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 22:42:14 -0000
Message-ID: <08CA2245AFCF444DB3AC415E47CC40AF9A373F@G3W0072.americas.hpqcorp.net>
To: "W3 Work Group" <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
I've applied the changes from this email. See:
 
http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/drafts/note/#usability-testing
 
and other mentioned sections.
 
Maritza, I found the Tiny Fingers reference in this email. Please ignore
the earlier email asking for this reference.
 
Tyler


________________________________

	From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Maritza Johnson
	Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 6:05 AM
	To: W3 Work Group
	Subject: Re: comments on use-cases
	
	

	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
organizations.

	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. 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).


	Reference for "lo-fi prototyping" in 10.3:
	
	Tiny Fingers
	Prototyping for tiny fingers; M. Rettig: Communications of the
ACM , April, Vol.37,No.4.; 1994.


	2. +1 to Robert Y's suggestion to reword 2.2 but for a different
reason

	Current: ... what security information a user requires to
proceed safely ...
	Suggestion: ... what security information is relevant to the
user accomplishing their current task (or achieving their current goals)
safely ...
	
	Reason: Continuing with my argument from the f2f about the
necessary security information being specific to both the current user
and their current task, each of them "requires" different things, or may
not require, but rather would prefer to know/see, or would like to
know/see certain things. I don't _need_ to know the content on this page
has not been modified, but I'd like to know that. 


	3. Typo in 10.3 
	Last paragraph, "usbility" (it's right in the middle of the
paragraph,'find' will be better than trying to describe where it is :)
	


	
	

	I'm happy with the wording in Section 10.1, after picking
through it at the last F2F.


	- Maritza Johnson

	http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~maritzaj/
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2007 22:43:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 February 2008 03:52:46 GMT