Paul,
My own preference would be to show *and* do. In other words, we have
the how-to-do-it plus the how-we-did-it.
I think we're headed there. I'm copying in a thread that we had on
the list a few weeks ago about this. I think there was a 3-way
suggestion. How does that fit into what we're talking about here?
Best,
Jess
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jess Mitchell
Boston, MA, USA
Project Manager / Fluid Project
[email protected]
/ w / 617.326.7753 / c / 919.599.5378
jabber: [email protected]
http://www.fluidproject.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Feb 20, 2009, at 6:24 PM, Paul Zablosky wrote:
Hello Jonathan,
It could be confusing without some explanatory text. I was
thinking that should we flesh out the top UX Walkthroughs page to
say "here are the techniques you have to choose from, depending on
your purpose" -- a sort of Fluid-independent approach. Then we
say, "and here's how the Fluid folks do it, it works really well,
and you might like to do it the same way".
Whether we do this or not depends on our main objective for this
part of the handbook. Do we want to present some general how-to-do-
it information, as well as how-we-did-it, or do we want to just
showcase the Fluid way? I have to admit that at this point I'm not
sure which is better. Originally, this material by Clayton,
Allison, and Daphne was aimed at "how to do it in the Fluid
project", and we have re-targeted somewhat for people outside of the
Fluid project. When we started working on this a few weeks ago, I
thought the "give them a choice" approach was what we wanted -- even
though it's more work. But we could go with the Fluid-only
approach, which your recent work largely fulfills.
Jess, you have been taking the higher-level view of all this; what
is your take on it?
Paul
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
<[email protected]> 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
UX Walkthrough - Heuristic 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
Jonathan Hung wrote:
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
Checklist.
Old version: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/x/VAEa
New version: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/x/8QZa
The new version attempts to deliver 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 version is present in the 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 / [email protected]
Fluid Project - ATRC at University of Toronto
Tel: (416) 946-3002
_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
