[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Minutes.

Usability Team meeting

Below are minutes from today's meeting. I thought it was a very informative session. The minutes are kind of long, mainly because I want to make sure I'm getting all the details down! Feel free to add/correct as needed. Bruce and Barb, see point 3.C especially. Bracketed items indicate post-meeting questions/ideas.

  1. Report on meeting with Campus Web Committee (CWC) 12.16.02 and preview of new template: All received copies of the handout from Laura and Kathy's meeting with CWC and a handout showing prototypes of the new template for page levels 1-4. The CWC was fine with the personnel, timetable, and projected costs, and has agreed to match the CSIDP funds of $350.
  2. Overview of testing plan, schedule, budget: The group reviewed the schedule grid. Jan-March 03 will be the most demanding time in terms of setting up the framework for testing. The limited budget means that we will have to work with equipment currently available at UMD (perhaps we can come up with an additional $100-200 if a crucial piece of software/equipment is needed).
  3. Assigning preliminary tasks: Various team members agreed to focus as follows [although everybody is encouraged to add info/expertise where it fits in, and/or to help with tasks that they would like to learn more about]:
    1. Apply for IRB clearance: Jo and Kathy will draft. [Schedule goal = draft by 01.10.03]
    2. Apply to VDIL: Craig will draft. [Schedule goal = draft by 01.10.03]
    3. Coordinate equipment and room: Barb and Bruce will draft an equipment list/technical plan and specify criteria that the locations need to meet. [Schedule goal = ? What works for you two - is the week after Tech Camp feasible?]
    4. We will probably link two UMD locations: a testing room (where the evaluator is working) and a remote location that we can use as a viewing room (so that the entire team isn't crowded around the evaluator). The ideal outcome would be to have (a) a visual record of the evaluator's behaviors; (b) an audio record of the evaluator's think-aloud responses; and (c) a record of the computer's output (i.e., what pages the evaluator visits and in what sequence).
    5. Bruce offered ideas about how current UMD equipment (e.g., Polycom system) could capture (a-c) so that we have an archive of all of them. [Question: will the archives be digital? tape? Both?] We would still run into some issues when trying to synchronize them, unless we get some (expensive?) synchronization software. [Bruce: Is this correct? How much does it cost? I might be able to get a Chancellor's Small Grant for it.] The main manual task to be done during the actual session is logging, i.e., noting exactly when the evaluator starts and finishes each task.
    6. Craig suggested that we transcribe as little as possible (manually) during the actual test. Jo noted that if we have an recorded archive, transcription can be done later as needed/wanted. Barb recommended having an observer complete a *simple* outline or checklist while observing the evaluator. She has used this method when having users test software.
      [I'm inferring from all this that three tasks will need to be done in the testing room: (1) logging, (2) taking general notes as an observer, and (3) miscellaneous facilitating. We'll need to figure out if one person can do all three things, or if we'll need more than one. We don't want the testing room to get too crowded.]
    7. Formulate test goals: This is our missing link right now. We have some unanalyzed data from the online web survey. Jo and Kathy will start looking for patterns/groupings of problems in the data. Even if we identify problem areas, though, Bruce and Barb emphasized that it is still CWC's job to approve them as test goals. Bruce recommended additional visits (not emails) to CWC to work with them about setting test goals. While CWC's test goals will probably focus on finding information, Kathy reported that CWC is also sensitive to the site's tone (e.g., as conveyed through use of images). Jo suggested that we could work in some open-ended or Likert-scale questions in the post-interview if CWC wants us to explore these issues.
  4. Ideas about subject recruitment: Group was referred to Laura's email of 12.18.02, which offers several initial ideas about this.
  5. Student participation in testing team: Jo, Craig, and Kathy will consider ways that students might help with and/or learn from this project.

 

LLC logo © 1998-2024 Laura L. Carlson
Email:
Department: Information Technology Systems and Services, University of Minnesota Duluth
Document Last Modified: 2002
Page URL: http:// www.d.umn.edu /~lcarlson/testing/planning/meeting_minutes_12_18_02.html

The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.