Fluid UX Walkthrough protocol - reorganized, looking for feedback.
Paul Zablosky
Paul.Zablosky at ubc.ca
Tue Mar 31 22:02:03 UTC 2009
How about Thursday at 10:30 PDT / 13:30 EDT? I think we can make this
fairly brief.
Paul
Allison Bloodworth wrote:
> 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