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're right about duplication 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 the same page (e.g. on 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
really *should* describe Fluid 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
- User Experience Walkthroughs (placed in the "Evaluation and
Assessment" section) - this actually describes the Fluid approach
and references the 'Cognitive Walkthrough' and 'Heuristic
Evaluation' pages
- 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 (placed in the "Evaluation 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 the
walkthroughs we did 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 instance, in Jonathan's email 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 relating to "cognitive concerns," 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
<[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
Allison Bloodworth
Senior User Interaction Designer
Educational Technology Services
University of California, Berkeley
(415) 377-8243
[email protected]
Allison Bloodworth
Senior User Interaction Designer
Educational Technology Services
University of California, Berkeley
(415) 377-8243
[email protected]
_______________________________________________________
fluid-work mailing list - [email protected]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives,
see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
