W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsc-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: comments on use-cases

From: Mary Ellen Zurko <Mary_Ellen_Zurko@notesdev.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:19:00 -0400
Cc: W3 Work Group <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF8B8CC878.74ED80FB-ON852572B5.0048B440-852572B5.00492689@LocalDomain>
To: "Maritza Johnson <maritzaj" <maritzaj@cs.columbia.edu>
Hi Maritza, 

Thank you for delivering your comments in a timely fashion. 

> Content looks good, just some small suggestions on wording.
> 1. Re-wording for 10.3
> Current: ... the resources to do "low fidelity" paper usability 
> testing on a modest numbers volunteers (10-20) from WG member 
> Suggested: ... the resources to do "lo-fi" prototyping for usability
> testing [Tiny Fingers]. Volunteer participants will be found through
> WG member organization.
> Reason: Lo-fi implies paper or some other sort of prototype that 
> isn't completely functional. 

OK, I respect your judgement on that one. 

> The second sentence -- Must we say how 
> many people we'll run through? From a CHI point of view I prefer the
> suggested wording because it doesn't imply we'll intentionally 
> recruit participants only from the WG organizations (which we should
> really try to avoid anyway,  internal testing tends to skew results).

I'm trying to figure out what our low bar is. That's why it starts with 
(and you removed in quoting) "At a minimum". If you think that's not our 
minimum, let us all know what is. But I think it's important to get it 
stated. What's the least we'll settle for, such that if we don't get it, 
we'll have to declare failure? I'm setting that bar at _some_ usability 
testing, with those resources. 

Turning it around, how about we also state a goal - what we're hoping for 
and realistically believe we could achieve. Could you (or anyone else) 
propose a sentence or two on that? 

Received on Friday, 6 April 2007 13:27:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:15 UTC