Fast and Cheap User Testing
Sara Sprenkle, 2008/09/11 12:53
Read the article Fast, Cheap, and Good: Yes, You Can Have It All and and include the following information in a comment:
- On a scale of 0 to 9, your interest in this paper
- Summarize the three main ideas of the paper, briefly
- How does this paper relate to our class?
- At least one question for class discussion
Discussion
My interest in this paper was a 7. I was interested in reading a little more about the use of modeling and prototyping during designing after discussing the rejection of this method in everyday life, like outlining a paper.
The three main ideas of this paper were that a design that has good usability must “change the world”, the users must be involved in the testing of usability, and fast and cheap prototypes of the design are the main part of testing usability, unless it is a more important project then its usability should be studied annually. As a class on human and computer interaction, we have been discussing the importance of usable interfaces on software and various products. We have observed how iPods and the iPhone have changed the world. This paper also reiterates the importance of the involvement of users in the testing of the design, a topic that we constantly return to in class. Our last reading assignment also touched on the use of models as a good way to complete cheap and quick tests that can be done many times to evaluate the usability of a design.
I would think that an important project should not just be tested yearly but that small tests could be performed during the year and at the end of the year a larger study could be done to bring all of those tests together. So my question is, if you only have to choose one of the three studies mentioned won’t something possibly be overlooked?
I would give this paper a 6 for interest level. It left me wanting to know more, but not in a good way. It seemed the author was presenting his side of the story but leaving out proof of his validity.
For me, the three main ideas of this paper were 1)User testing can be fast, cheap, and good 2)For everyday design projects fast and cheap are the best methods 3) For long-term project designers should consider more expensive, thorough testing.
This paper relates to our class in that it drives home iterative design, but suggests different varieties this iterative process might take. The OMS paper discussed a more expensive approach that would probably relate more to the “independent review,” “competitive study,” and “benchmark study.” Whereas the “quick and dirty” methods described at the beginning would be something feasible that Nicole and I could use when designing our own projects.
What does a “paper prototype” look like? What would it cost to make?