Re: [IxDA Discuss] Looking for Ethnographic Researcher in Japan
Hi James, Try http://www.humaninterface.co.jp/english/index.html I have used them on many occassions over the years and never been disappointed! Good luck, Arthur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=46211 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Wizard/Form Design Inspiration
Hi Donna, I would suggest start with name UIE.com of Jared M. Spool and his podcast Podcast: Luke Wroblewski on Strategy By Design. Also have a look at http://www.lukew.com/ which is basically best form advice I've ever heard. Hope it helps. Jiri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=46202 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] What Other Fields Could UXers Steal From?
Yes, I would definitely say Psychology. Also, I'm reading Designing for People by Industrial Designer Henry Dreyfuss and have found a wealth of insightful similarities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=46168 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
It is dependent on how many issues there are, the cultural variance of your user base, and the margin of error you are happy with. Five users or even 10 is not enough on a modern well designed web site. The easy way to think of a Usability Test is a treasure hunt. If the treasure is very obvious then you will need fewer people, if less obvious then you will need more people. If you increase the area of the hunt then you will need more people. Most of the advocates of only testing 5 to 10 users, experience comes from one country. Behaviour changes significantly country by country, even in Western Europe. See my blog post here : http://blog.feralabs.com/2009/01/does-culture-effect-online-behaviour/ If your client website has 1 million visitors a year, a usability issue that effects 10% of the users would be unlikely to be discovered on a test of only 5 to 10 users, but would give 100,000 people a bad experience when they visit the site. Can you find treasure with only five or ten users. Of course you can. But how sure can you be that you have found even significant issues. A very good argument in why 10 is not enough is Woolrych and Cockton 2001. They point out an issue in Nielsen formula in that he does not take into account the visibility of an issue. They show using only 5 users can significantly under count even significant usability issues. The following powerpoint from an eyetracking study demonstrates the issue with only using a few users. http://docs.realeyes.it/why50.ppt You may also want to look at the margin of error for the test that you are doing. All the best James blog.feralabs.com 2009/10/1 Will Hacker willhac...@sbcglobal.net Chris, There is not any statistical formula or method that will tell you the correct number of people to test. In my experience it depends on the functions you are testing, how many test scenarios you want to run and how many of those can be done by one participant in one session, and how many different levels of expertise you need (e.g. novice, intermediate, and/or expert) to really exercise your application. I have gotten valuable insight from testing 6-10 people for ecommerce sites with fairly common functionality that people are generally familiar with but have used more for more complex applications where there are different levels of features that some users rely on heavily and others never use. I do believe that any testing is better than none, and realize you are likely limited by time and budget. I think you can usually get fairly effective results with 10 or fewer people. Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=46278 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org 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 ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
If your client website has 1 million visitors a year, a usability issue that effects 10% of the users would be unlikely to be discovered on a test of only 5 to 10 users, but would give 100,000 people a bad experience when they visit the site. Actually, that's not true. You'd be fairly likely to discover it with only 5-10 users - in the 65%+ range of 'likely'. Manufacturing quality control systems and product quality testing have been using such statistical methods since the 20's and they went through heavy refinement and sophistication in the 60's, 70's and 80's. It's also worth repeating the message both Jakob Jared Spool are constantly talking about: test iteratively with a group of 5-10 participants. You'll find that 65%+ figure above rises to 99%+ in that case. Again, doesn't change your basic points about cultural diversity and behaviour affecting the test parameters, but your above point is not entirely accurate. Cheers Steve 2009/10/2 James Page jamesp...@gmail.com It is dependent on how many issues there are, the cultural variance of your user base, and the margin of error you are happy with. Five users or even 10 is not enough on a modern well designed web site. The easy way to think of a Usability Test is a treasure hunt. If the treasure is very obvious then you will need fewer people, if less obvious then you will need more people. If you increase the area of the hunt then you will need more people. Most of the advocates of only testing 5 to 10 users, experience comes from one country. Behaviour changes significantly country by country, even in Western Europe. See my blog post here : http://blog.feralabs.com/2009/01/does-culture-effect-online-behaviour/ If your client website has 1 million visitors a year, a usability issue that effects 10% of the users would be unlikely to be discovered on a test of only 5 to 10 users, but would give 100,000 people a bad experience when they visit the site. Can you find treasure with only five or ten users. Of course you can. But how sure can you be that you have found even significant issues. A very good argument in why 10 is not enough is Woolrych and Cockton 2001. They point out an issue in Nielsen formula in that he does not take into account the visibility of an issue. They show using only 5 users can significantly under count even significant usability issues. The following powerpoint from an eyetracking study demonstrates the issue with only using a few users. http://docs.realeyes.it/why50.ppt You may also want to look at the margin of error for the test that you are doing. All the best James blog.feralabs.com 2009/10/1 Will Hacker willhac...@sbcglobal.net Chris, There is not any statistical formula or method that will tell you the correct number of people to test. In my experience it depends on the functions you are testing, how many test scenarios you want to run and how many of those can be done by one participant in one session, and how many different levels of expertise you need (e.g. novice, intermediate, and/or expert) to really exercise your application. I have gotten valuable insight from testing 6-10 people for ecommerce sites with fairly common functionality that people are generally familiar with but have used more for more complex applications where there are different levels of features that some users rely on heavily and others never use. I do believe that any testing is better than none, and realize you are likely limited by time and budget. I think you can usually get fairly effective results with 10 or fewer people. Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=46278 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org 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 ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help -- Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 | E: steveb...@meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty | Skype: steve_baty | LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help ..
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Unusable things
i believe in dynamic products which have multiple touchpoints and tactility is compatible/synchronized with interface to serve multiple scenarios. eventually everything connects as eames said. 1. elevator buttons are weird..aren't they? u have to push buttons whenever u want to travel vertical:F 2. door handles.. could be self-cleaning 3. if it burns u it's bad design.. u might redesign it by using a cup holder.. hacking objects can be cool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=46113 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
Chris - I wrote an article on this topic for the SIGCHI Bulletin (while it was still a printed publication sent to all SIGCHI members). It's at http://www.syntagm.co.uk/design/articles/howmany.htm Regards, William Hudson Syntagm Ltd Design for Usability UK 01235-522859 World +44-1235-522859 US Toll Free 1-866-SYNTAGM mailto:william.hud...@syntagm.co.uk http://www.syntagm.co.uk skype:williamhudsonskype Syntagm is a limited company registered in England and Wales (1985). Registered number: 1895345. Registered office: 10 Oxford Road, Abingdon OX14 2DS. Confused about dates in interaction design? See our new study (free): http://www.syntagm.co.uk/design/datesstudy.htm 12 UK mobile phone e-commerce sites compared! Buy the report: http://www.syntagm.co.uk/design/uxbench.shtml Courses in card sorting and Ajax interaction design - Las Vegas and Berlin: http://www.nngroup.com/events/ -Original Message- From: discuss-boun...@lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss- boun...@lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Chris Ryan Sent: 01 October 2009 7:06 PM To: disc...@ixda.org Subject: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants I have been looking, unsuccessfully, through back issues of interactions magazine for an article, published a few years back, Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Microsoft Courier ...
