UCD Process Diagram [updated]

21 Jun 2007 - 4:18pm
7 years ago
5 replies
1442 reads
tdellaringa
2006

Thanks to lots of really excellent feedback, I've made quite a few revisions
to the original document. The updated version is here:

http://www.pixelmech.com/rev2/UCDinMSF.pdf

Just a quick summary of the feedback/changes:

The main shift I made was in response to Peter Boersma who shared his
presentation on how he came up with a UX process to fit into their software
development process (RUP/UCD mix). His key was to show how he came about his
and show you how to do it yourself. So I've tried to work the UX into the
Microsoft Solutions Framework process that we have to use. Like RUP, MSF
accounts for UX a little, but not enough. If you are interested (I highly
suggest checking out, great work) you can see his stuff at:

http://www.peterboersma.com/blog/2005/03/my-ia-summit-presentation-stux_10.html

Jim Brennsteiner sent me his MAPUEx Framework poster, which was helpful.

Chauncey made some good suggestions, including extending prototyping into
the previous phase (now renamed), which I did, suggested I add competitive
analysis, suggested changing 'user research' to 'user and task analysis'
which I liked, since I was missing task analysis too, and suggested the
problem definition as well.

Fred Leise gave me the heads up I should really add in content creation
(easily and tragically overlooked!) as well as content migration.

Other changes I made were to have a symbol for optional vs. manditory
documents/activities (instead of the dot) and to line up activities and
deliverables horizontally where they flow together (not sure if I want to
make cross-disciplinary matches or not). Added a shape for pre-existing
documents at the beginning of a project - such as user research data that
exists for a site going into redesign.

The design inspiration came from Todd Warfel's design process diagram,
although I have added quite a bit.

Again, the updated version is now here:

http://www.pixelmech.com/rev2/UCDinMSF.pdf

Again, I would still love to hear any comments. I am still not sure about
many things - what level of detail to go to, should I hook up inputs and
deliverables (or leave it higher level), do I have all I need, etc.

Thanks!

Tom

Comments

22 Jun 2007 - 8:05am
tdellaringa
2006

On 6/21/07, Keith_Karn <kkarn at frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> Tom -
> Nice chart. One question, why do you show the only usability test after
> launch? I would never think of testing after launch except for maybe
> collecting data from real customers using the real product at that
> point.

Thanks Keith. Actually, the testing goes all the way through the process -
maybe I didn't explain that well. The line for "usability evaluation" is
testing or evaluation of any sort. So all through developing and stabilizing
any sort of testing can and should be done, whether it's a quick paper test
or a full blown out usability session.

I forget who mentioned that revision to me, I accidentally left it out, but
I liked the idea of broadening the idea, because it's not always just a
usability test session per se. It could be a heuristic evaluation or
something else besides a formal test. And of course, it's an iterative
process.

Tom

23 Jun 2007 - 8:52pm
natekendrick
2005

Questions
- Larger projects tend to have a Marketing Req, Biz Req, and Func
Req as separate deliverables.
- Where is User Research? Need that for Personas/Scenarios
- Where are User Flows (not use cases)?
- How can user/task analysis start before Personas/Scenarios? seems
like that analysis is post Personas/User Flows
- Re-Vision and Re-Scope could be a step after Personas > Scenarios
> User Flows -- sorta like a Design Direction/Key Findings/Themes
document.
- Where is Mental Modeling?
- Comp Analysis is optional?
- Where is Heuristic Review?
- Brand/Visual Guidelines before Visual Comps? I'm assuming it is
probably review of existing offline/online standards.
- Visual Comps seem to appear earlier than in my anecdotal
experience - maybe you can break vis design out into more segments...
one segment which is visual exploration is early in the process.
- Site map is optional?

On Jun 22, 2007, at 6:05 AM, Tom Dell'Aringa wrote:

> On 6/21/07, Keith_Karn <kkarn at frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>
>> Tom -
>> Nice chart. One question, why do you show the only usability test
>> after
>> launch? I would never think of testing after launch except for maybe
>> collecting data from real customers using the real product at that
>> point.
>
>
> Thanks Keith. Actually, the testing goes all the way through the
> process -
> maybe I didn't explain that well. The line for "usability
> evaluation" is
> testing or evaluation of any sort. So all through developing and
> stabilizing
> any sort of testing can and should be done, whether it's a quick
> paper test
> or a full blown out usability session.
>
> I forget who mentioned that revision to me, I accidentally left it
> out, but
> I liked the idea of broadening the idea, because it's not always
> just a
> usability test session per se. It could be a heuristic evaluation or
> something else besides a formal test. And of course, it's an iterative
> process.
>
> Tom
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

23 Jun 2007 - 8:56pm
natekendrick
2005

On Jun 21, 2007, at 2:18 PM, Tom Dell'Aringa wrote:

> Chauncey made some good suggestions, including extending
> prototyping into
> the previous phase (now renamed), which I did, suggested I add
> competitive
> analysis, suggested changing 'user research' to 'user and task
> analysis'
> which I liked, since I was missing task analysis too, and suggested
> the
> problem definition as well.

