Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes

Hi Alistar
We had an note on user testing. we ran into some copyright questions but we will get it published soon. We completely need to recommend what is included in user testing - but we were hesitant to make that a normative definition.
 

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:51:56 +0200 Alastair Campbell<acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote ---- 

      > The resolution implication is different to what was discussed. We CAN NOT pass the resolution if this implication does not allow for exceptions via user testing  
  
 I had assumed that it applied to exceptions.
  
 Even if you didn’t, that is how it would apply in practice as otherwise you would have to run usability testing anytime you *might* need to use an exception.
  
 In the case of the Plain Language SC, the effect is that you have to use the active voice unless you are prepared to run usability testing. 
  
 And that doesn’t even get into the issues of running a good session to prove a particular point. 
 E.g. You can’t ask a participant whether they understand the passive voice version, you need to ask them to complete a task that requires that they understand the passive voice in that instance. Then you need to work out if it was the text or other factors of the interface that mattered, and whether you have representative participants, and how many people is enough…
  
 -Alastair