Posts RSS Comments RSS 377 Posts and 1,113 Comments till now

Archive for December, 2007

Books: Out goes 2007, in comes 2008

I wrapped up my reading list for 2007 a few days early so I can prepare to open 2008 with Mervyn Peake’s Gormenghast trilogy. I did fairly well trying to meet my 25-books-in-a-year goal with 24 books. There was a period of a few months where I did no recreational reading because I spent all of my extra time working on my graduate thesis.

I was a little surprised by the amount fantasy in my list this year, mostly attributed by Harry Potter, Watch trilogy, and the Dresden Files. Although I always read science fiction, I had never considered myself a “fantasy” fan beyond the few classics before I went through the Harry Potter kick. I really liked the Watch trilogy, so maybe I like vampires and witches more than fairies and unicorns? The Dresden Files are detective/mystery novels first with magic as a secondary device. I am still a little wary of fantasy-genre recommendations (perhaps I just need guidance) and tend to gravitate towards books in the classics, science fiction, and social sciences genres. In the end, I will read anything that is good regardless of genre.

Any suggestions for 2008?

Upcoming 2008 Meetings and Conferences

January 17 to 20, 2008

I will be in Mountain View, California (United States) with many others from the KDE family to celebrate the release of KDE 4.

February 9, 2008

For the second year, I will be speaking at the 6th Southern California Linux Expo in Los Angeles, California (United States) on usability and design in open source software.

Abstract
I will provide an overview of common UCD methods and when they are the most practical in the development cycle, review different kinds of UCD deliverables and how their information can be used by developers, as well as use examples from exiting projects to help illustrate my points. In the course of the discussion, we will cover:

  • A review of usability design and its methods
  • Different kinds of usability documents and how they can be used by developers
  • Different kinds of developer documents and how they can incorporate usability goals
  • Strategies to help developers and usability designers work together
  • Strategies to address issues which often come up in OSS/usability development

June 19, 2008 16:00 - 16:40

I will be presenting a peer-reviewed paper on the Modified-Delphi card sort at the 2008 Usability Professionals Association Conference in Baltimore, Maryland (United States).

Abstract
The Modified-Delphi card sort is a pre-design information architecture method which saves time and money, and increases the quality of results gathered. This paper reviews the research basis of the method and provides a practical guide for practitioners who wish to conduct a Modified-Delphi card sorting study.

Interview on UXpod about Open Source Usability and Card Sorting

Gerry Gaffney of the UXpodcast interviewed me about my participation in Open Source and the Modified-Delphi Card Sort. I know these are two very unrelated projects, but I couldn’t resist being able to talk about Open Source!

The entire interview is about 25 minutes, with the first 8 minutes about usability in OSS. We had a bad Skype connection during the interview, so there are a few awkward spots that had to be heavily edited. Overall, Gerry did a wonderful job interviewing and made speaking very easy.

Discuss: Open Source Usability Testing Solutions

Why aren’t there more user-based usability testing in OSS? IMHO it is because of the time and money costs.

Even after the planets have aligned and we have a usability specialist with the skills and an open source project committed to doing something with the results, there are still difficulties in Getting Things Done. The most annoying and unavoidable one is the cost (monetary) for conducting the test. Forgoing the moderator and second chair observer as loyal open source advocates and willing volunteers, there are still the matters of participant stipends (monetary or gift) and laboratory setting. Even when participants are willing to give up an hour of their time, the testing environment is the hardest part to acquire on a budget.

To properly conduct a user-based usability test, you need one of three environments:

  1. A computer which can record audio, screen, and external video for participant’s face (referred to as Superman testing because the moderator is on their own and must review the tapes later for analysis)
  2. A computer which a second chair observer can view the participant — either through one-sided glass or remotely in real time (usually includes video/audio recording as well, but without such can be forgiven if the notes and analysis from the second chair observer are excellent)
  3. Remote usability testing software which shares audio (via microphone or conference calling), screen sharing and recording, and allow observers (not as high quality of feedback, but is practical in early-cycle testing and shoe-string budgets)

Both of the laboratory environments usually cost money to rent. Remote usability testing has some cost associated with it, but is often much less expensive.

Remote testing can be conducted without a laboratory setting using a variety of software, most popularly with Webinar software that many companies own to conduct online meetings. Remote testing is commonly conducted by using GoToMeeting, Connect (née Breeze), or UserVue. All of these solutions cost money (some are cheaper than others) and none are Free/Open Source, let alone run on Linux.

In the past, I have used VMWare in Windows so I could run Linux and record screen, audio, video, and mouse clicks with Morae. I have not yet found a solution I could use for remote testing, regardless of license or cost. I would really like to standardize an easy to set up remote usability testing environment that can be used in both face-to-face studies and remote tests. It is acceptable if a lot of configuration up front must take place, but participant technical requirements (hardware, installation, configuration) must be kept at a minimum.

(Remote) usability testing environment requirements:

  • Screen and mouse sharing for both moderator and participant 1
  • Audio streaming of both moderator and participant 1
  • Ability for second chair observer to watch/hear moderator and participant 1
  • Screen capture/recording 2
  • Audio recording of both moderator and participant 2
  • Fullscreen mode for testing environment 3
  • Participant face (web camera) recording 3
  • Mouse highlighting in post-production 3
  • Click highlighting in post-production 3
  • Picture in picture (participant in corner of screen) in post-production 3

1: Absolutely required, will still require a second chair observer
2: Minimum requirements for a serious remote user-based testing study (including 1)
3: Would be really nice to have and make reviewing and creating highlights videos much easier (including 1 & 2)

Are there any suggestions on how to accomplish this? The floor is open, let me hear your ideas!