Thomas Petersen said: > If we are talking wireframes or any other replacements for the real > thing whatever you will find have very little if anything to do with > what you find in the end.
Hi, Thomas, Are we talking about design issues or defects? Apologies if I totally misread you, but it sounds like you're talking about defects. I've run into that misconception a few times lately--that usability testing is an extension of quality assurance, intended to surface bugs or defects in the product. In reality, usability testing is best suited for sussing out problems with the strategic level of the design--are mental models appropriate and intuitive enough that people can easily complete the principal tasks associated with the product. And testing wireframes or prototypes is a fantastic way to flush out mental model problems at an early enough stage that course correction is financially feasible (not so if the first usability test occurs when the product is thought to be completed). To find the tactical level issues of implementation--the kind that you'd find after launch--you need a robust QA process. Usability testing is a poor substitute for quality assurance. Will Sansbury ________________________________________________________________ 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
