UsabilityCluster/MonthlyMeeting/2018-04-04 MeetingNotes

Meeting Agenda - Usability Cluster - 2018-04-04 1PM EDT

http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/UsabilityCluster/MonthlyMeeting/2018-04-04

Attendees: Tamar Norkin, Connor Scully-Allison, Madison Langseth, Sophie Hou

Agenda:

1. Review of cluster slides
2. Review of Connor's content for the "Test Introduction" and "Pre-test survey" sections of his usability test script
3. Presentation on "Journey Mapping"
4. Discussion of the Framework's "Post-Test Reflection" section

Notes:

1. Review of cluster slides

• • 4 Pages Follow format that ESIP Leadership Wants us to Use
  • We don’t need to send it out to everyone to review
  • Page 1
    • Leadership : Madison, Sophie and Connor
  • Page 2
    • 1st question: How do we apply usability techniques
    • 2nd question: Aggregate usability documents and resources
  • Page 3
    • Captions were applied to images
    • Work in Progress Products was changed to be Work in Progress
    • Sophie considers the idea that we could return to older projects and discover where they are at
    • Tamar asks about the progress made on Mars Trek UI/ Usability
    • Sophie goes over the progress of various projects on this page
      • RMAP has some progress
      • One-Stop is “the healthiest”: Sophie will be attending their workshop shortly
      • Madison : “It would be nice to hear one of these guys talk about how their usability studies affected the layout of their page and usability of their software”
      • Sophie: Will track down chair and ask question about that
  • Page 4
    • Talks with IEDA (Something in 2018)
    • Work with Connor’s QC data
    • Suggestion to add Joint Session with Info Quality cluster in ESIP Summer Session

2. Review of Connor's content for the "Test Introduction" and "Pre-test survey" sections of his usability test script

• • Connor was able to use the test framework’s example to create his first revision of the invitation for test users.
  • Connor investigated whether he would need IRB approval.
    • Software testing is exempt, but as an option, Connor was able to obtain a document from the University of Nevada that he could provide to his testers.
    • IRB requirement from University of Nevada asks for a test introduction script to be submitted, and he used a template and the Usability Test Framework to create this script.
    • Madison clarified that reading from a script is OK especially when the process is required by the IRB.
    • Bob added that it would be helpful to give a brief description of the software’s function in the test introduction script.
    • Connor noted that it would be helpful to show how an IRB form could be prepared.
      • Bob and Sophie agreed that it would be good to provide a simple sample, so that the information does not overwhelm people and at the same time, remind people that they will need to follow their institutional requirements as well.
    • Connor suggested that we could evaluate and provide a list of common elements for an IRB form.

3. Sophie’s Journey mapping: Video Recording of Talk

• • Journey Map is a visualization of a end-to-end set of interactions with some software
  • It’s important to includes how people feel when they are working with your system
  • There are many ways to render a journey map
  • Common elements:
    • The Lens
      • The type of person using this software (persona)
    • The Experience
      • Designed to examine the structure of the journey and the quantity of the touch points
    • The Insights Zone
      • Opportunities for improvement which come from Zone A and B
  • Sharing Sam as a scientist in need of sharing thier data - Lens
  • Activities, Thinkings, and Touch points (The Experience)
    • Pain chart representing the hardest parts of the activities
  • Opportunities for Improvement
    • A usage tracking system or self help system
  • Additional Elements
    • The Experience
      • Channels (Related to Touch points) Very specific ways that people interact with your software (Web App, Mobile App, Other People)
      • Moments of truth: Items that can be defined from the thinking portion. Make or break moments with our users.
        • Eg: Citations, Elegibility (If users can’t get these easily they will leave)
  • General Approach
    • Start with team and scope
    • Internal Investigation
      • What is the correct scenario, persona, phases, quotes
      • Understand the bounds set by the problem domain
    • Assumption Formulations
      • Workshop with stakeholders
      • Share what is found with lab representatives
    • External Research
      • All the remaining pieces for an effective map
  • Other Mapping Methods