On Mar 13, 2009, at 6:42 AM, James Page wrote:
@dana
I'd argue that in the small tests that most of us do percentages are
bogus).
Totally agree. Most of our tests are 30 plus, but for most
small studies they are meaningless.
30+? Wow. Sounds like huge amounts of wasted resources if you need
those numbers on a regular basis. You might want to rethink how you do
your own work there. Looks like many opportunities to be much more
efficient.
Just sayin'
And as for:
We have observed some pretty strange practices, such as participants
been
tested behind a glass wall (not a one way mirror), with about 6 people
looking in. We have seen test participants been given a very
detailed script
(i.e. go to the page, go to the X form item, enter Y, then go to the
next
item, enter Z). Another time five participants been tested
simultaneously in
one room, with the only evaluator present running behind the
participants.
Another time a video of test sessions been posted to YouTube without
the participants consent.
Sounds like proof for something that I say so often these days, my
staff has named it:
Spool's First Law of Competency: It takes absolutely zero skills to do
a crappy job at anything you put your mind to.
It just sounds like you hang around with incompetent people. I would
use the world of incompetence to discard the method. That would be
throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Jared
________________________________________________________________
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