Sorry missed this item - I'd argue that user research is the
researcher's act of interviewing and gathering qualitative data, and
the user analysis is the researcher's activity to create the findings
document, and the task analysis is the Information architect's
activity to create an IA and the interaction designer's activity to
create user flows.

25 Jun 2007 - 8:22am
tdellaringa
2006

On 6/23/07, Nathan Kendrick <natekendrick at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Questions
> - Larger projects tend to have a Marketing Req, Biz Req, and Func Req as
> separate deliverables.

In identification I have both Biz reqs and a Func. Spec. Under Visual info &
design, there is the brand and visual guidelines, where I would expect
marketing input relating to those items. I'm not sure what other marketing
input that doesn't go into the those three documents would be necessary. I
want less documentation if possible, than more. But I'd be glad to hear your
thoughts.

- Where is User Research? Need that for Personas/Scenarios

"User and Task analysis" is where user research falls. Maybe it should read
user research and task analysis.

- Where are User Flows (not use cases)?

Flows... been waffling on that one. I've rarely if ever been able to
actually have time to sit down and really do flows. How useful do you all
find them? How often do you use them? Where would you put them in the
diagram? If I do put it in, it will be an optional item, unless someone
convinces me otherwise :)

- How can user/task analysis start before Personas/Scenarios? seems
> like that analysis is post Personas/User Flows

Well part of it is user research, so that would be first, which is used in
making personas/scenarios. Then note that user and task analysis goes longer
than personas and into scenarios, meaning that data is used in making those
items. How would you restructure it?

- Re-Vision and Re-Scope could be a step after Personas > Scenarios

I don't think I want to put that on there as a specific item, but we'd
definitely be open to adjusting our vision/scope statement if need be at
that point.

- Where is Mental Modeling?

In the user's head? (just kidding) Again, I would put that as part of user
and task analysis. I don't want to have to list every single detail, or the
document becomes cluttered and hard to work with.

- Comp Analysis is optional?

Yes, for us. Many of the projects we'll do are redesigns. A CA may have
already been done and is available, plus - of our 80+ sites they are all
very similar and have a small group of competitors. Even so, my preference
would almost always be to still do at least a light CA. However, I know we
have lots of work to do in a short time, so there has to be some flexibility
in the process.

- Where is Heuristic Review?

A heuristic eval would fall under usability evaluation. Again, one tool of
many that falls under a category.

- Brand/Visual Guidelines before Visual Comps? I'm assuming it is
> probably review of existing offline/online standards.

Yes. The style guide or design standard guide is the document that comes
after the visuals and documents the design and style of the project. I would
expect this to be input from our marketing people.

- Visual Comps seem to appear earlier than in my anecdotal
> experience - maybe you can break vis design out into more segments...
> one segment which is visual exploration is early in the process.

Yeah, how about moving brand and vis guidelines back more and extending vis
comps back into planning a bit?

- Site map is optional?

Yes, it may exist already, in which case it would only be updated. But in
that case you'd still have one... I'll make that not optional.

Thank you for the feedback! Look forward to any responses.

Tom

25 Jun 2007 - 8:27am
tdellaringa
2006

On 6/23/07, Nathan Kendrick <natekendrick at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry missed this item - I'd argue that user research is the
> researcher's act of interviewing and gathering qualitative data, and
> the user analysis is the researcher's activity to create the findings
> document, and the task analysis is the Information architect's
> activity to create an IA and the interaction designer's activity to
> create user flows.

You are just merely separating out individual items within that whole
section. I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible for clarity. If I list
every single activity that goes on, this is going to get really cluttered.
It's more of a high level view trying to keep the whole in mind.

So under prototyping, I have not listed every type of prototype we could or
might do. Under user eval, it could be all kinds of activities. It's less
important (To me) to list each one and more important just to say, "during
this time we're doing all kinds of usability evaluations".

However, I am doing the IA one-sheeters as well, which will break out all
activities. So I will have user interviews vs. gathering quantitative data,
and task analysis all separated out in that way.

Tom

Syndicate content Get the feed