I also think mid 2010 is unlikely. There are some major issues to overcome, not the least of which is technical implementation. The slickness of the video serves a purpose beyond validating design however. It becomes a probe. A kind of artefact that elicits feedback - from people like us, competitors, and the market and consumers at large. I wholeheartedly agree with the Buxton approach to sketching user experience, and making things disposable. But when you're reaching out/creating visions for other stakeholders who aren't familiar with participating in the roughness of sketches, polish goes a long way. This will just test the high level concept, of course. Internally in their team, I hope they've got heaps of paper and lo-fi prototypes otherwise there are a lot of pure low level usability issues they won't address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=45951 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
Steve, The real issue is that the example I have given is that it is over simplistic. It is dependent on sterile lab conditions, and the user population been the same in the lab and in the real world. And there only being one issue that effects 10% of the user population. One of the great beauties of the world is the complexity and diversity of people. In the sterile lab people are tested on the same machine (we have found machine configuration such as screen size has a bearing on behaviour), and they don't have the distractions that normally effect the user in the real world. Actually, that's not true. You'd be fairly likely to discover it with only 5-10 users - in the 65%+ range of 'likely'. For 5 uses that is only 41% (1-(1-0.1)^5), and for 10 it is 65%. This is far off from Nielson number that 5 users will find 84% of the issues. (1-(1-0.31)^5) If I was manufacturing and there was a 45% chance that 10% of my cars leave the production line with a fault, there is a high chance that consumers would stop buying my product, the company would go bust, and I would be out a job. From my experience of production lines a sample size of 10 for a production of one million units would be considered extremely low. We have moved allong way since 1993 when Nielsen and Landauer's paper was published. The web was not arround, and the profile of users was very different. The web has changed that. We will need to test with more people as websites traffic increases, and we get better at web site design. For example if we assume that designers of a web site have been using good design principles and therefore an issue only effects 2.5% of users. Then 10 users in a test will only discover that issue 22% of the time. But using our 1 million visitors a year example the issue will mean that 25,000 people will experience problems. But we do agree that each population needs it's own test. And I totally agree that testing iteratively is a good idea. @William -- Woolrych and Cockton 2001 argument applies to simple task based tests. See http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0awo/hci%202001%20short.pdfhttp://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/%7Ecs0awo/hci%202001%20short.pdf All the best James blog.feralabs.com PS (*Disclaimer*) Due to my belief that usability testing needs not just to be more statistically sound, but also be able to test a wide range of users from different cultures I co-founded www.webnographer.com a remote usability testing tool. So I am advocate for testing with more geographically diverse users than normal lab tests. 2009/10/2 Steve Baty steveb...@gmail.com If your client website has 1 million visitors a year, a usability issue that effects 10% of the users would be unlikely to be discovered on a test of only 5 to 10 users, but would give 100,000 people a bad experience when they visit the site. Actually, that's not true. You'd be fairly likely to discover it with only 5-10 users - in the 65%+ range of 'likely'. Manufacturing quality control systems and product quality testing have been using such statistical methods since the 20's and they went through heavy refinement and sophistication in the 60's, 70's and 80's. It's also worth repeating the message both Jakob Jared Spool are constantly talking about: test iteratively with a group of 5-10 participants. You'll find that 65%+ figure above rises to 99%+ in that case. Again, doesn't change your basic points about cultural diversity and behaviour affecting the test parameters, but your above point is not entirely accurate. Cheers Steve 2009/10/2 James Page jamesp...@gmail.com It is dependent on how many issues there are, the cultural variance of your user base, and the margin of error you are happy with. Five users or even 10 is not enough on a modern well designed web site. The easy way to think of a Usability Test is a treasure hunt. If the treasure is very obvious then you will need fewer people, if less obvious then you will need more people. If you increase the area of the hunt then you will need more people. Most of the advocates of only testing 5 to 10 users, experience comes from one country. Behaviour changes significantly country by country, even in Western Europe. See my blog post here : http://blog.feralabs.com/2009/01/does-culture-effect-online-behaviour/ If your client website has 1 million visitors a year, a usability issue that effects 10% of the users would be unlikely to be discovered on a test of only 5 to 10 users, but would give 100,000 people a bad experience when they visit the site. Can you find treasure with only five or ten users. Of course you can. But how sure can you be that you have found even significant issues. A very good argument in why 10 is not enough is Woolrych and Cockton 2001. They point out an issue in Nielsen formula in that he does not take into account the visibility of an issue. They show using only 5 users can significantly under count even significant usability
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
James, Excellent points. Nielsen argues that 5 users will discover 84% of the issues; not that the likelihood of finding a particular issue is 84% - thus the discrepancy in our figures (41% 65% respectively). (And I can't believe I'm defending Nielsen's figures, but this is one of his better studies) The results from '93 were re-evaluated more recently for Web-based systems with similar results. There's also some good theory on this from sociology and cultural anthropology - but I think we're moving far afield from the original question. Regarding the manufacturing reference - which I introduced, granted - units tend to be tested in batches for the reason you mention. The presence of defects in a batch signals a problem and further testing is carried out. I also like the approach Amazon (and others) take in response to your last point, which is to release new features to small (for them) numbers of users - 1,000, then 5,000 etc - so that these low-incidence problems can surface. When the potential impact is high, this is a really solid approach to take. Regards Steve 2009/10/2 James Page jamesp...@gmail.com Steve, The real issue is that the example I have given is that it is over simplistic. It is dependent on sterile lab conditions, and the user population been the same in the lab and in the real world. And there only being one issue that effects 10% of the user population. One of the great beauties of the world is the complexity and diversity of people. In the sterile lab people are tested on the same machine (we have found machine configuration such as screen size has a bearing on behaviour), and they don't have the distractions that normally effect the user in the real world. Actually, that's not true. You'd be fairly likely to discover it with only 5-10 users - in the 65%+ range of 'likely'. For 5 uses that is only 41% (1-(1-0.1)^5), and for 10 it is 65%. This is far off from Nielson number that 5 users will find 84% of the issues. (1-(1-0.31)^5) If I was manufacturing and there was a 45% chance that 10% of my cars leave the production line with a fault, there is a high chance that consumers would stop buying my product, the company would go bust, and I would be out a job. From my experience of production lines a sample size of 10 for a production of one million units would be considered extremely low. We have moved allong way since 1993 when Nielsen and Landauer's paper was published. The web was not arround, and the profile of users was very different. The web has changed that. We will need to test with more people as websites traffic increases, and we get better at web site design. For example if we assume that designers of a web site have been using good design principles and therefore an issue only effects 2.5% of users. Then 10 users in a test will only discover that issue 22% of the time. But using our 1 million visitors a year example the issue will mean that 25,000 people will experience problems. But we do agree that each population needs it's own test. And I totally agree that testing iteratively is a good idea. @William -- Woolrych and Cockton 2001 argument applies to simple task based tests. See http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0awo/hci%202001%20short.pdfhttp://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/%7Ecs0awo/hci%202001%20short.pdf All the best James blog.feralabs.com PS (*Disclaimer*) Due to my belief that usability testing needs not just to be more statistically sound, but also be able to test a wide range of users from different cultures I co-founded www.webnographer.com a remote usability testing tool. So I am advocate for testing with more geographically diverse users than normal lab tests. 2009/10/2 Steve Baty steveb...@gmail.com If your client website has 1 million visitors a year, a usability issue that effects 10% of the users would be unlikely to be discovered on a test of only 5 to 10 users, but would give 100,000 people a bad experience when they visit the site. Actually, that's not true. You'd be fairly likely to discover it with only 5-10 users - in the 65%+ range of 'likely'. Manufacturing quality control systems and product quality testing have been using such statistical methods since the 20's and they went through heavy refinement and sophistication in the 60's, 70's and 80's. It's also worth repeating the message both Jakob Jared Spool are constantly talking about: test iteratively with a group of 5-10 participants. You'll find that 65%+ figure above rises to 99%+ in that case. Again, doesn't change your basic points about cultural diversity and behaviour affecting the test parameters, but your above point is not entirely accurate. Cheers Steve 2009/10/2 James Page jamesp...@gmail.com It is dependent on how many issues there are, the cultural variance of your user base, and the margin of error you are happy with. Five users or even 10 is not enough on a modern well designed web site.
