- ... I m thinking more about specific usability gotchas that might bight you in a particular user story. I don t think saying something like users must be ableMessage 1 of 83 , May 7, 2008View Source
> Thank you Alain - are you saying then that in order to build inI'm thinking more about specific usability gotchas that might bight you
> usability into user stories it should be for instance incorporated as
> an acceptance criteria per user story?
in a particular user story. I don't think saying something like "users
must be able to complete this task in 10 secs or less" is very helpful.
It's better to talk about things that might cause the implementation to
be inefficient and tell the dev how to avoid them. The kind of important
details that developers are likely to overlook.
But maybe a generic acceptance criteria can be useful, as long as they
are accompanied by a promise by the Ux specialist to have a conversation
about how to achieve this.
> This makes sense to me at sprintCan you give me an example of what such a story might look like?
> level but at release level would it not make sense to have a
> dedicated user story for 'non-functional' related
> areas including usability?
- 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 theirMessage 83 of 83 , Jun 2, 2008View SourceI'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.