Versions Compared

Key

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

...

  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:
    • Accessibility - cognitive, visual, etc
    • Usability
    • Cognitive walkthroughs
  3. The team discusses the protocol (See Clayton's outline)
    • What usability heuristics do the members find most suitable?
    • What accessibility measures/tools are to be used?
    • What user profiles are to be assumed?
    • What cognitive walkthrough scenarios are to be attempted?
    • 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:
    • What are the problems with geographically distributed teams?
    • Can the Breeze facility help to overcome the problems?
  7. The team discusses reporting: (see Proposed Template from Daphne)
    • Does the proposed template meet the team's needs?
    • Are refinements to the template required?
    • What additional information will be reported?
    • How can results be aggregated with those from other teams (consistency, style, references to heuristic principles, etc.)

...

  1. Individual evaluations are performed by 3-5 evaluators using the (or a subset) guidelines synthesized by this group. (The 3-5 number is not an absolute requirement: only good practice, and strongly encouraged. An evaluation can be done by a single person if only one is available.)
  2. Findings are recorded.

...