Re: [agile-usability] Re: incremental design -vs- overall user experience
- Jeff Patton wrote:
> Lastly, I don't think a usability person is a necessary role on anFunnily enough I think they are as needed as anybody else on a well
> agile team. I think the _work they do_ is necessary. And,
> depending on it's criticality to the project, there could be an
> expert on the team, or the work could be understood and shared among
> members of the team.
> -Jeff (P)
balanced crew. Just like you have some software engineer ninja (or more)
to ask very apt questions to customers, and then using those questions
use their expertise to generate fantastic hardcore bits of programming
as quickly and cheaply as possible, you need Human Computer Design
ninjas who can ask the right questions, and design awesome customer
interaction paths as quickly and as easily as possible.
Heck at the end of the day it is all about business value. Usability
gurus are all about getting the customer get the most out of the product
... that sounds like business value to me.
This is without a doubt an issue that I came across in my experience
as a usability manager.
Do you suggest that this work should be done in iteration 0 using the
agile methodology? This seems to be increasingly a recommendation in
a number of white papers and publications such as Scott Ambler.
However, when you say 'minimal effort' how does this translate into
time scales - is there an average that you work with in your
experience let's say 1-2 weeks?
I also appreciate, if you could forward the pdfs on the collaborative
UI review method that you mentioned in a previous message.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Larry Constantine"
> An effective way around this problem is to draft a navigation
> (screen flow) in advance based on provisional understanding of userroles
> and tasks in the application. This architecture gives a reasonablywell
> thought out framework on which to hang the features and functionsas they
> arise "organically." The navigation architecture is itself reviewedand
> refactored as needed as the details of the application emerge. Thisapproach
> is what I describe as "architecture-first development" in the newCutter
> Report on agility and usability. It's proven to be a goodcompromise that
> yields maximal payoff in maintaining a sound UI organization withbare
> minimal upfront investment.experience
> --Larry Constantine
> Chief Scientist | Constantine & Lockwood, Ltd.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Grigg [mailto:jeffgrigg@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 July 2004 7:48 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [agile-usability] incremental design -vs- overall user
> I can't claim to be an expert on user interface design or agile
> methods, but here's a thought that's been bothering me for a while:
> It's been my experience that systems that "grow organically" over
> time often have bad user interfaces. New features are often buried
> deep within the existing user interface structure, making it hard
> find. New reports, for example, are added as buttons or menu*not*
> options deep in the work flow, where they're first needed, but
> made available from higher level menus.even
> I've found that drawing screen flow diagrams of the overall system
> illustrates these problems and guides redesign of the GUI to make
> the system more usable.
> How can one avoid this problem in "organically growing" systems?
> Does the "overall user experience" need to be planned up-front,
> when functionality is implemented incrementally?redesigned
> As project direction changes during implementation, what triggers
> you to recognize that the user interface flow needs to be
> to most effectively support the new business requirements you've
> Yahoo! Groups Links