UsabilityCluster/MonthlyMeeting/2017-02-01 MeetingNotes

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)

4. 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).