What methods we did use:
At the beginning we created project plan, which included the initial data we had about the client, as well as our assumption and plans for the next stages. After that we used contextual inquiry methods to conduct the interview with our client. This way we got the necessary data to start the analyzing phase. For the analysis we used affinity diagrams. We created personas and work models. Finally we made out prototype, and in the process of pluralistic walkthrough we evaluated it with the client. Apart from that, in the end we did heuristic evaluation, to reveal possible, yet undiscovered faults. All the steps were done together, during meetings or over the Internet, so the workload was divided equally.
What was good:
I was really pleased when the client said she liked our prototype very much. She was emphasizing its simplicity, so it means we achieved our main goal - to keep it simple and intuitive. Our client was having no trouble with performing the actions.
What we could have done better:
I have the feeling that our end user did not have much influence on the final outlook of our prototype. Although the reason why we designed the prototype on our own was that it was said it should be as similar to the paper based one as possible, we actually made that assumption on our own and didn't discuss it with the client beforehand. Apart from that, there were also some things not present in the paper version, which we designed without consultation with the client. She also wasn't sure about many things, so in the end many of choices were made by us. We didn't encourage the user enough to share her ideas with us, to give more feedback and suggestions.
I think the reason was also that there were not many opportunities to meet with the client; it was also hard to conduct a real contextual inquiry, as we were not real company members, and the client was not really interested in buying the product - it was us who were interested in their help; so we were ofter discouraged to disturb too much in their work.
What I have learned:
First of all I got to know that there are many methods available for designing applications in user-centered way; some of them would even look silly for me (e.g. PICTIVE), and I was surprised first by the fact that they are actually used, and secondly that they are effective. It just seems that the most obvious solutions are the hardest to notice and consider. I am also glad to have learnt the idea of contextual interview, which again being so simple, gives such a good tool for understanding what are the user's needs. In case of complicated systems I think often it's the only way to understand the requirements well, otherwise our clients would have to be specialists themselves, able to write a detailed specification of what they need. But this is almost never the case.
Self-evaluation:
As all three of us did our best, and the work was divided equally, I think we all deserve 5's.
At the beginning we created project plan, which included the initial data we had about the client, as well as our assumption and plans for the next stages. After that we used contextual inquiry methods to conduct the interview with our client. This way we got the necessary data to start the analyzing phase. For the analysis we used affinity diagrams. We created personas and work models. Finally we made out prototype, and in the process of pluralistic walkthrough we evaluated it with the client. Apart from that, in the end we did heuristic evaluation, to reveal possible, yet undiscovered faults. All the steps were done together, during meetings or over the Internet, so the workload was divided equally.
What was good:
I was really pleased when the client said she liked our prototype very much. She was emphasizing its simplicity, so it means we achieved our main goal - to keep it simple and intuitive. Our client was having no trouble with performing the actions.
What we could have done better:
I have the feeling that our end user did not have much influence on the final outlook of our prototype. Although the reason why we designed the prototype on our own was that it was said it should be as similar to the paper based one as possible, we actually made that assumption on our own and didn't discuss it with the client beforehand. Apart from that, there were also some things not present in the paper version, which we designed without consultation with the client. She also wasn't sure about many things, so in the end many of choices were made by us. We didn't encourage the user enough to share her ideas with us, to give more feedback and suggestions.
I think the reason was also that there were not many opportunities to meet with the client; it was also hard to conduct a real contextual inquiry, as we were not real company members, and the client was not really interested in buying the product - it was us who were interested in their help; so we were ofter discouraged to disturb too much in their work.
What I have learned:
First of all I got to know that there are many methods available for designing applications in user-centered way; some of them would even look silly for me (e.g. PICTIVE), and I was surprised first by the fact that they are actually used, and secondly that they are effective. It just seems that the most obvious solutions are the hardest to notice and consider. I am also glad to have learnt the idea of contextual interview, which again being so simple, gives such a good tool for understanding what are the user's needs. In case of complicated systems I think often it's the only way to understand the requirements well, otherwise our clients would have to be specialists themselves, able to write a detailed specification of what they need. But this is almost never the case.
Self-evaluation:
As all three of us did our best, and the work was divided equally, I think we all deserve 5's.
No comments:
Post a Comment