Fluid UX Walkthrough protocol - reorganized, looking for feedback.
Paul Zablosky
Paul.Zablosky at ubc.ca
Mon Mar 30 23:31:13 UTC 2009
Hello Jonathan,
I have put together a short list of things that could use a bit of
work in the UX Walkthroughs and related pages in the Design Handbook. I
attached it as a child to the Design Handbook page at:
http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Worklist+for+Design+Handbook
Some of the items are simple wrap-up tasks, and some require creating
content. Please let me know what you think, and if you have additions
for the list.
Paul
Jonathan Hung wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> I've gone through both the Preparation guide and the User Experience
> Walkthroughs "landing page". I've made some edits where necessary. The
> structure, as it is, is very good.
>
> I think at this point we should hand this over to someone else to read
> through to see if there is anything we can improve. I'm concerned a
> little about the terminology at some points, but wonder if it's just a
> case of me spending too much time with the documentation. :)
>
> Also, I would like to propose that the headers on the Design Handbook
> be made into normal text instead of links and the "Learn More" links
> be relabeled to something more descriptive. I find it confusing that
> for each section that there are two links labeled differently but
> linking to the same destination. Thoughts?
>
> - 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 24, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Paul Zablosky <Paul.Zablosky at ubc.ca
> <mailto:Paul.Zablosky at ubc.ca>> wrote:
>
> Jonathan,
> I have read through the document, and I see your point about
> the use of the word "inspection". I believe that the intention
> was to use the words "inspect" and "inspection" to refer to the
> actual activity of interacting with the software -- using
> "inspect" as a transitive verb. The word "examine" could be used
> as an alternative. The text doesn't quite stick to this rule, and
> could use a bit of fixing up along these lines.
>
> The words "evaluate" and "evaluation" can be used as more general
> terms to refer to the wider process, including recording and
> interpretation. Another candidate for this is "assessment" which
> can refer to reporting as well as inspection. I have also used
> "review" here and there, but I may go back and tighten things up
> if this appears too loose.
>
> In all of this, I think we can use these terms with their common
> generic meanings, but not so interchangeably as to confuse the
> reader by appearing to talk about more than one thing when we're
> not. In this, you have to let your sense of style and flow be
> your guide.
>
> If anyone thinks we should use any of these words in a
> domain-specific way, we can set a definition, and then edit for
> precision and consistency. Does anyone have a suggestion or
> opinion about this?
>
>
> 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/20090330/0b980d26/attachment.html>
More information about the fluid-work
mailing list