Difference between revisions of "UsabilityCluster/MonthlyMeeting/2017-02-01 MeetingNotes"
Sophisticus (talk | contribs) (Created page with "'''Attendees:''' Ruth Duerr, Bob Downs, Nancy Hoebelheinrich, Reid Boehm, Tamar Norkin, Ward Fleri, Shannon Rauch, Bruce Caron, Madison Langseth, Sophie Hou") |
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''' | ||
+ | :* Three different use cases were tested. | ||
+ | ::* [http://dmtclearinghouse.esipfed.org 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. | ||
+ | ::* [https://dataconservancy.org/software/documentation/ 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. | ||
+ | ::* [http://www.bco-dmo.org/ 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. | ||
+ | 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). |
Revision as of 16:01, 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.
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).