Organizing the UX Checklist and How-to material

Paul Zablosky Paul.Zablosky at ubc.ca
Thu Oct 25 21:16:31 UTC 2007


Thanks Colin,
    Yes, I did plan to include the material from the UX Walkthrough 
Accessibility Working Group that is currently referenced by  the 
Accessibility Walkthrough section.  Originally, I thought it should 
remain with the Cognitive Walkthrough method section, but looking at it 
again, it may fit better under the Heuristics approach.  I'll reread 
everything and try to avoid shoehorning.

Regards,
Paul

Colin Clark wrote:
> 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
>




More information about the fluid-work mailing list