Fluid UX Walkthrough protocol - reorganized, looking for feedback.
Allison Bloodworth
abloodworth at berkeley.edu
Tue Mar 31 21:33:11 UTC 2009
I'm open Thursday anytime other than 11-12am or 1-2pm PDT. Maybe we
could just have a quick chat about next steps in case there is
something we can do to help out before next week?
Cheers,
Allison
On Mar 31, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Paul Zablosky wrote:
> I have some time on Thursday morning -- although next Tuesday might
> be better. This week is really filling up for me.
>
> After writing the message below, I did some more work on the UX
> Walkthroughs page, making it more about the Fluid Approach, and
> referencing the other techniques as constituents of the Fluid way,
> rather than alternatives. See what you think.
>
> Paul
>
> Daphne Ogle wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
Allison Bloodworth
Senior User Interaction Designer
Educational Technology Services
University of California, Berkeley
(415) 377-8243
abloodworth at berkeley.edu
More information about the fluid-work
mailing list