Organizing the UX Checklist and How-to material

Colin Clark colin.clark at utoronto.ca
Thu Oct 25 19:42:02 UTC 2007


Paul,

Thanks for looking into this. I wonder if we should also include the 
simple accessibility walkthrough procedure documented here?

http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Accessibility+UX+Walkthrough+Group

Other than that, I think you're right to break it down into three, 
rather than four, sections with accessibility checklists and questions 
rolled into the heuristics and cognitive walkthroughs.

Colin

Paul Zablosky wrote:
> I have been doing a lot of editing and wordsmithing on the UX Checklist 
> material 
> <http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/UX+Walkthrough+Checklists>, 
> which also contains a lot of guidelines for prospective reviewers and 
> evaluators. The page suggests that there are four methods or approaches:
> 
>    1. Heuristic Evaluation
>    2. Cognitive Walkthrough
>    3. Accessibility Walkthrough (very similar to the Cognitive Walkthrough)
>    4. Code inspection
> 
> In going over the reference material however, I'm not sure this is the 
> right breakdown.  Looking at the reference documents, it seems to me 
> that we really only have three methods, which can each address both 
> accessibility and usability.  That is: 3 methods and 2 targets.  So it 
> makes more sense to me (as a non-expert) to organize the checklists 
> something like this::
> 
>    1. Heuristic Evaluation
>           * Addressing usability with the Nielsen and Molich heuristics
>             <http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/UX+Walkthrough+Checklists#UXWalkthroughChecklists-heuristic>
>           * Addressing accessibility with the Paddison and Englefield
>             <http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=957205.957228>
>             heuristics
>           * Addressing accessibility with the IBM Web Accessibility
>             guidelines
>             <http://www-03.ibm.com/able/guidelines/web/accessweb.html>
>    2. Cognitive Walkthrough
>           * Goal and persona based, with usability questions at each step
>           * Goal and persona based, with accessibility questions at each
>             step
>    3. Code Inspection
>           * Addressing usability with the questions listed in our "under
>             the covers" section
>           * Addressing accessibility with the IBM Web Accessibility
>             guidelines
>             <http://www-03.ibm.com/able/guidelines/web/accessweb.html>.
> 
> Of course we  want to encourage  reviewers to keep all of the principles 
> in mind, whatever their method of approach.  As we have discussed, it is 
> theoretically possible to do an heuristic evaluation or cognitive 
> walkthrough, addressing both usability and accessibility in a single pass.
> 
> Before I go to the trouble of reorganizing the material under this 
> scheme, I want to ask the experts if my suggested structure makes sense. 
> 
> Also, while I have the feeling we should keep our list of primary 
> reference documents short ("If you're only going to read one thing, read 
> this.") and we can certainly include a section with "If you want to read 
> more about this, here is a whole list of useful material", I'd like to 
> be sure that we're in general agreement that the three sources I mention 
> are the ones we want to suggest.
> 
> So.  Are people comfortable or uncomfortable with:
> 
>    1. The proposed organization?
>    2. The primary references?
> 
> I look forward to hearing what people think.
> 
> Regards,
> Paul
> 
>    1. Does it make sense to organize the material as I suggest:
>    2. Are the references I have mention
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list
> fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work

-- 
Colin Clark
Technical Lead, Fluid Project
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto
http://fluidproject.org



More information about the fluid-work mailing list