Testing movies
Leave a CommentThe final versions of the testing movies can be found in this power point. I understood from the viewings during the final presentation that some people believed that some clips were shown by accident, multiple time, this was not the case. Some categories were not mutually exclusive and thus required repeated viewings or in some cases certain portions of the clips, not the entire clip were shown multiple times. The time coding sheet I uploaded details how I divided up the movies. The “Time coding of raw video” entry goes into a more detailed explanation. Below is a power point containing the linked movies.
Review of the power point
Since I could not make it in class for the work session, I felt I had to make it up by reviewing some work that I could do from home, I picked the power point. I found the latest version and reviewed it for mistakes. Luckily, before the presentation, I found a broken link, some continuity issues, and some points to be clarified. All that I did is detailed in the word document below.Improvements to ppt
Time coding of raw video
I was given the task of editing the video that was recorded during the testing. To begin, I deleted all the useless videos, and then I began viewing and creating time codes for the following categories: Introduction Not Useful, Language Unclear, Confusing Navigation, How to get started ineffective, Forms Unclear. The following link contains the time codes.
I also created title sheets to match the PowerPoint presentation. Movie maker was used to create the movies.
Analysis of LUG movie files
General movie file information:
file type: WMV
size: 1.1 MB, 2.4 MB, 2.7 MB, 2.4 MB, 4MB, 4.8 MB
Average: 2.9 MB
length total: 510 seconds
average: 00:13:08
format: Windows Media Audio 9 Standard, Stereo, 44.100 kHz
WMV Image Codec, 320 x 240, Millions
fps: 29.99
What can be improved?
Standard transitions and fades, both time and type
Improved title screen, it’s blah.
Indepth info is located here:
categories_lug.txt
Terminology Jeopardy
The Editing/Reporting Team faced off against the Sponsor Management Team in a game of Web Design Terminology Jeopardy. Although the SM Team was outnumbered, each individual ER Team member scored more points. Allison was there in spirit, cheering us on.
Web site inventory (more detailed)
Dr. Barker suggested making a more detailed Web site inventory sheet of the links on the ORS Web site. The same three people divided up the links and went to work on this task. The more detailed descriptions are as follows:
Example:
Home – Home – About – ORS — Tester Tested eRraider Admin. Ext.
Wiki Development
The Wiki can be found here:
http://irbusability.pbwiki.com/
Created the table of contents and Sarah formated it.
Find out how to use of the table of contents wigit.
Erased part of the sidebar and limited it to Recent Activity and Table of Contents.
Created pages from memo to key findings, Sarah created the bottom half.
Need to:
Standardize the font and general format of the wiki.
Wiki Search
Wikipedia.org
Why we can’t use the best known:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: Your first article
Found under the section: Things to avoid Personal essays or original research Wikipedia surveys existing human knowledge; it is not a place to publish new work. Do not write articles that present your own original theories, opinions, or insights, even if you can support them by reference to accepted work.
Wikidot.com
My test page:http://mattstestwiki.wikidot.com/er-team
The good: Quick and easy to use.
The Bad: not as polished as the pbwiki and not intuitive. Not for the average user.
PBWiki.com
IRB test page:http://irbusability.pbwiki.com/Duties
The good: Polished, easy to link pages and invite people. User friendly design.
The bad: None that I could see.
Web site inventory
To help the designers of the IRB Web site, Dr. Barker suggested organizing the links on the Web site into categories that could late be turned into an improved navigation system. The Editing/Reporting team has divided the work among three of its members and I took on the bottom third.
Project timeline
Dr. Barker suggested including a project outline since the LUG report included one. The task was assigned to me. I based my work off of the LUG’s timeline, so they share a similar structure, but of course, different dates and benchmarks.
