On Jul 9, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Adrian Chong wrote:
I'm considering providing the user tasks to complete and filling in
the missing flow pieces with paper mocks. Do you think it's going to
be too disorientating going from a working build to a static mock or
will people generally be able to make that leap of faith and
understand they are still moving within the flow of the site?
Alternatively, I could test the interaction design for the
functioning pieces exclusively but I feel like there would be a
missed opportunity to test the IA/nomenclature and a wholistic view
of the overall
concept of the site.
I'd stay away from paper mocks and instead put the digital images of
what you're going to print out into a PowerPoint or HTML pages w/image
maps the participant can click through. This still keeps things "on-
line" and is less disruptive.
Additionally, one thing we've found out recently through some A/B
testing is that if there is anything where color might impact the
usability/predictability/legibility of the product, then the color and
contrast between printed pieces and on screen actually biases the
results. We found this out first hand — same screens, but printed
versions compared to on screen versions gave us almost completely
different results.
Cheers!
Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
----------------------------------
Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog: http://toddwarfel.com
Twitter: zakiwarfel
----------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
