<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Miles Rochford</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/8431</link>
    <pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2007 10:26:12 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by Miles Rochford</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;One suggestion I would add is the use of &amp;#8216;conditional formatting&amp;#8217; in Excel to colour code the cells, both in terms of whether the responses were &amp;#8216;correct&amp;#8217; and in terms of the percentage of correct responses. This saves a &lt;span class="caps"&gt;LOT&lt;/span&gt; of time and reduces the risk of error.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#8217;ve also used a variation on Donna&amp;#8217;s original technique which allowed me to highlight the areas where users experienced difficulty in classifying &amp;#8216;correctly&amp;#8217; and what their alternative classifications were. This assisted greatly in improving the results in subsequent evaluations.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;- Miles.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/measuring-the#content_8031</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/measuring-the#content_8031</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2007 10:26:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Miles Rochford</author>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Another variation I have also tried is using a wireframe of the home page combined with index cards for lower levels of the hierarchy. The wireframe included navigation for users to &amp;#8216;jump&amp;#8217; a level deeper, so a rigid top down test would not reflect the way in which users navigated on the site. This approach allowed us to explore the combination of taxonomy and navigation in a single test (kind of a mix between paper prototyping and Donna&amp;#8217;s card-based classification evaluation).&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;- Miles.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/measuring-the#content_8032</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/measuring-the#content_8032</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2007 10:26:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Miles Rochford</author>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;@Iain &amp;#8211; the trick is to use a better separator than a single comma, and make sure your list has starting and ending separators too, like &amp;#8221;,1.1.1,4.2.3,&amp;#8221;. They you just check to see if the cell contains the users answer (prefixed and suffixed with commas &amp;#8211; to avoid 1.1.1 being matched against 11.1.1). I find it&amp;#8217;s a lot easier if you record the data on one sheet and analyse (using formulae) on another.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;You can also get a little more sophisticated and do &amp;#8216;closeness&amp;#8217; matching to assess whether the user was in a nearby section, so if the user selected &amp;#8216;1.1.3&amp;#8217; but the correct answer was &amp;#8216;1.1.2&amp;#8217;, you can look for &amp;#8217;,1.1,&amp;#8217; (right section, wrong level) or &amp;#8217;,1.1.&amp;#8217; (right level, wrong section) and consider it a &amp;#8216;closer&amp;#8217; classification than &amp;#8216;2.8&amp;#8217;, say. I&amp;#8217;ve found that if users are close &amp;#8216;enough&amp;#8217;, the presentation of the classification on the site can minimise issues with discovery.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/measuring-the#content_8073</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/measuring-the#content_8073</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 09:11:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Miles Rochford</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

