Considering our resources, ethos and cumulative experience, I feel that usability testing is a no-go. I don't believe we could maintain the control that the author emphasizes. Setting up and maintaining "laboratory-like conditions" is probably beyond our reach and these "casual visitors" wouldn't respect/trust us, mere first year students at KTH, enough to let us strictly control them.
Our scenarios and personas would come in handy if we would like to use predictive evaluation. The question is if we trust our own analysis and knowledge of the users. Users are generally not involved in the process and if we base our product after false assumptions, the end user might be sorely dissapointed.
Quick and dirty and field studies appear to have alot in common, the major difference seems to be that quick and dirty lives up to its name, it's a much more fast and sloppy evaluation. I feel that we still need to learn more about our potential users. A lot of information can be gained by not only talking to the them, but also by observing how they use products and behave (something we haven't done). I think we should use one (or both?) of these two evaluations, since they wouldn't drain our nonexistant resources while also allowing us to get more interaction and thereby experience with the users. These evaluation paradigms simply seem to fit us and our project more than the other two.
So the questions I want to discuss are:
- Which evaluation paradigm do you think suits our project the best?
- Are there any differences between the last two evaluation paradigms that I've missed?
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar