Thanks Ricardo. I think that sort of breakdown would be good for a small number of repeating sessions but when you get to eight, I think I lean towards Jeff's feeling: it might be too complicated for people. Still a good idea though; I will keep it in my back pocket for a shorter study.
Jeff, all great ideas, and I hadn't thought of asking anthrodesign. Figures that I just unsubscribed a month ago :) We're asking ourselves just how important it is to have repeat attendance (perhaps we don't need to go to all this trouble). The unfortunate thing is we don't know yet. It's certainly important from a recruitment standpoint -- we don't want to have to re-recruit every two weeks. But in terms of properly testing the application, because it's being developed using agile, we don't really have a sense of the dependencies between features yet, and therefore don't know how important it is for the same people to test the application week after week. At this point we're thinking that to keep things simple we might just make sure the immediate incentive is enough to make people want to come as often as possible, and leave it at that, no bonus at the end. We'll probably have a mixture of repeat people and new people in each test, and that may be a good thing. Thanks for all the suggestions! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=35086 ________________________________________________________________ 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
