>>No....J was saying you should have fired whoever you had doing your facilitating.
Ha, I was hoping that was the case. I wish I could have done something constructive to remedy the situation. >>Let me see if I have this right: The test was in the form of a series of single user tests where each user used both prototypes. The participants were a group of people identified as being like the targeted users. You have it right! >>First of all...people frequently report liking the first prototype better because they tend to be entranced by the pretty, shiny, new thing...whichever is second is Just Another Way To Do The Same Thing. I agree; but, nothing was shiny. They were equally dull neutral high fi wireframish prototypes. >>Secondly, if you're going to do this kind of test, you should at least NOT give everyone the prototypes in the same order...mix it up so that 50% do A first and 50% do B first. That is what we did. I mentioned it in a previous post. According to my observations their was prototype that prevailed no matter which was presented first. >>You do not need or want users' general reactions - like "it's pretty" or "I like the shape of the buttons on this one". Those are basically unimportant. You want to see them perform a task on the first and then a very similar (but not identical) task on the second. For example A. Find the engine size and horsepower of This Car, and then on B. Find out if you can get automatic windshield wipers on That Car. Then you reverse those so that you have 50% doing task A on prototype A and 50% doing task B on prototype A. That is how it went down. Like I said nothing was pretty and the task were like you said, find a location based on criteria, list, organize, etc... and some other stuff; but, identical to your recommendation. >>Assuming you're videotaping, take videocaptures of the points where users have problems, ask questions, look unhappy and confuse, in other words, the points where their reactions are particularly relevant. String those together with text commentary (depending on your personal preferences, you can make a point orally and then show supporting video, create a Powerpoint type presentation or Web site that integrates the points made with the video evidence, make a video that incorporates all the commentary and all the supporting video...or however makes sense for you to pull these together and report them). The video was digital and captured the screen activity as well as the user. So, you could see what the user was clicking and how they responded visual and aural. I compiled m notes and sent it to my team and called it a day. >>It can be kind of fun to watch your stakeholders reactions to the video...something to look forward to ha, agreed. It was an interesting experience. They had it set up so you could view the lab remote as well. Really neat. ________________________________________________________________ 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
