Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [agile-usability] user stories - are they mini fixed scope contracts? was: Re: Subtle User Inter..

Expand Messages
  • Adrian Howard
    On 1 Aug 2006, at 17:22, Jeff Patton wrote: [snip] ... [snip] Maybe. I d tend to see it as the start of a conversation myself ;-) ... Does new story always
    Message 1 of 91 , Aug 3, 2006
      On 1 Aug 2006, at 17:22, Jeff Patton wrote:
      > No, you're not necessarily. I may be guilty of practicing a very
      > relaxed form of agile. For very many years I relied on nothing more
      > than a story written on a 3x5 card and a conversation. What was in
      > and out of a story was very fluid - and almost always a matter of the
      > ongoing conversation between developer and customer. Statements
      > like "I don't consider it part of the story I'm working on" when a
      > customer might consider it part of the story seem to strike an
      > adversarial posture I'd characterize as push-back.

      Maybe. I'd tend to see it as the start of a conversation myself ;-)

      > Possibly a better
      > statement might be "this seems like a good idea, but my original
      > estimate hadn't accounted for it. Should we up the estimate -
      > possibly jeapordizing other things in this iteration? - or should we
      > defer this?"

      Does "new story" always mean "defer to next iteration" to you?

      It doesn't to me - and maybe that's why I don't hear the same
      negative tone. Obviously more work means /something/ is going to get
      deferred - but it doesn't have to be the new work.

      > That's more of the convesation/collaboration that I'd
      > hope for, and one we were able to cultivate for years. It's a subtle
      > difference in language.

      Yup. Exactly.

      > And frankly it's often the body language of
      > the developers that communicates more than the actual words they
      > use.

      This is the thing that just seems really weird to me.... developers
      not wanting to do new functionality that the customer wants. This is
      so anti every experience I've had with agile teams it strikes me as a
      sign that something is going badly wrong with the customer/developer

      > Adrian, in a subsequent post you said:
      > "Are the usability changes are getting a harsher reception than
      > changes in requirement from the customer?"
      > This is often the case that usability changes do get a harsher
      > reception - are often met with skepticism.

      Again, I find curious. Any ideas why? Developers making value
      judgements about the stories coming from the customer depending on
      whether they are usability related or not doesn't gel with the agile
      teams I've worked with. A story is a story is a story.

      > Usability changes often
      > don't add functionality - they just make the functionality we have
      > better.

      If they're not adding functionality then no code needs to be written.
      Job done ;-)

      Usability stories /are/ adding functionality. The issue is how
      different changes are being prioritised.

      > If one team member is pushing towards implementing more, and
      > another team member is pushing towards implementing better, there
      > will likely be tension.

      For me the issue isn't between more and better. It's between
      different adding one bit of functionality or adding another.

      > And, I've observed the same skeptical
      > reception when the usability changes come directly from the customer.

      I wonder if some of this may be due to previous experience of
      customers making really bad usability decisions?

      I know I've been burned badly by this - both as a usability bod and
      as a developer.

      > I think focal to this discussion is the idea of how maleable stories
      > are: are they "contracts for fixed scope" or are they general goals
      > to be achieved during an iteration where the details of those goals
      > are to be worked through collaboratively during the iteration. I've
      > observed both extremes in practice on agile projects - and variations
      > in between.

      The problem with general goals is that it makes it very hard to
      define progress and - more importantly - being "done". Getting that
      rapid and repeated "finished" fix is really important.

      My preference is to have lots of small stories that have very clear
      goals. If in the course of implementation we find that some of those
      goals need to be changed or amended in any non trivial way I much
      prefer to add a new story into the current iteration than amend the
      current story.

      I find teams much more productive if everybody is seeing continual
      progress and positive feedback.

      1) Me: I'll do the display mail messages in columns story now.....
      <pause for typing>... done!
      2) Customer: Great. All seems to work. Thanks. I have a new story for
      you. We need to resize columns.
      3) Me: Now I'll do the resize columns story...<pause for typing>...
      4) Customer: Great. All seems to work. Thanks. I have a new story for
      you. Date columns need to squish.
      5) Me: Now I'll do the make date column heading squishy
      story...<pause for typing>... done!
      6) Customer: Great. All seems to work. Thanks. I have a new story for
      ... and so on...

