by EIC
As UX has gained acceptance in the development process the challenge is changing from advocating for it as a whole to doing it right.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Minding Your User’s Business
by Peter H. Jones
UX professionals should have or acquire domain specialization. For insight purposes as well as for credibility (for presenting findings and proposing expensive research). At least a couple of areas/niche.
UX professionals should have or acquire domain specialization. For insight purposes as well as for credibility (for presenting findings and proposing expensive research). At least a couple of areas/niche.
How Many Users Does it Take to Change a Web Site?
by William Hudson
Compares the Nielsen optimal number (5) and Spool's (18). Assessment is that the difference in findings is due to a difference in test task specificity.
Points out that Nielsen then declared that 5 users in small studies are right for formative purposes, but larger numbers from several users are necessary for overall (summative) site usability assessments.
Compares the Nielsen optimal number (5) and Spool's (18). Assessment is that the difference in findings is due to a difference in test task specificity.
Points out that Nielsen then declared that 5 users in small studies are right for formative purposes, but larger numbers from several users are necessary for overall (summative) site usability assessments.
Testing Web Sites: Five Users Is Nowhere Near Enough
by Jared Spool, Will Schroeder
Tested four shopping sites with open ended tasks (buy some stuff you want) and found that they didn't uncover 85% of problems until they had tested 18 users. Five users only found 35% of problems.
Attribute this to how complex websites are, claiming 18 is the new five.
I say the scope of the task list has to be tighter.
Tested four shopping sites with open ended tasks (buy some stuff you want) and found that they didn't uncover 85% of problems until they had tested 18 users. Five users only found 35% of problems.
Attribute this to how complex websites are, claiming 18 is the new five.
I say the scope of the task list has to be tighter.
User Modeling with Personas
by Plinio Thomaz Aquino Junior, Lucia Vilela Leite Filgueiras
Article outlines five types of user characterizations:
user role: the attributes of a type of interaction between users and the system
user profile: individual characteristics give generic differences among groups of users
user segment: marketing-based differentiations of the user market
extreme characters: radical personalities used to uncover use cases in new systems where there is nothing to test
personas: a few important classes of user, or 'classic users', that have goals (life, experience and purpose)
Important persona properties are what they do; what frustrates them; what satisfies them. Stakeholders can be non-user personas. Personas should be fed (with additional user info) throughout the development process.
Kind of expository article.
Article outlines five types of user characterizations:
user role: the attributes of a type of interaction between users and the system
user profile: individual characteristics give generic differences among groups of users
user segment: marketing-based differentiations of the user market
extreme characters: radical personalities used to uncover use cases in new systems where there is nothing to test
personas: a few important classes of user, or 'classic users', that have goals (life, experience and purpose)
Important persona properties are what they do; what frustrates them; what satisfies them. Stakeholders can be non-user personas. Personas should be fed (with additional user info) throughout the development process.
Kind of expository article.
Establishing Collaborations in Design-based Research Projects
by Randi A. Engle
A collaborative curriculum redesign effort between middle school teachers, students and researchers done in the 1990s to great success and satisfaction for all parties.
This study interviews participants after the fact and they all loved it. The success is attributed to the way that collaborators came to the project: students who respected and wanted to work with teachers; researchers with domain expertise in related fields who also were interested in the domain at hand.
Cool story but I'm not sure what to say about this within a user experience framework.
A collaborative curriculum redesign effort between middle school teachers, students and researchers done in the 1990s to great success and satisfaction for all parties.
This study interviews participants after the fact and they all loved it. The success is attributed to the way that collaborators came to the project: students who respected and wanted to work with teachers; researchers with domain expertise in related fields who also were interested in the domain at hand.
Cool story but I'm not sure what to say about this within a user experience framework.
It's a jungle out there
by Melanie Kellar, Derek Reilly, Kirstie Hawkey, Malcolm Rodgers, Bonnie MacKay,
David Dearman, Vicki Ha, W. Joseph MacInnes*, Michael Nunes, Karen Parker,
Tara Whalen, Kori M. Inkpen
This study tried to evaluate hand-held prototype in two field settings (a rendezvous, and an event -City Chase) that required users to use the device naturalistically, and required observers to follow users in the field.
For the rendezvous test participants were given a WoZ device where the moderator sent their prototype devices updates via bluetooth.
For the City Chase event participants were asked to use 'shared annotations' with their co-located partner while performing the race tasks.
Results were mixed for various reasons. For the rendezvous test there were technology breakdowns but data was collected.
For the shared annotations test a mismatch between the race demands and the prototype functionality meant participants did not use the prototype as they got caught up in the race.
The study documents the many obstacles posed to collecting data in the field, but also points out that insights into usage were gained that would not have been possible to encounter in the lab.
I don't disagree with anything, but this is not quite a finished study.
David Dearman, Vicki Ha, W. Joseph MacInnes*, Michael Nunes, Karen Parker,
Tara Whalen, Kori M. Inkpen
This study tried to evaluate hand-held prototype in two field settings (a rendezvous, and an event -City Chase) that required users to use the device naturalistically, and required observers to follow users in the field.
For the rendezvous test participants were given a WoZ device where the moderator sent their prototype devices updates via bluetooth.
For the City Chase event participants were asked to use 'shared annotations' with their co-located partner while performing the race tasks.
Results were mixed for various reasons. For the rendezvous test there were technology breakdowns but data was collected.
For the shared annotations test a mismatch between the race demands and the prototype functionality meant participants did not use the prototype as they got caught up in the race.
The study documents the many obstacles posed to collecting data in the field, but also points out that insights into usage were gained that would not have been possible to encounter in the lab.
I don't disagree with anything, but this is not quite a finished study.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)