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
It's also worth repeating the message both Jakob Jared Spool are constantly talking about: test iteratively with a group of 5-10 participants. You'll find that 65% figure above rises to 99% in that case I find this an absurd statement. The above can only have some merit if we are talking about the actual product being tested. 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. The real issues arise after the launch not before and the real question is not how many participants but at what point participants should be used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=46278 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
I'm not sure I understand your line of reasoning, Thomas. What issues are we identifying in the wireframes if not those same issues that might otherwise make it through into the final product? Certainly at a different level of detail; and definitely our early tests aren't able to show up everything; but that hardly makes it an absurd statement. 2009/10/2 Thomas Petersen t...@hellobrand.com It's also worth repeating the message both Jakob Jared Spool are constantly talking about: test iteratively with a group of 5-10 participants. You'll find that 65% figure above rises to 99% in that case I find this an absurd statement. The above can only have some merit if we are talking about the actual product being tested. 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. The real issues arise after the launch not before and the real question is not how many participants but at what point participants should be used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=46278 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help -- Steve 'Doc' Baty | Principal | Meld Consulting | P: +61 417 061 292 | E: steveb...@meld.com.au | Twitter: docbaty | Skype: steve_baty | LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/stevebaty Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
Steve, Woolrych and Cockton argue that the discrepancy is Nielsen's constant of .31. Neilson assumes all issues have the same visibility. We have not even added the extra dimension of evaluator effect :-) Do you have a reference for the more resent paper? I would be interested in reading it. On the manufacturing side most of the metrics use a margin of error. With just 10 users your margin of error will be about +/-35% (very rough calculation). That is far better than no test, but still would be considered extremely low in a manufacturing process. In Anthropology most of papers I have read use far greater sample sizes than just a population of 10. Yes it depends on the subject mater. The Anthropologist will use techniques like using informers, which increases the number of participants. And the Anthropologist is studying the population over months if not years, so there are far more observations. @thomas testing the wireframe will only show up what is already visible. But if a feature has an issue, and it is implemented in the wireframe, then a test will show it up. Discovering an issue early is surely better than later. I think your statement iterates the idea that testing frequently is a good idea. All the best James blog.feralabs.com 2009/10/2 Steve Baty steveb...@gmail.com James, Excellent points. Nielsen argues that 5 users will discover 84% of the issues; not that the likelihood of finding a particular issue is 84% - thus the discrepancy in our figures (41% 65% respectively). (And I can't believe I'm defending Nielsen's figures, but this is one of his better studies) The results from '93 were re-evaluated more recently for Web-based systems with similar results. There's also some good theory on this from sociology and cultural anthropology - but I think we're moving far afield from the original question. Regarding the manufacturing reference - which I introduced, granted - units tend to be tested in batches for the reason you mention. The presence of defects in a batch signals a problem and further testing is carried out. I also like the approach Amazon (and others) take in response to your last point, which is to release new features to small (for them) numbers of users - 1,000, then 5,000 etc - so that these low-incidence problems can surface. When the potential impact is high, this is a really solid approach to take. Regards Steve 2009/10/2 James Page jamesp...@gmail.com Steve, The real issue is that the example I have given is that it is over simplistic. It is dependent on sterile lab conditions, and the user population been the same in the lab and in the real world. And there only being one issue that effects 10% of the user population. One of the great beauties of the world is the complexity and diversity of people. In the sterile lab people are tested on the same machine (we have found machine configuration such as screen size has a bearing on behaviour), and they don't have the distractions that normally effect the user in the real world. Actually, that's not true. You'd be fairly likely to discover it with only 5-10 users - in the 65%+ range of 'likely'. For 5 uses that is only 41% (1-(1-0.1)^5), and for 10 it is 65%. This is far off from Nielson number that 5 users will find 84% of the issues. (1-(1-0.31)^5) If I was manufacturing and there was a 45% chance that 10% of my cars leave the production line with a fault, there is a high chance that consumers would stop buying my product, the company would go bust, and I would be out a job. From my experience of production lines a sample size of 10 for a production of one million units would be considered extremely low. We have moved allong way since 1993 when Nielsen and Landauer's paper was published. The web was not arround, and the profile of users was very different. The web has changed that. We will need to test with more people as websites traffic increases, and we get better at web site design. For example if we assume that designers of a web site have been using good design principles and therefore an issue only effects 2.5% of users. Then 10 users in a test will only discover that issue 22% of the time. But using our 1 million visitors a year example the issue will mean that 25,000 people will experience problems. But we do agree that each population needs it's own test. And I totally agree that testing iteratively is a good idea. @William -- Woolrych and Cockton 2001 argument applies to simple task based tests. See http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0awo/hci%202001%20short.pdfhttp://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/%7Ecs0awo/hci%202001%20short.pdf All the best James blog.feralabs.com PS (*Disclaimer*) Due to my belief that usability testing needs not just to be more statistically sound, but also be able to test a wide range of users from different cultures I co-founded www.webnographer.com a remote usability testing tool. So I am advocate for testing
