RE: [agile-usability] How to write user stories for usability at release and sprint level
- Not sure it makes sense to have usability as being separate from the
I think it's better if the user story is written in such a way that it
talks about what's important in that story from the point of view of
usability. Also, the Ux expert should be part of the conversation that
happens around that user story.
> -----Original Message-----user
> From: email@example.com [mailto:agile-
> firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of katharina9267
> Sent: May 7, 2008 3:29 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [agile-usability] How to write user stories for usability at
> release and sprint level
> As an usability manager I have been working on agile projects with
> stories for more than a year but only at the sprint /iteration level.
> I noticed that it is often too late in the process to start to try to
> get usability related acceptance criteria included into sprint level
> user stories once two weekly sprints have started especially if there
> is not a 'usability' related user story at release level or project
> level to stress the importance of usability and therefore the
> incorporation of a user centred methods such as user testing for
> Every user story is 'a promise for a conversation' and when not
> included at release level I find that the discussion around usability
> start often too late.
> I have been told that including 'usability' as a non-functional
> requirement user story could be a valid approach at release level and
> was wondering whether someone else has similar experience and how best
> to tackle 'usability ' related user stories at all project levels
> including acceptance criteria whilst also following the 'invest'
> approach for good user stories.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- I'm a bit new to Agile but don't really see the problem with this
vision thing. I use the Cooper Goal-Directed Design Method.
We interview users to learn their goals and understand their tasks and
we do that up front, perhaps as a sprint rather than anything
We produce personas, from the interview data, and goals. And we
produce high level context scenarios, which start making basic
references to concepts that will exist in the design.
From the context scenarios we can almost underline the parts which
indicate user needs.
Then we take out a whiteboard pen and write a storyboard wireframe
(which Cooper used to call the Design Vision and now call in
Interaction Framework). We elaborate a bit on the design hinted at in
the context scenario and produce a key path scenario, which describes
in more detail how the user will interact with the design. This whole
exercise lets us outline the anatomy of the design and to understand
how to play it.
When we are happy with that Design Vision, we can jump into iterations
and do a bit of 'just in time' detailed design.
The Vision, is the Design Vision. It is justified through
understanding the users typical day and their typical needs. It
probably won't change much since it is quite high level.
I'm not sure where the problem is with a vision like this. perhaps,
the only drawback is that you have to do a bit of work in front of the
iterative cycles to get a good understanding of the users and what
they do to enable you to get this vision pinned down.
i'd be interested in comments on this.