Re: Interactive guide for new users

[Eduardo Mercovich]

Hi Philip.

[...]

> > Also, there should be a way to go back (not included in this rough
> > draft).

> Even with the ability to skip and go back, I still think that a total
> newcomer won't be able to gain a lot from options like these. Maybe I'm
> just bad, but in my case, I would skim over the text or wouldn't be too
> interested in reading it in detail, to imagine what the differences
> would be like. If anything, a visualisation would be needed. For example
> in a separate window.

I may think or not like you, but in this case it doesn't matter so much
what we think, but rather what the expected users do.

So I propose we should measure it with a prototype and a usability test.

Than is, we don't need to really do it, just prototype (simulate) it and
observe some Users using it. After the test we can probe for the reasons
if the observed behaviour. 

[...]

> > Testing with users is one of my specialties, I would happily make a
> > testing protocol before making the design, tests and development. In a
> > way, it is like TDD, but with interaction design...

> I'm not sure we're talking about the same testing here? I had more of a
> "playground" like approach, where you can immediately or quickly see
> what this option means, but I don't know if that's what you had in mind
> too.

The test I had in mind is the traditional usability test: we draw (even
with text) the proposed screens, have people use them (a good sample
qualitatively speaking, 5 to 7 is good to start), clear criteria for
observations, and see what they understand and value from what they do. 

As was said before, in the post-tasks interview, we can go deeper to
understand what they understood and how they made their choices. 

Based on that, we can make our design (*1) choices. :)

Best...


(*1): design not as visual design, but as "a process that gives form". 
--
eduardo mercovich

Donde se cruzan tus talentos 
con las necesidades del mundo, 
ahí está tu vocación. 
(Anónimo)