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
James, More good points. I did some calculations a while back on the confidence intervals for pass/fail user tests - http://www.meld.com.au/2006/05/when-100-isnt-really-100-updated - the more interesting part being the link to a paper on estimators of expected values. Worth a read if you haven't seen it. I'll try to dig up the more recent paper - working from memory on that one. Regarding the anthropology sociology references - I was referring more to the notion of uncovering societal norms rather than the specific 'supporting a sample size of x'. Coming back to your first point: yeah, the use of the .31 is a simplification for the sake of one of his free articles; it's a modal figure based on (his words) a large number of projects. So, looking at a range of figures, you would have some projects where more users were needed (to your earlier point), and in some cases - few - you could get away with less (although I admit that the use of less than 5 participants causes me some concern). Anyway, enjoying the discussion, and I still think we're violently in agreement on the basic point :) Cheers Steve 2009/10/2 James Page jamesp...@gmail.com Steve, Woolrych and Cockton argue that the discrepancy is Nielsen's constant of .31. Neilson assumes all issues have the same visibility. We have not even added the extra dimension of evaluator effect :-) Do you have a reference for the more resent paper? I would be interested in reading it. On the manufacturing side most of the metrics use a margin of error. With just 10 users your margin of error will be about +/-35% (very rough calculation). That is far better than no test, but still would be considered extremely low in a manufacturing process. In Anthropology most of papers I have read use far greater sample sizes than just a population of 10. Yes it depends on the subject mater. The Anthropologist will use techniques like using informers, which increases the number of participants. And the Anthropologist is studying the population over months if not years, so there are far more observations. @thomas testing the wireframe will only show up what is already visible. But if a feature has an issue, and it is implemented in the wireframe, then a test will show it up. Discovering an issue early is surely better than later. I think your statement iterates the idea that testing frequently is a good idea. All the best James blog.feralabs.com 2009/10/2 Steve Baty steveb...@gmail.com James, Excellent points. Nielsen argues that 5 users will discover 84% of the issues; not that the likelihood of finding a particular issue is 84% - thus the discrepancy in our figures (41% 65% respectively). (And I can't believe I'm defending Nielsen's figures, but this is one of his better studies) The results from '93 were re-evaluated more recently for Web-based systems with similar results. There's also some good theory on this from sociology and cultural anthropology - but I think we're moving far afield from the original question. Regarding the manufacturing reference - which I introduced, granted - units tend to be tested in batches for the reason you mention. The presence of defects in a batch signals a problem and further testing is carried out. I also like the approach Amazon (and others) take in response to your last point, which is to release new features to small (for them) numbers of users - 1,000, then 5,000 etc - so that these low-incidence problems can surface. When the potential impact is high, this is a really solid approach to take. Regards Steve 2009/10/2 James Page jamesp...@gmail.com Steve, The real issue is that the example I have given is that it is over simplistic. It is dependent on sterile lab conditions, and the user population been the same in the lab and in the real world. And there only being one issue that effects 10% of the user population. One of the great beauties of the world is the complexity and diversity of people. In the sterile lab people are tested on the same machine (we have found machine configuration such as screen size has a bearing on behaviour), and they don't have the distractions that normally effect the user in the real world. Actually, that's not true. You'd be fairly likely to discover it with only 5-10 users - in the 65%+ range of 'likely'. For 5 uses that is only 41% (1-(1-0.1)^5), and for 10 it is 65%. This is far off from Nielson number that 5 users will find 84% of the issues. (1-(1-0.31)^5) If I was manufacturing and there was a 45% chance that 10% of my cars leave the production line with a fault, there is a high chance that consumers would stop buying my product, the company would go bust, and I would be out a job. From my experience of production lines a sample size of 10 for a production of one million units would be considered extremely low. We have moved allong way since 1993 when Nielsen and Landauer's paper was published. The web
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
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 ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
[IxDA Discuss] Leaving Las Vegas...I mean the website site.
So I have seen a bunch of redesigns come up recently like
http://www.uxbooth.com/ (which I love that site) and I wanted to
bring this up as something simple that just sort of caught me as
being rather strange. Maybe I am missing the boat or just not seeing
something but I have been working in web design for a little over 10
years now and I have learned that when you have a link that is
internal you have that link open within the same window. On the other
hand, I was taught that any link that you have that is a reference to
an external website you should have the link open in an external
window or tab if the user has that set up. This allows for the user
to not actually leave your site and allows for your site to remain
open in the background. It is a simple target=_blank property in
the anchor tag that accomplishes this.
In my past experience I would hear the term from marketing people
stickiness and this would be something that would apply to that.
Now I don't mean to call sites out but I really see this happening
quite a bit to high profile sites now where they are not paying
attention to this rule anymore including this site we are on
right now.
Like I said earlier, did I miss something?
