Re: How to write user stories for usability at release and sprint level
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "katharina9267"
>I concur with your observations. Jeff Patton in particular, and also
> As an usability manager I have been working on agile projects
> with user 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 instance.
> 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.
I have been writing and talking lately to try to counteract this
tendency. I think more people should work to make it come alive for
has one antidote.
has the more general discussion with the 3-pass recommendation at the
Perhaps one of these could help motivate your team to allocate time
for usability work and usability rework in particular.
(I know those two don't talk about the need to perform usability work
early - but at least they may help get the usability topic a
legitimate topic to schedule.)
- 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.