Liam,
I think this is an absolutely awesome approach to what you're
calling a heuristic review. It transforms the Nielsen heuristics from
a checklist that just looks at the elements of the user interface in a
sort of localized way to looking at the whole experience of using an
interface from the point of view of a task-oriented human who has a
goal to reach. It also reflects something that Jared Spool taught me
to ask my clients about how to think about designs: "If this interface
were the perfect human helper, what would that person be like?"
One of the issues I've always had with a heuristic evaluation
methodology is that it often gets treated by evaluators as a
checklist. Yes, there's help. Yes, the buttons have reasonable labels.
No, the error messages stink and it's too hard to recover from making
errors. Etc. But if we put ourselves in the place of real users --
which you can do if you have personas or user profiles available, or
if you're designing for yourself -- we can do a much better job of
applying heuristics as an evaluation technique.
Three things to think about:
1. Using heuristics as a checklist means the evaluator views the user
interface in a mechanical way that can miss nuances people reveal when
they're doing real tasks. A lot of what you'll find are cosmetic issues.
2. Performing an evaluation in the way you suggest gives a much closer-
to-true view of what a user might do. But it is also massively labor
intensive and it is unlikely that any one person will be able to
evaluate an *entire* largish web site or application this way. It's
just too exhausting. But by taking a snapshot through key, high-
priority tasks, a team can see where they're missing the mark on key,
high-priority items that should be factors contributing to a primo
user experience.
3. Performing a heuristic evaluation -- or any evaluation that relies
on guidelines is definitely no substitute for putting a design in
front of a real person who has real goals. Humans are just -- happily
-- unpredictable.
Fabulous work. I can't wait to try it out.
Dana
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
Dana Chisnell
desk: 415.392.0776
mobile: 415.519.1148
dana AT usabilityworks DOT net
www.usabilityworks.net
http://usabilitytestinghowto.blogspot.com/
On Mar 6, 2009, at 2:22 AM, Liam Greig wrote:
Hi everyone,
Apologies in advance for the long post. The agency where I work as an
IxD recently started an employee driven lunch and learn series where I
had the opportunity to introduce the idea of Heuristics to the group.
I covered off the basics and background from Nielson on and it was
all very well received. Following the session we opened up the floor
and had some great dialogue on the personification of software and
it's application to Heuristics. As a follow up I have been asked to
present a more 'human friendly' version of Heuristics to the team
using personal traits as a guide for non-expert use. We will most
likely begin to guinea pig this idea into our process next week. I
thought to myself today - 'what a great chance to finally post an
IXDA discussion thread'. I have been reading along for a very long
time...
So I would love any feedback you have to offer. Here is my first pass
at a new take on Heuristics based largely on Nielson's originals as
well as the ISOs ergonomics of human system interactions:
Begin each Heuristic with 'A design should be...'
1. Transparent
At all times a person should understand where they are, what actions
are available and how those actions can be performed. Information and
objects should be made visible so that a person does not have to rely
on memory from one screen to another
Ask Yourself:
• Where am I?
• What are my options?
2. Responsive
Whenever appropriate, useful feedback should let a person know what
is going on within a reasonable amount of time. If a person initiates
an action, they should receive a clear response.
Ask Yourself:
• What is happening right now?
• Am I getting what I need?
3. Considerate
A person should understand the language, words, terminology and
phrases presented to them. Error messages should be expressed in
plain language, precisely indicate the problem and constructively
suggest a solution. Predictable contextual needs and commonly
accepted conventions should be followed.
Ask Yourself:
• Does this make sense to me?
4. Supportive
A person should feel supported in the effective and efficient
completion of their task. A person should feel enabled to focus on
the task itself as opposed to the technology chosen to perform that
task.
Ask Yourself:
• Can I focus on my task?
• Do I feel frustrated?
5. Consistent
A person should not have to wonder whether different words,
situations, or actions mean the same thing. Additionally a person
should not discover that similar words, situations or actions mean
different things. Establish and maintain conventions.
Ask Yourself:
• Are my expectations accurate?
6. Forgiving
Despite evident errors in input, a person should be capable of
achieving their intended result with either no or minimal corrective
effort. Damage control, error correction, or error management should
be handled by the technology as opposed to the person using that
technology whenever possible and appropriate.
Ask Yourself:
• Are mistakes easy to fix?
• Does the technology blame me for errors?
7. Guiding
A person should feel capable of learning what is required to
accomplish their goals. Help documentation and information should be
easy to locate and search, focused on the task at hand and be only as
long as necessary.
Ask Yourself:
• Do I know where to go for help?
8. Accommodating
A person should be able to initiate and control the direction and
pace of an interaction until the point at which the goal has been
met. Emergency exits should allow a person to leave any unwanted
state without having to go through an extended process. Support undo
and redo.
Ask Yourself:
• Am I in control?
• Am I afraid to make mistakes?
9. Flexible
A person should be able to modify the interaction and presentation of
information to suit their individual capabilities and needs.
Ask Yourself:
• Can I customize my experience?
10. Intelligent
The technology should be able to recognize usage patterns and adapt
itself to accommodate the individual. The person should experience an
improvement of quality over time with repeat visits.
Ask Yourself:
• Does the technology know who I am?
• Did the technology remember the way I left things?
Thanks for you time!
________________________________________________________________
Reply to this thread at ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=39587
________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________
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