Brian Durkin
#company {nickelodeon:parentsconnect.com;}
#company .job {developer:web-monkey;}
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
Totally agree with your article So you can get a much narrower range for your estimate, but 30+ users is a significant undertaking for a usability test. One of our own findings from a study was that people got bored with testing more than about 8 users. James 2009/10/2 Steve Baty steveb...@gmail.com James, More good points. I did some calculations a while back on the confidence intervals for pass/fail user tests - http://www.meld.com.au/2006/05/when-100-isnt-really-100-updated - the more interesting part being the link to a paper on estimators of expected values. Worth a read if you haven't seen it. I'll try to dig up the more recent paper - working from memory on that one. Regarding the anthropology sociology references - I was referring more to the notion of uncovering societal norms rather than the specific 'supporting a sample size of x'. Coming back to your first point: yeah, the use of the .31 is a simplification for the sake of one of his free articles; it's a modal figure based on (his words) a large number of projects. So, looking at a range of figures, you would have some projects where more users were needed (to your earlier point), and in some cases - few - you could get away with less (although I admit that the use of less than 5 participants causes me some concern). Anyway, enjoying the discussion, and I still think we're violently in agreement on the basic point :) Cheers Steve 2009/10/2 James Page jamesp...@gmail.com Steve, Woolrych and Cockton argue that the discrepancy is Nielsen's constant of .31. Neilson assumes all issues have the same visibility. We have not even added the extra dimension of evaluator effect :-) Do you have a reference for the more resent paper? I would be interested in reading it. On the manufacturing side most of the metrics use a margin of error. With just 10 users your margin of error will be about +/-35% (very rough calculation). That is far better than no test, but still would be considered extremely low in a manufacturing process. In Anthropology most of papers I have read use far greater sample sizes than just a population of 10. Yes it depends on the subject mater. The Anthropologist will use techniques like using informers, which increases the number of participants. And the Anthropologist is studying the population over months if not years, so there are far more observations. @thomas testing the wireframe will only show up what is already visible. But if a feature has an issue, and it is implemented in the wireframe, then a test will show it up. Discovering an issue early is surely better than later. I think your statement iterates the idea that testing frequently is a good idea. All the best James blog.feralabs.com 2009/10/2 Steve Baty steveb...@gmail.com James, Excellent points. Nielsen argues that 5 users will discover 84% of the issues; not that the likelihood of finding a particular issue is 84% - thus the discrepancy in our figures (41% 65% respectively). (And I can't believe I'm defending Nielsen's figures, but this is one of his better studies) The results from '93 were re-evaluated more recently for Web-based systems with similar results. There's also some good theory on this from sociology and cultural anthropology - but I think we're moving far afield from the original question. Regarding the manufacturing reference - which I introduced, granted - units tend to be tested in batches for the reason you mention. The presence of defects in a batch signals a problem and further testing is carried out. I also like the approach Amazon (and others) take in response to your last point, which is to release new features to small (for them) numbers of users - 1,000, then 5,000 etc - so that these low-incidence problems can surface. When the potential impact is high, this is a really solid approach to take. Regards Steve 2009/10/2 James Page jamesp...@gmail.com Steve, The real issue is that the example I have given is that it is over simplistic. It is dependent on sterile lab conditions, and the user population been the same in the lab and in the real world. And there only being one issue that effects 10% of the user population. One of the great beauties of the world is the complexity and diversity of people. In the sterile lab people are tested on the same machine (we have found machine configuration such as screen size has a bearing on behaviour), and they don't have the distractions that normally effect the user in the real world. Actually, that's not true. You'd be fairly likely to discover it with only 5-10 users - in the 65%+ range of 'likely'. For 5 uses that is only 41% (1-(1-0.1)^5), and for 10 it is 65%. This is far off from Nielson number that 5 users will find 84% of the issues. (1-(1-0.31)^5) If I was manufacturing and there was a 45% chance that 10% of my cars leave the production line with a fault, there is a high
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:34 AM, James Page wrote: Totally agree with [Steve's] article So you can get a much narrower range for your estimate, but 30+ users is a significant undertaking for a usability test. One of our own findings from a study was that people got bored with testing more than about 8 users. James I've found this with teams, too. Jared Spool calls this reaching the point of least astonishment, and I think he's right. After you start seeing similar problems repeat a few times, it's enough to know you have a problem to solve, you've learned a ton about users, and it's time to go make some inferences about what the issues are and iterate design. For most formative usability tests -- that is usability tests early in the design cycle where the team is still testing out ideas -- having more than 5-10 participants is just punishing for the team. Instead, learn about users, see what they do with your design, and move on to learn more on another round. Dana :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Dana Chisnell 415.519.1148 dana AT usabilityworks DOT net www.usabilityworks.net http://usabilitytestinghowto.blogspot.com/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
[IxDA Discuss] REMINDER: AIGA | PhillyCHI Joint Meeting - Nathan Shedroff: Sustainable Design Strategy, Wednesday, October 7, 2009
AIGA | PhillyCHI Joint Meeting - Nathan Shedroff: Sustainable Design Strategy, Wednesday, October 7, 2009 Please join AIGA Philadelphia and PhillyCHI in welcoming Nathan Shedroff to Philadelphia. Nathan will help kick off DesignPhiladelphia by presenting a discussion of design, business, and sustainability, and the connections between them, in a clear and easy way that will inspire you to integrate these perspectives, techniques, and tools into your practice. This event is free and open to the public. Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2009 Time: 6:00PM - 8:00PM (Social time from 6:00-6:30PM) Location: Tyler School of Art, Room B004 Temple University 2001 N. 13th Street Philadelphia, PA 19122 Public transportation: Tyler is conveniently located a few blocks from both the Temple University SEPTA station and the Susquehanna-Dauphin subway stop Parking Parking Map: http://www.temple.edu/parking/main.html and http://www.temple.edu/parking/pdfdocuments/2007%20Main%20Campus%20Map.pdf RSVP: philly...@gmail.com About the Presentation Sustainable Design Strategy The worlds of design (and design thinking), business (and strategy), and sustainability are drawing ever more tightly together. To approach either perspectives without the others is becoming less possible and more important. Nathan Shedroff will make these domains, and the connections between them, clear and easy to follow and inspire you to integrate these perspectives, techniques, and tools into your practice. About the Presenter Nathan Shedroff is one of the pioneers in Experience Design, an approach to design that encompasses multiple senses and requirements and explores common characteristics in all media that make experiences successful, as well as related fields, Interaction Design and Information Design. He speaks and teaches internationally and has written extensively on design and business issues, including, “Experience Design 1” and “Making Meaning.” Nathan is a serial entrepreneur, works in several media, and consults strategically for companies to build better, more meaningful experiences for their customers. His latest book, “Design is the Problem” from Rosenfeld Media, is an exhaustive primer on sustainable design. Lately, Nathan has spent a lot of time building strategies for start- ups and established firms using a variety of online technologies to deliver new solutions that enhance and evolve their online brand, develop new offerings, and enhance their customer relationships. He also consults on corporate strategies for sustainability since earning his MBA in Sustainable Management. You can learn more about Nathan at: http://www.nathan.com/. About Our Sponsors Graphic and Interactive Design Program at Tyler School of Art GAID at Tyler School of Art is known for the quality and rigor of its BFA and MFA programs. GAID’s mission is to educate designers who aspire to practice design for communication at the most creative levels of the profession. Tyler’s graduates are working in all areas of the design industry. The GAID