Success Criteria and the typical author

My action item was to review the document and identify the 
checkpoints that required usability-type evaluations to determine 
compliance.

The proposal is to create a set of success criteria that could be 
integrated into a corporate usability testing cycle. These success 
criteria would be statements about the expected behavior of the 
typical user of the tool given that the tool is designed according to 
the guideline.

In reviewing the guidelines it is clear that all the checkpoints in 
Guideline 3 and 4 fit into this category. Both guidelines deal with 
guiding and persuading the author to do "the right thing." This is 
not a hard science. How this is done varies greatly from tool to 
tool. We cannot give concrete instructions that would apply to the 
range of authoring tools. We need to take the approach of saying to 
the developer " You know your tool. You know your target user. In a 
way that works with your tool and your user group persuade your 
typical user to do these things. Here are some suggestions on how 
this can be done."

I propose that for the success criteria for guideline 3 and 4 we add 
a class of success criteria that is a statement about the expected 
behavior of the typical author using the tool. We can structure the 
document so that these can be pulled out and added to a corporate 
usability rubric.

Thoughts or suggestions?

Jutta
--

Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 10:01:04 UTC