Preparing for Testing and testing a Prototype
Boling and Frick bring up three important questions right off the bat—is the instruction effective, are the students satisfied, and is the product usable? Next, they provide a student learning chart that gives a before and after of the student to see if learning has occurred. They move on to what needs to be done to test the prototype by first teaching it the old fashioned way and finding those more knowledgeable to see if the beginning information is correct. Moving on, creating a paper prototype, or layout of what you want the site to look like, then testing. If the learner can’t figure out the site on paper, there isn’t much of a chance once there are more interactions in a live site. Frick and Boling also incorporate the 5 principles of design when designing the website. Then, they come to assessment, carefully not using the word test…assessment doesn’t have to be a test as much as a show and tell. Finally, they talk about the Big Three—all starting with the word authentic. What would be the point of testing something that wouldn’t have authentic outcomes?
I think the second two questions directly relate to the first—wouldn’t you use satisfaction and usability to measure whether or not the instruction was effective? This lends itself nicely to the next step of seeing the before and after of a student. Seems like common sense, that if the student didn’t know the information before, but they do now, then the instruction as at least partially effective, or at least it wasn’t damaging to the student who learned on their own. It also seems like common sense to me to layout what you want your site to look like prior to starting the design. It would be comparable to making a cake that you have not followed any sort of recipe for and then hoping it comes out correctly. Not likely, because even if you have baked a cake before, and now do it from memory, it still is a recipe.
I agree with the benefits of computer prototyping, more so than paper prototyping for the testing phase. I compare it to reading about how to ride a bike and then actually riding it…not really effective until it is really tried in a situation.
Finally, I really liked the cartoons toward the end. It gave a light air to the topic and lets us see what they envision as a prototype without having to just sit and read it. The graphics make it more engaging.
Thanks, Kristen. I appreciate your recipe analogy. Frick & Boling are laying out a basic recipe and as novice chefs we'd be wise to follow their lead, at least for the first few tries at cake baking. I expect that variations on the theme will come as we put this into practice in the real world.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part I find myself in the problematic position of not having face-to-face contact with any of the potential learners. Certainly I could do paper prototyping with a selected sample not part of my target audience--I guess any adult can give useful information about usability. But I wonder if anyone has developed a way to "paper" prototype electronically? I'm exploring the Balsamiq tool (produces hand-drawn) page mockups you can share digitally to see if that would be useful.
A "distance, draft-level" test (awkward name but ...) is something Frick and Boling may need to consider for their coverage of prototyping to be complete.
I agree that paper prototypes cannot 100% mirror a Web site, a computer application or a bicycle when you learn how to ride it; but technically, you can still create a 'paper model' for the physical product (i.e. a fake bike) when it does not involved with computer screens. Years ago I was a 'testee' when my friends at Human-Computer Interaction were testing one of the product they designed - a ticket machine or something. I felt it was useful to concentrate on the general design rather than all details to find out if general design and functions meets the expectations of target audience
ReplyDeleteKristen,
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the need for a computer prototype. I am not as convinced on the need for a paper prototype. I can see a few benefits as far as mocking up graphics without completely designing a website, but the entire process seems like additional work when the ID will be creating a computer prototype as well.
I also enjoyed the cartoons at the end!
~Mikah
Kristen and Mikah - I also agree that computer prototyping is more important than paper prototyping. Many of my clients don't even see the need for testing computer prototypes with a target audience, so realistically I don't think I could convince them to do a paper prototype as well. However, I like the fact that paper prototypes are so rough and there's no mistaking them for a final product. I think the reading's point that subjects are sometimes hesitant to offer constructive feedback when the product looks too polished and finalized is a valid one. If you skip the paper prototype how do you create a computer prototype quickly that is robust enough to elicit helpful feedback?
ReplyDelete