facilities in Tyler’s new home on Temple’s main campus are spacious and state-of-the art. Tyler students have ready access to a rich array of academic courses. The proximity to students from Temple’s many programs in academics and the arts offers the breadth of experience that is essential to the designer’s education. To learn more about GAID, visit: http://www.temple.edu/tyler/gaid.html. BresslerGroup Bresslergroup develops innovative product solutions via integrated user research, interaction and industrial design and production engineering. Since its founding in 1970, Bresslergroup has won more than 80 major design awards including IDEA, MDEA, iF Hanover and Appliance Design. Bresslergroup has also authored more than 120 patents. For more information, please visit: http://bresslergroup.com/. About AIGA Philadelphia AIGA, the professional association for design, is the premier place for design—to discover it, discuss it, understand it, appreciate it, be inspired by it. AIGA’s mission is to advance designing as a professional craft, strategic tool and vital cultural force. AIGA stimulates thinking about design through journals, conferences, competitions and exhibitions; demonstrates the value of design to business, the public and government officials; and empowers the success of designers at each stage of their careers by providing invaluable educational and social resources. Founded in 1914, AIGA remains the oldest and largest professional membership organization for design. AIGA now represents more than 22,000 design professionals, educators and students through national activities and local programs developed by 64 chapters and 240 student groups. AIGA is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) educational institution. About PhillyCHI PhillyCHI is the Philadelphia region’s chapter of the ACM SIGCHI, an
[IxDA Discuss] REMINDER: PhillyCHI Social - Tech Design Quizzo!, Thursday, October 8, 2009
PhillyCHI Social - Tech Design Quizzo!, Thursday, October 8, 2009 In celebration of DesignPhiladelphia, PhillyCHI is pleased to host a technology and design-themed Quizzo night. Trivia questions will be based on technology, design, architecture, and other related topics. Prizes will be awarded to the first and second place teams. So come socialize with design and user experience professionals, try your hand at trivia, and (hopefully) learn a thing or two, all over tasty food and drinks. Date: Thursday, October 8, 2009 Time: 8:00PM - 10:00PM (Play starts at 8PM, so come early to get a table) Location: National Mechanics Address: 22 S. 3rd Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Web: http://www.nationalmechanics.com/ Map Directions: http://nationalmechanics.com/philadelphia-hours-directions RSVP: Not necessary but nice: philly...@gmail.com About DesignPhiladelphia Moving into its fifth year, DesignPhiladelphia is the largest national celebration of its kind. This city-wide cultural event spotlights all things design from architecture to interior design, fashion to product design, textile to graphic design. It's a journey exploring exhibitions, workshops, studio tours, lectures, special events and product roll-outs that inspire, engage, excite and delight. Check the website regularly as the calendar continues to evolve, calls for entry are posted, and news items are shared: http://designphiladelphia.org/ . About PhillyCHI PhillyCHI is the Philadelphia region’s chapter of the ACM SIGCHI, an interdisciplinary academic and professional group interested in Human- Computer Interaction, User Experience, Usability, and other related disciplines. PhillyCHI holds monthly meetings and socials to network and discuss current topics in HCI. Learn more at http://phillychi.acm.org . .. Dave Cooksey Founder Principal saturdave information architecture, taxonomy, user research, usability 713 Pine Street 1R Philadelphia, PA 19106 email: d...@saturdave.com phone: +1.215.219.8960 web: http://saturdave.com Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Leaving Las Vegas...I mean the website site.
[...] and I have learned that when you have a link that is internal you have that link open within the same window. On the other hand, I was taught that any link that you have that is a reference to an external website you should have the link open in an external window or tab if the user has that set up. This practice has been debated for years. There are pros and cons to either solution, and like every rule, there are exceptions even if the practice works well for you. The context, as usual, matters most. The best bet is to come up with a standard for your site and then keep your eye out for exceptions. The usability of window management is always a concern, and until there's a target=_tab attribute built into HTML and into every browser, and likely even beyond that point, this will continue being a source of contention. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Leaving Las Vegas...I mean the website site.
Just wishful thinking...wouldn't it be nice to say target=_iphone or target=_pda or target=_maps? Bryan Minihan -Original Message- From: discuss-boun...@lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Robert Hoekman Jr Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 10:55 AM To: Brian Cc: disc...@ixda.org Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Leaving Las Vegas...I mean the website site. The usability of window management is always a concern, and until there's a target=_tab attribute built into HTML and into every browser, and likely even beyond that point, this will continue being a source of contention. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Leaving Las Vegas...I mean the website site.
Personally, I tend to get really irritated when a site tries to force behavior on me like that. If I want to keep their page open and follow the link in a new window or tab, I'll do that. Otherwise, stop cluttering up my desktop. I generally try to avoid impressing my personal preference onto users, but this is one case where I simply cannot. That said, since it is always possible for a user to open a page in a new tab or window but not possible to suppress this behavior if they don't want it, I think avoiding target=_blank is the better way to go anyway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=46314 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
[IxDA Discuss] Defining a UX vision
Does anyone have any samples of a good UX vision statement? Everyone talks about how important it is to have a good UX vision, but I can't find anything that defines exactly what a good UX vision is. I've been trying to develop one from scratch and I'm not sure how it should be structured or what it should contain. Should it contain specifics like we need a dedicated UX group in our company that all our design teams can use? I don't want it to be product-centered, because we build a whole range of applications. And I want something more tangible than just We want to deliver high-quality, responsive applications that are developed with a user-centered focus. Brian Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
[IxDA Discuss] [Event] Agile East 2009 Conference
Interested in Agile? Want to hear Martin Fowler speak? Join me at the end of October for Agile East 2009, where a variety of speakers will fill you with insights on agile. What: Agile East 2009 Conference When: October 29 - Philadelphia October 30 - New York Website: http://connect.thoughtworks.com/agileeast/ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
I just re-read this and want to clarify what I meant by ...usability testing isn't a good way to measure (or improve) product quality... I meant this in the sense that it's an inefficient way to find defects in the execution, but a good way to find defects in the decision making (it's broken vs. it doesn't make sense). On Oct 2, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Adam Korman wrote: There are a couple of points I wanted to follow up on in this discussion: Will Sanbury talked about how usability testing is not meant as a replacement for QA. I think this is a really important point -- usability testing isn't a good way to measure (or improve) product quality, but it is a good way to find out if you built the wrong thing. In this context, using terms like sample size and margin of error are just not that meaningful. My practical experience has been that usability testing just a few participants usually uncovers enough issues to keep the development team plenty busy. If you test with 5 people, 80% of them encounter a bunch of the same issues, and it takes the team several weeks to fix those issues, what good does it do to keep running the same test on another 25+ people to identify additional issues that only 10% will encounter that the team doesn't have the capacity to work on? As Steve Baty said, it's much more effective to test iteratively with small numbers than run big, infrequent studies. On Oct 2, 2009, at 4:51 AM, Thomas Petersen wrote: 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. I basically agree with this, except I would say that testing wireframes isn't really usability testing. -Adam Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org 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 ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
[IxDA Discuss] Interactive web charting tools?