      Rather than continual negative feedback:

      1) Me: I'll do the display mail messages in columns story now.....
      <pause for typing>... done!
      2) Customer: No you're not - that's rubbish. Look it doesn't work for
      long subject lines
      3) Me: Hmmm... okay guess I guess I can make then resizeable...<pause
      for typing>... done
      4) Customer: Well that's complete pants - when I resize the date
      field you can only see the time of the message? Get it right!
      5) Me: All right already <mutter naughty works under breath while
      typing>... done?
      6) Customer: Well - I guess it will do...
      ... and so on...

      Okay - I'm exaggerating... slightly...

      The worst bit about the negative feedback loop is that you can get to
      the end of the iteration and from my perspective I have been working
      my ass off all week, and from the customer perspective not a single
      story has been completed... very bad.

      So I can understand developers pushing back against a continually
      growing story, but I can't understand developers pushing back against
      new stories.

      Hopefully making some vague sort of sense...


    • Pascal Roy
      I just thought I should share this experience because I just frustrated me a bit in terms of user experience: - I just logged in to the PMI site as a
      Message 91 of 91 , Sep 9, 2006

        I just thought I should share this experience because I just frustrated me  a bit in terms of user experience:

        -          I just logged in to the PMI site as a member. It had been a while, so I wasn’t sure of my username and password (it’s been a few months since the last time I used it). Of course, one of first thing you would expect is to know whether the system did recognize you or not. Guess what, nowhere on the page that came up is there any mention of my name. As far as I can tell, I don’t even know if I’m really logged in (ok, I see log out somewhere so I’ll assume I’m logged in). My reflex was to look on the page everywhere ( I had to scroll because the first page is long). Because it puzzled me a bit, my next reaction was to look at the left menu and see if I could get my account details. No luck, no menu entry is clearly labelled that way.

        -          Ah ah, just found the problem. There is a Membership information home button which I thought wrongly was the Menu title (it was not underlined, is of a different color and background than all other menu items, and because it doesn’t look clickable I actually dismissed it as a header and didn’t even read the text anyway). However, it made no sense I could not see my account info, so I investigated further the UI (and then realized what that header actually was). When I clicked on it, it finally got me my account information. I figure that this is normally the first page you get when you log in. For some reason, they decided to put a two pager publicity there instead (“PMI's 250,000 Member Race”).

        -          Anyway, it now makes me feel a little bit stupid that I lost so much time figuring this out as a user. A simple Hi Pascal on the login page would have just avoided the whole freaking thing, and that menu item that doesn’t look clickable too… Oh well, maybe it’s just me, I’m probably bellow their required target user intelligence level…

        -          Isn’t that pretty basic usability stuff? And we are talking a fairly prestigious site here (I heard the PMI is targeting 250,000 members worldwide)…


        Anyway, the point I want to make is that even basic stuff like that is very common in the field. This leads to software that is harder to use than it should (ever heard of the digital divide?, I think stuff like that contributes heavily to it) and even frustrates and angers people at times. Frankly, I doubt they even had one real user test that part of the site before they put it out there…


        Pascal Roy, ing./P.Eng., PMP

        Vice-Président/Vice President

        Elapse Technologies Inc.


        [url]    http://www.elapsetech.com

        [email]  pascal.roy@...

        [cell]   514-862-6836



        From: agile-usability@... m [mailto: agile-usability@... m ] On Behalf Of Phlip
        Sent: 6 septembre 2006 11:15
        To: agile-usability@... m
        Subject: Re: [agile-usability] Catching usability issues with automated tests


        Adrian Howard wrote:

        > Some examples:
        > * Clean XHTML/CSS validation as a sign that the app will present well
        > on all browsers
        > * Using the presence of ALT tags as a sign of accessibility.
        > * Using a computed "colour contrast" value as a sign of
        > * Using the Kincaid formula or similar as a sign of readability

        * Use pure XHTML, so all that's accessable to the testage
        * Run the site's pages thru Tidy and ask if it's accessible

        Those tests sound weak, but some GUIs must internationalize and
        localize correctly. Users of some rare language are probably familiar
        and tired of the same dumb bugs in their GUIs. So switch to each
        language and run all those tests again.

