Re: Worksessions & nav categories [was: Usability Testing first of April [was: Fwd: v2 -- Re: Tasks - Resource mapping]]

One caution in line below:

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:

> ...
> My goal is to get an interim IA (with minimal content changes) ASAP, and
> an ideal/target IA (which will include significant re-doing of content)
> after that. Do y'all want to suggest next steps and worksession agenda for
> that, or do you want me to?
>

I am pretty sure that we had decided by a large majority at the last face
to face that in order for the IA to be meaningful - even in "interim"  -
there must be significant content changes. Can we make that a matter of
record?

There was strong majority opinion not to move legacy content into the new
IA without grooming it for the new site. So among the steps must be content
review and approval to move. Some of the assets are in fine shape but
others will stay in the archival site until fixed. Maybe that is why we are
at such a standstill, do we have a remaining fundamental misunderstanding
about this?

My suggestion for a work session that may or may not involve the VISA team
is to see which resources can be moved as is and which need rewriting
before moving. I was excited by Charlotte's shared history as a tech
writer. So maybe that is where we have to start.

Charlotte, what are your thoughts about this?

Thanks,
Sharron





On 3/21/2017 11:19 AM, Shawn Henry wrote:
>
>> Thank you, Charlotte, for this information. I agree with your
>> perspectives on optimizing user input and usability testing.
>>
>> Originally I think y'all said you had time the last week of March.
>> How about we do some virtual f2f work -- that is, set aside a
>> couple-few hours to do remote worksession(s) together. We can use
>> WebEx video or other if that would be helpful.
>>
>> Best, ~Shawn
>>
>> On 3/17/2017 3:05 PM, Wise, Charlotte wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Shawn,
>>>
>>> I agree that user testing is essential and am glad that everyone
>>> supports it. I recommend that we start first with another
>>> Treejack test when we have a third draft of the IA, followed up
>>> by a short task-based test of that IA situated within the context
>>> of Alicia's mockups similar to what you describe below (I would
>>> recommend using a remote testing service like usertesting.com for
>>> this), and finishing with an in-lab based summative test of the
>>> final draft IA and design along with several pages of the
>>> revamped content.
>>>
>> ...

> I like some of the ideas you suggested in the IA you sent earlier
>>> this week and will incorporate some of them as I work on
>>> finishing a third draft. I don't think that a primary navigation
>>> structure with just four categories adequately addresses the
>>> complexity of the content we have, though I like simplicity too,
>>> and that’s definitely my primary goal.
>>>
>> ...

Just so we are all on the same page--we are presently considering
>>> 6 primary navigation categories: About WAI, Understand, Promote,
>>> Evaluate, Implement, Participate.
>>>
>>
I like that Alicia's mock-up had About WAI and Participate separate from
the main nav. They are important to be easy to find, but *very infrequent*
for most users.

Right now I'm thinking this is the best order for the main 4: Understand,
Implement, Evaluate, Promote.

Best,
~Shawn
...

I think our next step is for me to take a third pass through the
>>> IA using the content that you and Sharon mapped, review it
>>> together, and then Treejack test it. If it passes a Treejack
>>> test, we can consider timing for user testing. We can then look
>>> at what effort would be required to build out a somewhat or
>>> mostly-functional prototype site usable for testing based on the
>>> third draft IA.
>>>
>> ...

###




-- 
Sharron Rush | Executive Director | Knowbility.org | @knowbility
*Equal access to technology for people with disabilities*