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

Are we re-skinning the existing site or re-designing the site to make our content more useable and findable?  If we basically re-skin the site  and leave the navigation and content basically the same we will frustrate our users. In my opinion, when users experience an upgrade they are expecting more than a visual upgrade. Alicia’s design was created based on the updated IA.  I don’t think we should do this in 2 steps even if it takes longer than expected.

Thanks,
Laura


From: Sharron Rush [mailto:srush@knowbility.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 6:17 PM
To: Shawn Henry
Cc: Wise, Charlotte; WSTF; Green, James
Subject: 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<mailto: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<http://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