Better Software - January 2008 - (Page 73) Figure 2: Process documentation after user-centered design Step 2: Information Analysis and Actions With information gathering complete, we saw two consistent patterns emerging in the results we obtained: 1. To users, the ePDQ process seemed irrelevant, difficult, and cumbersome. 2. EPDQ was not being communicated or supported as a priority. After communicating these findings, our manager decided that we would tackle the first issue while he addressed the second one with his own manager and counterparts. for accessing information. If the users can easily find the information they are seeking, they may be more inclined to use it and become less discouraged. To determine accessibility preferences, we conducted a usability test in which we presented users with three different mock-ups to access process information. We wanted to refrain from having the actual content of the mock-ups subjected to testing—the content of the process documents was a different issue, to be addressed a little later—so our focus here was just on accessibility. With that in mind, we used the same, non-processspecific content for all three mock-ups. The mock-ups were implemented as: document’s revision log and table of contents. CASE 2: SEVERAL SMALLER DOCUMENTS • Content was divided among different guidelines, procedures, work instructions, etc., reducing overall page count per document. • The first thing a user sees is the document’s purpose statement. CASE 3: WEB PAGE • All information was included in one large, standalone Web page, which was then chunked into smaller modules. • The first thing a user sees is a preview of each module’s content containing hyperlinks to the applicable information. Participation in the usability test was even more successful than anticipated, with more than 85 percent of the soft73 Step 3: Usability Testing Our approach to remedy the “difficult and cumbersome” complaints surrounding the accessibility of ePDQ process documentation was first to determine ePDQ users’ own preferences CASE 1: ONE ALL INCLUSIVE DOCUMENT (SAME AS EPDQ VERSION 1.0) • All information was included in a large, standalone document that mimicked a booklet with chapters. • The first thing a user sees is the www.StickyMinds.com JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2008 BETTER SOFTWARE http://www.StickyMinds.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.