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 / [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]
>
>
>
>
>
>
