- From: Maritza Johnson <maritzaj@cs.columbia.edu>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:15:03 -0500
- To: W3C WSC Public <public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Ian Fette <ifette@google.com>
My original thought on this issue wasn't that we would recommend usability evaluation for every change a developer makes as a result of our other recommendations, but I was thinking more in terms of a developer implementing the larger recommendations we were making where a concrete implementation isn't specified in our document. But after the discussion at the F2F, I guess we might need to address both cases. Reply Clipped from Ian's email on ACTION-330: > Hence, my main concern is that we are going to require usability > testing for conformance, and the way the test is constructed will > be the primary factor in whether an implementation appears > "usable". As such, I think we would have to lay out very clear > guidelines on how the usability testing should be done (basically > specifying the experimental design), which seems fraught with peril > given how different implementations might be and might become over > time, or we would have to take a huge leap of faith. Personally, my > preference would be to avoid requiring [in the MUST sense] > usability testing for conformance in general, and instead come up > with good guidelines for how a usability test SHOULD be conducted > to address these issues. Point taken. I agree that the design of a study can have a strong effect on the outcome, and I also agree that it would be a huge task to attempt to design a study for each of our recommendations and for every possible way it might be implemented. But I also think we should specify usability requirements for anything we recommend where the implementation can be left to interpretation. My choice of words so far may have distracted from the point I was trying to make -- we should give usability requirements, which doesn't necessarily imply we provide a user study design for proving the usability requirements are met. I'm not sure this issue can be fully addressed until: 1) We've decided what recommendations we're making. 2) We have conducted some of our own usability evaluations. Having the final set of recommendations will be useful because we can go through the finished document and identify where we need to specify usability requirements. Some started to do this at the F2F, so we might talk about either doing this in one shot, or doing it for the existing text and incrementally as new text is added. Waiting until we complete some of our own user studies will be useful because each one will be an exercise in specifying usability requirements. They're what we'll be testing, so we can't run a study without doing that first anyway. I imagine the usability requirements will be inspired mostly by our charter, what we know of the status quo, and prior usability studies. I can't remember our group ever talking about usability requirements specifically -- maybe we should start by using some of the examples people pointed out in the F2F? -- Maritza
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 17:15:30 UTC