Hi All, Apologies if this question has been asked and answered before - I've been searching for a canned toolkit or a complete package that I can recommend to our development for building an interactive web graph. The interaction would be specific to a zoom feature, allowing a user to increase or decrease the span of time and thus the data within the graph. Data for the graph is provided through a home-rolled database (it's not static). We've looked at jFreechart, and some of the GWT Google public tools, but they aren't sufficient to do this type of interaction from what we've seen. Must this be coded from scratch, in flash, java or similar - or does something exist to speed our efforts? Many thanks, -Dan Dan Peknik NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
[IxDA Discuss] [EVENT] Agile Experience Design Meetup NYC: Improving Drupal Usability with Buzzr
Hi Everyone, We've got a great event lined up for our next Agile Experience Design Meetup on Wed. Oct. 14. Ed Sussman, CEO of Buzzr, and Karen McGrane, co-founder and partner at Bond Art Science, will talk about their collaboration on the Buzzr project and improving Drupal usability. Event Details at http://is.gd/3SIIw Space is limited, so if you'd like to attend, pls RSVP soon. Looking forward to seeing you at the next Meetup! -Anders Agile Experience Design Meetup Organizer Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
[IxDA Discuss] Invitations to our new survey product
Hi All, I am happy to introduce our new offering - Insightify. It's a new age survey product and we are bringing it out as an invitation only beta right now. You can read about us at http://insightify.com/home.html Here are some invites for this group http://insightify.com/signup/new/ixdastart We would be release more in coming weeks, so if you miss the above, please just request one at: http://insightify.com/signup.html For any questions/comments, please write to me at supp...@insightify.com - we read every comment and will get back to you quickly. Thanks Alok Jain --- http://twitter.com/insightify Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
I have made this point before. I really don't in general see the usage of testing during the design process. I see great benefit in testing before starting on the actual design process in order to figure out what kind of problems, issues and tasks users want. But testing usability in an environment that is not final is IMO a waste of both time and money. Only if we are dealing with entire new paradigms do I see any reason to test. Most people who call them selves either information architects or UX'ers or designers should be able to deliver their part without needing to involve the users once the problems, tasks and purpose have been established. It is my claim that you can't really test usability before you launch the final product and that you should factor this in instead. I find the current state of UCD troubling to say the least. Jakob Nielsen is to me someone to read to get an understanding of users in general. But i just need a look at his website and then look around at other sites and applications to understand that his work as great as it is is only a fraction of the whole story. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=46278 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Interactive web charting tools?
Tia, Jason, Thank you! These look like decent solutions. There's actually an example that's close to what we want in the Flot area. Fusioncharts doesn't have a similar idea, but I'll keep looking. It seems robust. All the best, -Dan Dan Peknik NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California On Oct 2, 2009, at 10:22 AM, dnp607 wrote: Hi All, Apologies if this question has been asked and answered before - I've been searching for a canned toolkit or a complete package that I can recommend to our development for building an interactive web graph. The interaction would be specific to a zoom feature, allowing a user to increase or decrease the span of time and thus the data within the graph. Data for the graph is provided through a home-rolled database (it's not static). We've looked at jFreechart, and some of the GWT Google public tools, but they aren't sufficient to do this type of interaction from what we've seen. Must this be coded from scratch, in flash, java or similar - or does something exist to speed our efforts? Many thanks, -Dan Dan Peknik NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org 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 ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
My comments are interleaved... Katie Albers ka...@firstthought.com On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Thomas Petersen wrote: I have made this point before. I really don't in general see the usage of testing during the design process. Well, that's unfortunate. I see great benefit in testing before starting on the actual design process in order to figure out what kind of problems, issues and tasks users want. But testing usability in an environment that is not final is IMO a waste of both time and money. Only if we are dealing with entire new paradigms do I see any reason to test. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by paradigms in this context. Perhaps you mean a function we've never seen before? In any case, you will generally find that very few users want problems or issues. They want functions. They want to be able to find those functions, and perform them with minimal exertion. And that's why we test. Most people who call them selves either information architects or UX'ers or designers should be able to deliver their part without needing to involve the users once the problems, tasks and purpose have been established. Of course, they can, as long as they have the users' input. What appears to be a completely reasonable process, or an obvious button, or a clear name to someone working on the creation of an interface is likely to turn out to be obscure, hard to follow or incomprehensible when you put it in front of actual users. I suspect that everyone who tests throughout the process has had the experience of a test in which the perfect element turns out to be something that *none* of the users gets. It is my claim that you can't really test usability before you launch the final product and that you should factor this in instead. I find the current state of UCD troubling to say the least. Can you test the usability of the product? no. You don't have a finished product. But you can test all the elements that are going in to the product. If no one notices the critical button on the second step even though your visual designer went to great lengths to position it and color it and so forth, precisely to make it obvious, it's better to know that before you've built an entire product that relies on users pressing that button. Jakob Nielsen is to me someone to read to get an understanding of users in general. But i just need a look at his website and then look around at other sites and applications to understand that his work as great as it is is only a fraction of the whole story. Jakob's site is built to highlight Jakob's group's expertise. It does so admirably. To generalize from that very particular example to what Jakob thinks all sites should be like is foolish in the extreme. As for the rest of your statement here: Of course it's only a fraction of the story. But it is a piece of the story. Testing as you go is a central tenet of all aspects of development. Software developers test pieces of their code to make sure they do the right thing. Design engineers test screens to make sure that everything shows up properly and in the correct space. UXers test the aspects and versions of the product to make sure they are producing the desired results. In each of these cases the goal is the same: It's a lot cheaper to find something wrong on a piece or earlier in the process and correct it then than it is to have to go back and redevelop the whole product to set things right that you should have corrected months ago. It's like building a house on an improperly laid foundation. It's cheaper to fix the foundation alone than it is to fix the whole house. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining a UX vision
Then you need to define principles for what constitutes good product design from a UX point of view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=46323 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Defining a UX vision
Not much out there, it's true, probalby because Interaction Design as a discipline is relatively new. However, all is not lost - two ideas: 1. This site has a good explanation and a basis for a vision: http://www.ixda.org/en/about_ixdg/what_is_interaction_design.shtml 2. Go to http://www.cooper.com and digest all the content there. Where I work we've created a vision statement but it's particular to our situation which is medical software. I think that's why there aren't many sources for what you're looking for, it's like a business plan because it's unique to your design group and unique to your company. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=46323 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
Well, that's unfortunate. Not really. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by paradigms in this context. Perhaps you mean a function we've never seen before? In any case, you will generally find that very few users want problems or issues. They want functions. They want to be able to find those functions, and perform them with minimal exertion. And that's why we test. Who talks about wanting problems? They HAVE problems/issues and you need to understand what those are. Of course, they can, as long as they have the users' input. What appears to be a completely reasonable process, or an obvious button, or a clear name to someone working on the creation of an interface is likely to turn out to be obscure, hard to follow or incomprehensible when you put it in front of actual users. I suspect that everyone who tests throughout the process has had the experience of a test in which the perfect element turns out to be something that none of the users gets. Which could might as well be a problem of testing an unfinished product. None the less personally I have found much better value in testing the actual product/service rather than a pseudo scenario. It seems that many UCD proponents completely ignore how big an impact the actual real environment have on the experience of usability and are more intersted in the process leading up to the design and development. A button might not make sense when you experience it on a screen but if it's experienced in the actual context things often change quite drastically. A roll over or other choreopgraphy or a well designed layout can do all the difference. But you can test all the elements that are going in to the product. If no one notices the critical button on the second step even though your visual designer went to great lengths to position it and color it and so forth, precisely to make it obvious, it's better to know that before you've built an entire product that relies on users pressing that button. You are assuming that when the visual designer goes to greath length they don't understand anything about usability in general otherwise the above example is absurd. Why should the user know better where the button should be positioned? It is obvious that if you really where in such a situation where a button you went to great extent to figure out where should be positioned by highlighting it, still don't do the trick you are dealing with a completely different problem that have nothing to do with asking the users, but rather doing AB tests to figure out where you have most success. Jakob's site is built to highlight Jakob's group's expertise. It does so admirably. To generalize from that very particular example to what Jakob thinks all sites should be like is foolish in the extreme. When did I say that Jakob Nielsen said anything about how all sites should look like? Can you at least respond to what I write instead of creating claims I never made. In each of these cases the goal is the same: It's a lot cheaper to find something wrong on a piece or earlier in the process and correct it then than it is to have to go back and redevelop the whole product to set things right that you should have corrected months ago. All that would make sense if testing would rid us of bad products/services. Yet what often happens is that the process becomes such a piece of committee work that it loosens clarity and focus. UCD is not by any means an insurance against bad feature decisions it's not even an insurance against bad usability. It's like building a house on an improperly laid foundation. It's cheaper to fix the foundation alone than it is to fix the whole house. It's nothing at all like building a house, since building a house doesn't mean having the users of the house testing the foundation. They wouldn't know the difference most of the times. That is why you have experts with experience who know what they are doing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=46278 Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
[IxDA Discuss] [EVENT] National Design Week in NYC is October 18-24, Objectified Film screenings The Biz of Design w/ Bill Moggridge (FREE), who\'s in?
