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 / [email protected] Fluid Project - ATRC at University of Toronto Tel: (416) 946-3002 On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Paul Zablosky <[email protected]> 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<http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/UX+Walkthrough+Preparation+and+Execution>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 / [email protected] > Fluid Project - ATRC at University of Toronto > Tel: (416) 946-3002 > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Paul Zablosky <[email protected]> > 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 / [email protected] > > Fluid Project - ATRC at University of Toronto > > Tel: (416) 946-3002 > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Paul Zablosky <[email protected]> > 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 <[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 > > > > 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 / [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] > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
