UX Walkthrough guidelines

Allison Bloodworth abloodworth at berkeley.edu
Fri Sep 7 23:25:16 UTC 2007

Hi Daphne,

Thanks for your work on the guidelines & checklist...I've made some  
comments below.

Have a great weekend everyone!

On Sep 7, 2007, at 11:13 AM, Daphne Ogle wrote:

> Hi all,
> As we've been making good progress on the walkthroughs I think  
> we've got agreement that it makes sense to run through the process  
> individually from a usability and an accessibility perspective.   
> We've found that it's too much to think about both at once.  Also,  
> the usability walkthroughs include the use of the mouse and we've  
> been using a keyboard only technique on the scenarios to understand  
> the accessibility experience.  With that in mind, I was trying to  
> break up the guideline/checklist, http://wiki.fluidproject.org/ 
> display/fluid/UX+Walkthrough+Heuristics,  into the 2 categories  
> again for ease of use.  As I look at the list, aside from the  
> "under the covers" section there are only handful that seem  
> distinct to accessibility (I've marked those with green  
> text)...this is a good thing!  It's a good list that describes good  
> design practice but it's pretty long and a lot to keep in mind as  
> we are running through the evaluations.  In the meantime Colin has  
> created the accessibility walkthrough outline, http:// 
> wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Accessibility+UX+Walkthrough 
> +Group,  that is simple and concise.  I'm thinking I could do the  
> same from the usability perspective (and would welcome any help)  
> based on Nielen's heuristic checklist.  We could think of the  
> current longer list as a baseline for people to get familiar with  
> before the walkthroughs and use these more simple checklists during  
> the evaluation.  What do people think about this approach?
Personally, I am very familiar with Nielsen's 10 Heuristics and would  
like to use them for documentation of problems in my walk-thoughs. I  
think most of the items our longer checklist can be categorized under  
these 10 heuristics, and 10 is about as large of a number as I think  
it's reasonable to ask folks to keep 'in mind.' Here is an example of  
a checklist that categorizes specific things to look for under  
Nielsen's 10 heuristics: http://www.stcsig.org/usability/topics/ 
articles/he-checklist.html. I can help group our longer checklist  
items under Nielsen's heuristics if that is helpful. It may be  
easiest to have folks read our longer checklist (http:// 
wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/UX+Walkthrough+Heuristics) right  
before they begin each walk-through to give them specific ideas about  
things to look for, but only use the 10 heuristics for reporting  
> We've been interchangeably calling the longer list "UX Walkthrough  
> Guidelines / Checklist".  As we create more of these docs it will  
> be important that we have solid shared semantics to describe our  
> work.  I've temporarily renamed the longer list to "UX Walkthrough  
> Heuristics".  It really is not a checklist.  What do people think  
> about that terminology?
Sounds perfect!
> The doc Colin put together is more like a checklist or even more  
> guidelines for the process.  Does "UX Walkthrough Accessibility  
> Guidelines" work for people?  Other ideas?
How should we document accessibility problems found with Colin's  
guidelines? I always think about the Web Content Accessibility  
Guidelines checklist when looking for an accessibility checklist:  
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/full-checklist.html, but this is  
probably too long and perhaps too focused on things that are 'under  
the covers.' I wonder if we could pare Colin's list down to a "top  
10", similar to this one: http://groups.sims.berkeley.edu/usable- 
accessibility/Tutorial/tips.php?area=top+ten ? We could also read his  
longer document, as I suggest for the usability heuristics, prior to  
testing to give us a good general overview, but also have a list of  
actual heuristics. I think a concrete list will be make it easier to  
look for trends in problems across evaluators and the applications  
than it would be if everyone wrote up their own description of each  
> The usability reference discussed above could be named similarly.
> Daphne Ogle
> Senior Interaction Designer
> University of California, Berkeley
> Educational Technology Services
> daphne at media.berkeley.edu
> cell (510)847-0308
> _______________________________________________
> fluid-work mailing list
> fluid-work at fluidproject.org
> http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work

Allison Bloodworth
Senior User Interaction Designer
Educational Technology Services
University of California, Berkeley
(415) 377-8243
abloodworth at berkeley.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20070907/9bc54478/attachment.html>

More information about the fluid-work mailing list