CHI-WEB Archives

ACM SIGCHI WWW Human Factors (Open Discussion)

CHI-WEB@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Helmut Degen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Helmut Degen <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 12 Nov 2002 21:15:59 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (217 lines)
Hi all,

we want to say THANK YOU to all people who sent us your valuable answers to our question. Here are the answers.

========================================

Again our question:

Responding to Gilbert's comment we would like to precise our question:

In the usability engineering process literature you find processes with a monolithic character. We refer to the following books:
- Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K.: Contextual Design. Defining Customer-Centered Systems. San Francisco, California, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.
- Constantine, L. L. & Lockwood, L. D.: Software for Use: A Practical Guide to the Models and Methods of Usage-Centered Design. Reading, Massachusetts, USA: Addison-Wesley, ACM Press, 1999.
- Hackos, J. T. & Redish, J. C.: User and Task Analysis for Interface Design. New York, USA: Wiley, 1998.
- Mayhew, D. J.: The Usability Engineering Lifecycle. San Francisco, California, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1999.
- Rosson, M. B. & Carroll, J. M.: Usability Engineering. Scnario-Based Development of Human-Computer Interaction. San Francisco, California, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2002.

From the practitioners standpoint the entire processes can often not be applied. Therefore a important question is: What kind of variation of a usability engineering process do you suggest if you have 70%, 50% or even 30% of the needed budget and time. Which part/steps of the processes are a "must" which are "nice to have"? Under which circumstances do you suggest which kind of usability engineering process? The cited books do not give an sufficient answer to us as practitioners. 

Therefore our questions:
- Based on your project experiences: Do you see a need for adaptable usability engineering processes?
- Do you know other literature about the adapation of usability engineering processes?

You can post directly to us. We send back a summary to this mailing list.

Thanks and kind regards

Helmut & Sonja

[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]


========================================

Answer by James Newbery ([log in to unmask])

Absolutely. I have worked in large corporate settings
with well-established usability resources, extensive
laboratories and a captive management audience. I have
 worked in small software companies as the lone
usability practitioner, and I have also worked in the
voluntary sector with no 'lab', few resources and
little time. All these working environments require
that the usability engineering process is 'degraded'
significantly from that which can be found in
textbooks. For this reason, I don't think such a
monolithic process actually exists in the real world.
You might plan it with good intentions, but the nature
of development is such that certain compromises must
always be made.

If I was to describe how decisions about how to
degrade the process are made - for the most part it is
based on previous experience of what works in the
particular circumstances, with a little bit of
tailoring and adaptation. The decisions will depend on
a large number of factors: staff, financial and
temporal resources, the political standing of a
user-centred approach within the organisation, project
size and scope, the availability of users, etc., etc.

The question is really whether the ability to make
these judgments can be acquired through teaching or
literature, or must be learned through painful
experience!

> - Do you know literature about the adapation of
> usability engineering processes?

Some colleagues of mine spent some time discussing
these issues a while ago. The result was an attempt at
modelling how differing organisational and user
interests can be embodied throughout the whole product
development cycle:

Salvador, A.C. and Scholtz, J. (1996). Systematic
Creativity: a methodology for integrating user,
marketand engineering requirements for product
definition, design and usability testing in Leonard J.
Bass and Claus Unger (Eds.) Engineering for Human-
Computer Interaction, 307-332

The model didn't really take off as far as I know, and
the authors have moved on to other things, but it
should still be food for thought.

Regards,

James Newbery
Research Web Designer
City University, London

========================================

Answer by Peter Boersma ([log in to unmask])

You asked:
> - Based on your project experiences: Do you see a need for adaptable
usability
> engineering processes?

Yes. Given the fluctuations in the typical constraining factors for a
project (budget, time & quality) you can't rely on a fixed process. 

> - Do you know literature about the adapation of usability engineering
processes?

Deborah Mayhew's "Usability Engineering Lifecylce" includes many "shortcuts"
for simpler processes. As she says in the preface the lifecycle "can be
adapted to projects varying in size, complexity, time frame, and budget."
Usability Engineering Lifecycle:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1558605614/qid=1036746624/sr=8
-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-9216073-9475037?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Satama's Unified Process (which I helped develop and implement) is both
iterative and incremental, allowing for flexibility in the implementation
phase. In the planning and design phase, the deliverables that are specified
often have several "layers" that allow for more or less detail, depending on
the project's complexity.
Satama Unified Proces: http://www.satama.com/solutions/34.jsp

Peter

========================================

Answer by James Kalbach ([log in to unmask])

Helmut,
at Razorfish Germany we are forced to rely on adaptable
usability processes. As an external service provider we
often do not have control over the product development
life cycle anyway. Usability engineering in practice
tends to be opportunistic for us. 

I think as an internal specialist, you may have a greater
chance of integrating usability and practice true
"engineering" in the full sense of the word.

I still contend that any usability is better than none.

That said, we have tried to package our services into
logical groupings according to client situation. So not 
only do methods need to scale within a given project, 
they have to adapt to a very wide array of client 
needs and demand across our entire business.

Jim

========================================

Answer by Shelley Wood ([log in to unmask])

Dear Helmut & Sonja:

First, full disclosure: I work for InContext Enterprises, coaching and
training on Contextual Design. (I'm also a former client who used Contextual
Design--including just pieces of Contextual Design--for a wide range of
projects).

Contextual Design recognizes that you often simply cannot apply the entire
process. It also recognizes that the entire process is often not needed; it
depends on your design problem. This is documented in Holtzblatt & Beyer's
book, starting on page 424. A description that I like even better (since the
shortcuts are highlighted in tables and boxes) appeared in ACM's
"interactions" magazine, Jan/Feb 1999. If you'd like, I'd be happy to send
you a one-pager that shows which pieces are appropriate for which design
situation .

Regards,

Shelley Wood
InContext Enterprises

========================================

Answer by Timo Jokela ([log in to unmask])

Hello Helmut & Sonja,

my answer is: one definitely needs 'variation' or 'adaptibility'.

I formalize the problem, however, a bit differently. I make a difference 
between usability processes and usability methods: the processes define 
'what should be done' and the methods 'how'. I suggest all the usability 
processes be done in any project but variation on methods on how to 
implement those processes. One can use 'light' or 'less light' methods, 
depending on the resources of the project.

I used ISO 13407 as our reference model of usability processes. I, however, 
found it sensible to refine the model a bit. Attached is my proposal for a 
generic usability process model (a paper from the NordiCHI 2002 
conference). The paper is not specifically about 'variations' or 
'adaptability' (we had a bit different research problem setting). My 
message anyway is that those processes *should* be done but (a lot of) 
variation should be allowed in how to implement those processes.

regards, Timo

========================================

Kind regards

Helmut & Sonja

...
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]

    --------------------------------------------------------------
        Tip of the Day: Forward out-of-office replies to
                    mailto:[log in to unmask]
     CHI-WEB: www.sigchi.org/web POSTINGS: mailto:[log in to unmask]
              MODERATORS: mailto:[log in to unmask]
       SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES & FAQ:  www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html
    --------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2