Difference between revisions of "UsabilityCluster/MonthlyMeeting/2017-02-01 MeetingNotes"
Sophisticus (talk | contribs) |
Sophisticus (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Attendees:''' Ruth Duerr, Bob Downs, Nancy Hoebelheinrich, Reid Boehm, Tamar Norkin, Ward Fleri, Shannon Rauch, Bruce Caron, Madison Langseth, Sophie Hou | '''Attendees:''' Ruth Duerr, Bob Downs, Nancy Hoebelheinrich, Reid Boehm, Tamar Norkin, Ward Fleri, Shannon Rauch, Bruce Caron, Madison Langseth, Sophie Hou | ||
+ | |||
'''1. Recap of ESIP Winter Meeting and Usability Cluster Session''' | '''1. Recap of ESIP Winter Meeting and Usability Cluster Session''' | ||
Line 17: | Line 18: | ||
'''2. Wireframe/Mock-Up/Prototype Presentation''' | '''2. Wireframe/Mock-Up/Prototype Presentation''' | ||
− | Three different ways that results from user studies could be evaluated and prioritized for implementation or further studies. | + | :* Three different ways that results from user studies could be evaluated and prioritized for implementation or further studies. |
− | Wireframe: | + | :* Wireframe: |
− | Key characteristics: low fidelity, cheaper/easier/less time consuming to create, and can help with quick demonstrations of ideas. | + | ::* Key characteristics: low fidelity, cheaper/easier/less time consuming to create, and can help with quick demonstrations of ideas. |
− | Mockup: | + | :* Mockup: |
− | Key characteristics: mid to high fidelity, relatively cheaper/easier to create, and might be visual enough to perform a simple user study. | + | ::* Key characteristics: mid to high fidelity, relatively cheaper/easier to create, and might be visual enough to perform a simple user study. |
− | Paper prototype: | + | :* Paper prototype: |
− | Key characteristics similar to mockup, but can be more comprehensive to represent more areas of the system. | + | ::* Key characteristics similar to mockup, but can be more comprehensive to represent more areas of the system. |
− | Prototype: | + | :* Prototype: |
− | Key characteristics: mid to high fidelity, can be expensive/time consuming to create, but can be helpful with interactive user study. | + | ::* Key characteristics: mid to high fidelity, can be expensive/time consuming to create, but can be helpful with interactive user study. |
− | Question: Would a test site considered to be a prototype? | + | :* Question: Would a test site considered to be a prototype? |
− | Yes | + | ::* Yes |
− | Question: Experiences with these techniques? | + | :* Question: Experiences with these techniques? |
− | Bruce - Paper prototyping | + | ::* Bruce - Paper prototyping |
− | Nancy - wireframing/mocking up/ different input forms helped in clarifying the different understanding of terms used. | + | ::* Nancy - wireframing/mocking up/ different input forms helped in clarifying the different understanding of terms used. |
− | Brainstorm of Data Archive/Repository Service Areas that Could Benefit from Usability Evaluations | + | |
+ | |||
+ | '''3. Brainstorm of Data Archive/Repository Service Areas that Could Benefit from Usability Evaluations''' | ||
Types of roles/personas: | Types of roles/personas: | ||
Producer (P) | Producer (P) |
Revision as of 16:03, February 7, 2017
Attendees: Ruth Duerr, Bob Downs, Nancy Hoebelheinrich, Reid Boehm, Tamar Norkin, Ward Fleri, Shannon Rauch, Bruce Caron, Madison Langseth, Sophie Hou
1. Recap of ESIP Winter Meeting and Usability Cluster Session
- Three different use cases were tested.
- Data Management Training Clearinghouse was tested using cognitive walkthrough.
- The presentation for this evaluation is available at the following link: http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/c/c6/ESIP_WinterMeeting_UsabilitySession_2017.pdf
- Feedback for this demonstration included: how to pair this technique with others and who should be responsible in performing the evaluation.
- Data Conservancy Packaging Tool was tested using virtual user study.
- Feedback for this demonstration included: having an expressive user is really helpful for enhancing the effectiveness of the test, combining multiple evaluation techniques could highlight/confirm different types of usability issues, and it is helpful to explore the mapping of mental model and the design of the system.
- BCO-DMO was tested using moderated, group user study.
- This is not an “official” technique; it is a technique that Sophie and Nancy H. (Chair of Data Management Training Working Group) adapted by combining focus group/interview techniques with user study technique.
- In addition to selecting a user to think aloud; a feedback form was also created to ask attendees to record their own observations and reactions.
- While we were able to collect additional feedback through the moderated, group user study, the moderator noticed that some actions/observations might have been missed. As a result, if this technique were to be used again, additional observers might need to be available to record the feedback.
- Question: was this technique effective/helpful for BCO-DMO?
- Answer: Yes; it would of course have been nice if more time was provided, but the experience showed that many usability issues could be discovered with quick tests.
2. Wireframe/Mock-Up/Prototype Presentation
- Three different ways that results from user studies could be evaluated and prioritized for implementation or further studies.
- Wireframe:
- Key characteristics: low fidelity, cheaper/easier/less time consuming to create, and can help with quick demonstrations of ideas.
- Mockup:
- Key characteristics: mid to high fidelity, relatively cheaper/easier to create, and might be visual enough to perform a simple user study.
- Paper prototype:
- Key characteristics similar to mockup, but can be more comprehensive to represent more areas of the system.
- Prototype:
- Key characteristics: mid to high fidelity, can be expensive/time consuming to create, but can be helpful with interactive user study.
- Question: Would a test site considered to be a prototype?
- Yes
- Question: Experiences with these techniques?
- Bruce - Paper prototyping
- Nancy - wireframing/mocking up/ different input forms helped in clarifying the different understanding of terms used.
3. Brainstorm of Data Archive/Repository Service Areas that Could Benefit from Usability Evaluations
Types of roles/personas:
Producer (P)
An entity that submits data to an archive/repository.
User (U)
An entity that applies data from the archive/repository to other purposes.
Assessor (A)
An entity that reviews data from the archive/repository to determine the performance of the archive/repository.
Data archive/repository operator (O)
An entity that works with data in the archive/repository to manage/sustain the archive/repository.
Areas:
Home page - PUAO
Search - UAO
Searching for data using a geospatial/map interface - UAO
Browse - UAO
Data ingest forms, including metadata input (initial information) - PO
Metadata development (tools for editing, updating, managing, and curating metadata) - PO
Adding new components to a pre-existing user interface - O(PAU) (Ended persona assignment here)
Help documents
Registration to a site or service
Downloading data (accessing data)
Access to an identified resource (e.g. dataset, software, etc)
Dataset landing page; Collection landing page
Contact request forms and such (i.e., asking for help on something)
Solicitations of possible use cases and speakers
Usathon on a NASA data website (NASA can not solicit this type of information from users, but we could act as users for NASA).