Re: [raveincontext-commits] [rave-in-context] r408 committed - Edited wiki page UsabilityEvaluationPlan through web user interface.
Ross Gardler
In the edit below you state that 2.4 and 2.5 did not happen. This is
not entirely true.
There was continual evaluation against the materials within the
development activity. The issues we discovered were either fixed
during the development process or recorded within the issue tracker.
It is true that there was less opportunity than hoped for feedback
from yourself.
Ross
On 13 January 2012 17:56,
<rave-in-context....@codespot.com> wrote:
> Revision: 408
> Author: liz.ma...@gmail.com
> Date: Fri Jan 13 09:53:23 2012
> Log: Edited wiki page UsabilityEvaluationPlan through web user
> interface.
> http://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/rave-in-context/source/detail?r=408
>
> Modified:
> /wiki/UsabilityEvaluationPlan.wiki
>
> =======================================
> --- /wiki/UsabilityEvaluationPlan.wiki Fri Jan 13 09:52:19 2012
> +++ /wiki/UsabilityEvaluationPlan.wiki Fri Jan 13 09:53:23 2012
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@
> || 4b || WP2.3 || Review the mock-ups of the interface in the light of the
> UX requirements document and the evaluation criteria. Revise the mock-ups
> and prepare them for evaluation; prepare the questions for evaluators. ||
> Tues 13/09/11 - Wed 14/09/11 ||
> || 5. || WP2.3 || User evaluation no. 1: walk through the mock-ups with 3-5
> representatives of the user population (see section 5). || Thurs 15/09/11 -
> Tues 20/09/11 ||
> || 6. || WP2.2 || Refine the mock-ups in the light of feedback from the
> evaluation, revise the UX requirements document and pass [UXDesignScenarios
> both documents] to the development team. || Wed 21/09/11 - Sun 25/09/11 ||
> -|| 7. || WP2.4, WP2.5 || Continuously and iteratively review the emergent
> widgets on the basis of the evaluation criteria and usability and
> accessibility guides. Compile a running report of issues and feed back the
> the developers. || October 2011 ||
> +|| 7. || WP2.4, WP2.5 || Continuously and iteratively review the emergent
> widgets on the basis of the evaluation criteria and usability and
> accessibility guides. Compile a running report of issues and feed back the
> the developers. _Did not happen._ || October 2011 ||
> || 8. || WP2.6 || User evaluation no. 2: workshop with approx. 10 users
> using the widgets on a range of form factors (see section 6). || 09/11/11
> (actual: 29/11/11) ||
> || 9. || WP2.6 || Collate users’ feedback from the evaluations and pass
> recommendations to the developers for implementation || By 11/11/11 (actual:
> c06/12/11) ||
> || 10. || WP2.7 || 'Experience report' (case study) to JISC || By 30/11/11
> (actual: 16/01/12) ||
> @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@
>
> ----
>
> -= 7. Evaluation workshop =
> += 6. Evaluation workshop =
>
> The evaluation is recorded in the documents _WP2-6 Rave Usability Lab
> Documentation.pdf_ and _WP2-6 Rave Usability Lab Data - Edited.xls_ at issue
> 42, and _WP2-6 Rave Usability Lab Feedback Questions.pdf_ at issue 43 in
> this wiki and on the UsabilityUK website.
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Elizabeth Masterman
It is true that there was less opportunity than hoped for feedback
from yourself.