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

RE: comments on use-cases

From: Close, Tyler J. <tyler.close@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:28:54 -0000
Message-ID: <08CA2245AFCF444DB3AC415E47CC40AF9A36DC@G3W0072.americas.hpqcorp.net>
To: "W3 Work Group" <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
It looks like [Tiny Fingers] below is intended to be a reference. Could
someone point me to the full reference information?


	From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mary Ellen Zurko
	Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 6:19 AM
	To: Maritza Johnson <maritzaj
	Cc: W3 Work Group
	Subject: Re: comments on use-cases

	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
	> testing on a modest numbers volunteers (10-20) from WG member
	> Suggested: ... the resources to do "lo-fi" prototyping for
	> testing [Tiny Fingers]. Volunteer participants will be found
	> WG member organization.
	> Reason: Lo-fi implies paper or some other sort of prototype
	> 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
	> really try to avoid anyway,  internal testing tends to skew
	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 Tuesday, 10 April 2007 21:29:07 UTC

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