From: Eduardo Mercovich <eduardo@mercovich.net>
To: orgmode list <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
Subject: Just sharing another orgmode use: usability tests
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:08:16 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mv99ypxr.fsf@biologica.mercovich.net> (raw)
Dear all.
We all know that emacs+orgmode are not tools, but meta-tools. This
is why it can be so daunting at first(*1) and totally awesome in
the long run. ;)
This mail is just to share with you another great application of
orgmode: usability tests.
For those of you who never experienced it yet, a usability test is
basically a critical observation of certain people (Users) doing
certain things (tasks) in a particular setting (context). And
critical means that there are some defined things that you look
specifically to, like task success of fail (what means "success"
is previously defined), times, User observations, navigation, etc.
During a test there is
+ a User (usually one, but in certain specific cases can be more),
+ a Facilitator (who cares for the User and ensures that the
experimental protocol is followed as it should) and
+ Observers (who takes notes of these defined criteria and many
other observations).
Test notes are usually comprised of task start and stop time,
results (succes, failure or so-so), User quotes, navigation steps,
intermediate steps results, Observer's hypothesis to be reviewed,
etc. That is, the prescribed issues, plus any other notable fact.
In some specific tools, like the industry standard setting Morae
(https://www.techsmith.com/morae.html, US$ 1,995) you can take
those notes with relative easy, because it automates the time
counting and you can set codes (usually one letter) to specify the
type of observation. For example, q for 'user quote' or v for
'video' (something interesting to review after the test) or n for
navigation, and so on.
Handwrited notes are great because of their fluidity, except that
is hard to count times (you can look at an external chronometer,
of course, but it takes your attention away from the User) and in
my case, my handwriting is fast but so bad that I can hardly read
it after. ;)
And here comes orgmode.
In my last test I finally tried to use orgmode for this (why not,
I use it for almost any other important task) and the results
where impressive, even in the 1st try, even without any
customization or heavy data metabolism after.
What do we have out of the box:
+ integration of script and notes (I was the Facilitator, but took
notes also) so I can read the user script and take notes
integrated with each task and context. Each task is a heading, and
notes are directly inside it with...
+ ... task results easily annotated, using the task state (TODO in
red for failure, ENCURSO in brown for so-so and DONE in green for
success).
+ time stamping, not only start and end, but anything in between
too.
+ abbreviations allowed me to enter notes faster (chording may
help to do it faster even, but I still don't use it).
+ regular expression highlighting makes incredibly sweet to review
the notes. For example, I use !! to mark something important and
!!! for critical, so those go for line highlighting with yellow
and red background respectively, and user quotes are between ", so
those get separated from the normal text too.
What I believe could be easely done with a bit of work:
+ automatic task clocking, including automated time stamping of
every observation.
+ automatic recollection of User quotes, like "let's see everyhing
that Users said in task X".
+ observation tagging (there are repeating patterns of use or
interaction problems or sources that you could cath on the fly, so
any observation could be related to those common issues).
+ automatic filling of User/task-results-and-time matrix (the most
fundamental metric of usability tests).
In brief: orgmode is great for usability studies. :D
While I don't know if any of you will find these observations
useful, I'm sure you all enjoy knowing that this incredible
meta-tool many of you created and still make it grow has found
another great use.
Have a great orgmoding time... :)
*1: Yes, I know, not for us on this list but yes for many people
that's used to more specific, maket-centered tools. ;)
--
eduardo mercovich
Donde se cruzan tus talentos
con las necesidades del mundo,
ahí está tu vocación.
(Anónimo)
next reply other threads:[~2017-06-15 20:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-15 20:08 Eduardo Mercovich [this message]
2017-08-02 15:03 ` Just sharing another orgmode use: usability tests Karl Voit
2017-08-03 1:26 ` Eduardo Mercovich
[not found] <8d18331fde644aa79d32d60d720a8d10@HE1PR01MB1898.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
2017-06-16 8:25 ` Eric S Fraga
2017-06-16 14:19 ` Eduardo Mercovich
[not found] ` <e24c85840a894ce9bbe7c0b56cfc1d53@HE1PR01MB1898.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
2017-06-17 13:37 ` Eric S Fraga
2017-06-18 22:21 ` Eduardo Mercovich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87mv99ypxr.fsf@biologica.mercovich.net \
--to=eduardo@mercovich.net \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).