Fluid UX Walkthrough protocol - reorganized, looking for feedback.
Daphne Ogle
daphne at media.berkeley.edu
Tue Mar 31 19:07:42 UTC 2009
Hey all,
I didn't see this message before we met. Can the 4 of us find some
time to talk about this? We could use the meeting time next week to
discuss or meet sometime earlier. I've got quite a bit of time on
Thursday. What do you think?
-Daphne
On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Paul Zablosky wrote:
> Hello Allison,
> Thank you to you and Daphne for your critique. I agree that the
> Design Handbook page has a lot under the Evaluation and Assessment
> section -- this was the result of getting the structure rationalized
> and parallel. I think that we should talk this over briefly at the
> design meeting and see what makes sense to make it more balanced
> without compromising the structure.
>
> As for the UX Walkthrough page itself, I had planned to rework the
> "conventional constituent methods" section a bit, trimming down the
> descriptions and putting in "Learn More" links to the detail pages.
> I have been gradually reworking the page to be primarily focused on
> the Fluid approach -- as you will have noticed -- but there's still
> a bit more I want to do. I welcome any ideas you can offer to help
> me with this.
>
> What we have now is somewhat redundant: we have references to the
> constituent methods in the Design Handbook page -- which is really a
> table of contents page as you say. (I really like the style of this
> page, and think it makes a good landing page.) There is also a list
> in the current UX Walkthroughs page, and there are details in the
> "Protocols and Checklists" page. I'm not sure this repetition is
> bad, as long as it all tells a consistent story. The thing not to
> do is overwhelm the reader with repetitiousness.
>
> As I said, I want to tone down the reference list in the UX
> Walkthroughs page, and then we can see if we have a balanced
> presentation overall, and whether we're getting our primary messages
> across. I'm not sure to do about the list in the Design Handbook
> page -- should we shorten the entries, combine the entries, or
> eliminate some of the entries? Let's discuss it.
>
> Talk to you soon,
> Paul
>
> Allison Bloodworth wrote:
>> Hi Paul & Jonathan,
>>
>> Thanks so much for your hard work on this! Daphne and I took a
>> quick look at this today, and had some initial observations:
>>
>> * It seems like there are too many things linked from the Design
>> Handbook in the "Evaluation & Assessment" space. We think we may
>> have pulled so many things to the top that it's overwhelming at
>> this point. We also want to make sure to highlight UX Walkthroughs
>> as this one of the big things we offer that's different from other
>> places.
>> * We think it may be helpful to make the UX Walkthroughs page less
>> focused on the methods that are part of UX walkthroughs (e.,g. we
>> could have links to the Cognitive Walkthroughs and Heuristic
>> Evaluation info) and more focused on the Fluid approach.
>>
>> We'd be happy to take an editing pass on these sections if that
>> would be helpful, or we could also take a closer look at the UX
>> Walkthroughs section and then just talk through some ideas for
>> improvements if you'd prefer.
>>
>> In re: to the multiple links on the Design Handbook page to the
>> same place, I agree. To some extent but it's a practice that has
>> become sort of standard in the wiki (as sometimes it assures people
>> will find their content no matter which link they click on), but I
>> think we could improve things here but keeping the headers links
>> and removing the "Learn More" links since they are redundant and
>> taking up space. This would help us tighten up the page and help
>> just a bit with making it less overwhelming. I'm a fan of keeping
>> the headers links as I feel like that is a good way to structure a
>> table of contents, which is sort of what this page is.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Allison
>>
>> On Mar 30, 2009, at 8:24 AM, 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
>>> 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> 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 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
>>>> 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
>>>> > 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
>>>> > 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
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Allison Bloodworth
>> Senior User Interaction Designer
>> Educational Technology Services
>> University of California, Berkeley
>> (415) 377-8243
>> abloodworth at berkeley.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Daphne Ogle
Senior Interaction Designer
University of California, Berkeley
Educational Technology Services
daphne at media.berkeley.edu
cell (510)847-0308
More information about the fluid-work
mailing list