From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eduardo Mercovich Subject: Just sharing another orgmode use: usability tests Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:08:16 -0300 Message-ID: <87mv99ypxr.fsf@biologica.mercovich.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56036) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dLb45-0006Nj-J6 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:08:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dLb42-0000aA-Ca for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:08:25 -0400 Received: from mail-qt0-x229.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::229]:33900) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dLb42-0000Ye-6U for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 16:08:22 -0400 Received: by mail-qt0-x229.google.com with SMTP id c10so35429096qtd.1 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 13:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([186.18.219.52]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a203sm126695qkg.20.2017.06.15.13.08.18 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Jun 2017 13:08:18 -0700 (PDT) List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" To: orgmode list 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)