Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

The checklist is organic and will continue to be refined as we learn from doing the hybrid inspections/evaluations.

Working Groups – Application Teams

Please feel free to add, delete and/or more your name around this list.  This list of names came from volunteers at the May 11th meeting.

...

  • Paul (coordinator)
  • Tara
  • Daphne
  • Colin
  • Kathy?
  • Gary?

Sakai UX Walkthrough Subgroup

...

  1. In Progress - Create list of usability accessibility heuristics - use draft list to get started.  In the spirit of agile, we'll refactor the list as we learn from the experience of combining the usability and accesibiliy heuristics and the cognitive walkthrough methods
  2. Agree on evaluation reporting format (see Proposed Draft)

Within the "application" teams:

...

  • Teams assemble their protocols from the lists outlined by Clayton. If they plan to adopt or use others, these should be added to the common set.
  • Each team picks the best target for their investigation and defines it as precisely as possible
  • All teams start with the same reporting template (see Draft).   If it is found to be constraining during the "team plan building" phase, enhancements can be made to the common version.

...

  1. The coordinator arranges an initial team meeting, using the Breeze meeting room or other convenient venue.
  2. The team members identify their areas of experience, expertise, and interest in:
    1. Accessibility - cognitive, visual, etc
    2. Usability
    3. Cognitive walkthroughs
  3. The team discusses the protocol (See Clayton's outline)
    1. What usability heuristics do the members find most suitable?
    2. What accessibility measures/tools are to be used?
    3. What user profiles are to be assumed?
    4. What cognitive walkthrough scenarios are to be attempted?
    5. What refinements are required in the protocol?
  4. The team assesses coverage. What areas are covered, and with how much (desirable) redundancy? What areas aren't covered? Each inspection should be done by more than one evaluator – ideally by as many as possible.
  5. Team member partnerships are arranged where possible to address usability and accessibility synchronously. Team leads are assigned in areas of expertise.
  6. The team discusses the logistics of actual inspection activities:
    1. What are the problems with geographically distributed teams?
    2. Can the Breeze facility help to overcome the problems?
  7. The team discusses reporting: (see Proposed Template)
    1. Does the proposed template meet the team's needs?
    2. Are refinements to the template required?
    3. What additional information will be reported?
    4. How can results be aggregated with those from other teams (consistency, style, references to heuristic principles, etc.)

...

  1. Synthesize and prioritize findings
  2. Brainstorm design session (identify conceptual solutions to high priority issues).  Are there good component candidates?
  3. Write and share out report.
  4. Incorporate findings into community (see below)
  5. Look for pain across applications? . Are there issues a component(s) can address well?

...