On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Carol Lerche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your reference argues not to start with usability tests before doing a > design. This is not what I suggested, since sugar as a design is largely > complete at this point. The article also. dismisses usability testing as > worthless (despite backing and filling a bit toward the end). I don't > agree. However, I assume from the supplied reference that you are stating > that there hasn't been usability testing of sugar. This is unfortunate. I > think it has real problems, some of which could be fixed through careful > observation of its use by its target community in the context in which it is > intended, namely classrooms with relatively low adult-student ratios. This > is a matter of improving the affordances of the design. Simply asserting > that any problems can be overcome by learning how doesn't seem responsive.
Carol, if you are suggesting to use usability testing as a tool to improve Sugar, I'm totally with you. As far as I know we have done only sporadic testing so far, but we are working to fix that issue. I had the impression you proposed to use usability testing as a way to objectively declare Sugar as good or as bad design (I might have been biased by another discussion going on at the same time). And ihmo that would be a misuse of the tool, as the reference I linked asserts. Marco _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