        Next, do it even if your GUI is not HTML. MS's RESX files are of
        course parsable as XML. I wrote

        http://www.c2. com/cgi/wiki? MsWindowsResourc eLint

        to scan the localized RC files looking for bugs. The program has an
        extensible framework so you can add in any kind of test you can think

        (At SYSTRAN, I spent a week writing the predecessor of that program. I
        didn't notice they didn't nano-manage me during that week because they
        were preparing to fire me. So when they did, my last act was to send
        to all their executives a complete, automated report describing every
        usability issue in every supported locale of every product, with
        instructions how to run it again as part of their test server. The
        total error count was >4k, in a company that's supposed to do
        localization as a core competency!)

        > 1) The system take a snapshot of the HTML/CSS of each page in a web
        > app whenever somebody commits a change
        > 2) Have a flag you can set on each page once you have reviewed them
        > 4) Automatically notify you when a reviewed page changes, and have a
        > failing test until you mark it as reviewed again

        That is a technique under the umbrella I call "Broadband Feedback".
        However, marking the test as failing is unfair to programmers, who
        just want to check in an innocent change that doesn't break anything.
        Move the "reviewed" flag from the bug collumn to some other collumn!

        To achieve Broadband Feedback, automate the steps. The reviewer should
        simply turn on a web interface that displays each changed GUI, and
        reviews the change in the website - not necessarily in the target
        program. That's why I wrote this:

        http://www.zeroplay er.com/cgi- bin/wiki? TestFlea

        (Click on a green bar.)

        Imagine if you were the Sanskrit linguist for a project. Wherever you
        are (even up a mountain in Nepal), you the project's web site. You get
        a page like that; maybe it contains only unreviewed items, or maybe
        unreviewed items have a grey spot next to them.

        You inspect each GUI, verifying it uses correct Sanskrit, then you
        switch the record to Reviewed.

        For more complex usability needs, a test batch could also upload
        animations of the program in use.

        > No we cannot make a computer say whether an arbitrary thing is
        > usable. However we can make a computer spot many of the instances
        > where a usability design decision that we have made is actually being
        > implemented correctly.

        The adoption of Agile techniques in the game industry, today, is at
        about the same place as Agile adoption was in business 6 years ago.
        One common FAQ (unanswered even on many game projects) is this:

        if the highest business value feature is Fun, how can you
        write an acceptance test for that?

        The answer is the same as for any other untestable property (security,
        robustness, availability, usability, fault tolerance, etc.). Fun is a
        non-functional requirement that generates many functional
        requirements, each of which can be tested.

        In games, that requires designers to occupy the Onsite Customer role,
        and author their scenarios as scripts that test a game automatically.
        A scenario should run a hero thru a level and ensure they kill every

        Next, games are very dynamic and emergent. A change to a Maya file
        here can cause a bug, or a lapse of Fun, in game levels over there.
        One way to preserve Fun without locking down every file is to use Gold
        Master Copy tests on aspects of a game's internal details.

        For example, two runs thru the same scenario should generate the same
        log file. A programmer could change the code in an innocent way,
        changing the log file without afflicting Fun. But these tests should
        run as often as possible, so the programmer will revert their change,
        then make a _different_ innocent change which might work.

        These kinds of tests can't even easily pinpoint bugs, so run them as
        often as possible, so the cause must be the most recent edit. Treat
        these tests as seismograph readings, of earthquakes deep beneath the

        http://c2.com/ cgi/wiki? ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!

        __________ Information NOD32 1.1741 (20060906) __________

        Ce message a ete verifie par NOD32 Antivirus System.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.