Just received this in email newsletter and it looks quite interesting. I'd like to rally up some IxDA'ers to go not necessarily as an official meeting but to represent and possibly chat afterwards. THE BUSINESS OF DESIGN October 20, 2009, 8:30 10:00am FREE EVENT Business leaders discuss how design impacts their overall strategy and affects their bottom line. Moderated by Daniel H. Pink, the panelists will discuss the role of design thinking in the workplace as it relates to consumer goods as well as overall company vision. At The Times Center (242 W 41st Street, NY, NY) Continental breakfast buffet from 8:00 8:30am. Moderator: Daniel H. Pink, author of A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future Panelists include: Bill Moggridge, Lifetime Achievement Award Winner, co-founder of IDEO Sam Lucente, Vice President of Design, Hewlett-Packard Company Jeanne Liedtka, Professor, University of Virginia's Darden Graduate School of Business OBJECTIFIED: Film Screenings October 21, 2009 1:30 3:30pm Anybody in NYC interested? Let me know, looking forward to hearing from you guys. Thx. - Fritz More info to register here: http://j.mp/Po84W Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Thomas Petersen wrote: I really don't in general see the usage of testing during the design process. Whoa! Red flag alert! Usability testing helps evaluate a design concept that tries to address a design problem. That testing can be a baseline test, something you do on production system or it can be used as a validation mechanism on a newly proposed design/prototype. To think that usability testing is only useful to find problems or holes with a current production system, but not your proposed design solution is short sighted. Any given problem has multiple design solutions. How do you know you've selected the right one? I see great benefit in testing before starting on the actual design process in order to figure out what kind of problems, issues and tasks users want. But testing usability in an environment that is not final is IMO a waste of both time and money. Only if we are dealing with entire new paradigms do I see any reason to test. It's not April fools and this isn't the Onion, but... ;) It can be an exploration technique, this one of the ways we use it, to find out what users/consumers want, but that's really more exploratory research than usability. Usability is more about identifying whether or not the product/service meets the needs of the user/consumer, enables them or impedes them, and gives them a satisfying experience. Those measures apply to any system, production, or prototype. Most people who call them selves either information architects or UX'ers or designers should be able to deliver their part without needing to involve the users once the problems, tasks and purpose have been established. Big mistake in doing this. That's how we got into the problem in the first place. Someone designed the system w/o inviting users to kick it around for a test drive. How do you know it wasn't a designer who did it in the first place? We do usability testing as part of our design process and as a separate service offering to our clients. I can say that in both cases, when we've designed something or our clients have designed something, we find opportunities for improvement through testing. Thinking that because you're a designer you know the right design, you have the right decision, and it doesn't need validation is arrogant, short-sighted, and ignorant. The best designers and the best systems use a validation and feedback loop. Usability testing is one of those feedback loops that's really important. It is my claim that you can't really test usability before you launch the final product and that you should factor this in instead. I find the current state of UCD troubling to say the least. The current state of UCD is troubling, I'll agree with that, but it's because so many people in charge of designing systems are leaving out validation. The attitude that it's only good for finding problems on existing production systems and not validating your proposed solution is only going to make that worse. I'm a bit shocked, frankly, that you don't see the flaw in the claim that you can't really test usability before you launch the final product. Perhaps your definition of usability testing needs to be tested? Cheers! Todd Zaki Warfel Principal Design Researcher Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully. -- Contact Info Voice: (215) 825-7423 Email: t...@messagefirst.com AIM:twar...@mac.com Blog: http://toddwarfel.com Twitter:zakiwarfel -- In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
[IxDA Discuss] CFP: CHI2010 Workshop on Researcher-Practitioner Interaction
The CHI2010 Workshop on Researcher-Practitioner Interaction now has a date! This one-day workshop will be held on Sunday, April 11, 2010, at the beginning of the CHI 2010 conference. It will bring together researchers and practitioners of HCI to explore whether and to what extent difficulties exist between them -- and, if so, will endeavor to identify the dimensions of the problems and propose possible solutions. On the one hand, we will work to articulate factors that may render the research literature inaccessible or irrelevant to practitioners and to suggest potential improvements and approaches. On the other hand, we will also strive to learn from researchers how their research could benefit from practitioner input. We invite practitioners and researchers to submit a position statement and a short bio. Send contributions by email to me, by 5pm EDT on 30 October 2009. Please forward this message to anyone you think may be interested. Please refer them to the workshop web page (see below) and do NOT post my email address on the web unless you disguise it the way the workshop page does. Thanks! http://bit.ly/CFP-CHI2010-RPI See you at CHI 2010! Elizabeth -- Elizabeth Buie Luminanze Consulting, LLC tel: +1.301.943.4168 www.luminanze.com @ebuie Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Thomas Petersen wrote: I have made this point before. I really don't in general see the usage of testing during the design process. Yah. It didn't make any sense then. Still doesn't. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
I am dumbfounded... wow. On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Thomas Petersen wrote: I really don't in general see the usage of testing during the design process. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Article on Number of Usability Test Participants
Talking to users, testing prototypes (paper, screen, etc.) and analyzing their feedback teaches a designer what they don't know about the problem at hand. To ignore these is to proceed at your own peril. The wise man knows he doesn't know. - Lao Tzu On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Thomas Petersen wrote: I really don't in general see the usage of testing during the design process. Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ... disc...@ixda.org 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 ... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .. http://www.ixda.org/help
