC at University of Toronto
> Tel: (416) 946-3002
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Paul Zablosky <Paul.Zablosky at ubc.ca
> <mailto:Paul.Zablosky at ubc.ca>> wrote:
> > I have now got most of the UX Walkthrough pages (in the Design
> Handbook) in
> > their final positions in the hierarchy. I still have to figure out
> how to
> > fit the Accessibility pages (from Mike) into the scheme. The "UX
> Inspection
> > Methods and Techniques" page has now had all its children relocated
> and all
> > of its zillion (well, at least a couple of dozen) incoming links
> retargeted.
> > I have marked it as deprecated, but am not planning to remove it until
> > everything else is a bit more polished. In reconnecting the links, I
> > pointed a few things a the new "UX Walkthrough Protocols and Checklists"
> > page drafted by Jonathan. It is now the central recipe for doing a
> > Fluid-type UX Walkthrough -- as we intended.
> >
> > I have revised the "User Experience Walkthroughs" page to be much more
> > focused on the Fluid way of doing things, while still mentioning all
> of the
> > other inspections. The page still needs some polishing, but it's
> getting
> > closer to final form.
> >
> > Happy Spring Equinox Everyone,
> > Paul
> >
> > Allison Bloodworth wrote:
> >
> > 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <http://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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:abloodworth at berkeley.edu>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Allison Bloodworth
> > Senior User Interaction Designer
> > Educational Technology Services
> > University of California, Berkeley
> > (415) 377-8243
> > abloodworth at berkeley.edu <mailto:abloodworth at berkeley.edu>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Allison Bloodworth
> > Senior User Interaction Designer
> > Educational Technology Services
> > University of California, Berkeley
> > (415) 377-8243
> > abloodworth at berkeley.edu <mailto:abloodworth at berkeley.edu>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Allison Bloodworth
> > Senior User Interaction Designer
> > Educational Technology Services
> > University of California, Berkeley
> > (415) 377-8243
> > abloodworth at berkeley.edu <mailto:abloodworth at berkeley.edu>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20090324/2260190f/attachment.html>
More information about the fluid-work
mailing list