t/tac 2: barbara finn tabitha parchment monisha tripathy jocelyn tyler nantana wongtanasirikul

T/TAC 2:Barbara Finn

Tabitha ParchmentMonisha Tripathy

Jocelyn TylerNantana Wongtanasirikul

Where we left off…

• Confirmation/Revisions of Current Design

• Confirmation of Scope

• VDOE Representative to Confirm Future

• Design Decisions

T/TAC Online Presentation

• Confirmation/Revisions of Current Design

•Positive feedback from VDOE

• Confirmation of Scope

•Scope narrowed to LIP proposal search engine

• VDOE Representative to Confirm Future

•Design Decisions

•Bi-monthly meeting with client


Database


The database team was assigned the task of:

• Developing the backend of the ‘School Improvement’ tab• Existing Schema available

• ‘School Improvement’ table schema:• Entity/Relationships• Forward thinking

• Iterative Rapid Development Process • Analysis• Design• Development• Implementation• Evaluation

T/TAC Online PresentationAnalysis:

T/TAC Online PresentationDesign:


Re-visited Analysis:

• Process communication

• Procedure• 7 Section proposal document• Budget Form

• Expenditure Accounts• Evaluation Rubric

T/TAC Online PresentationDevelopment:


Development:

Category = Proposals tableSub-Category = Proposals tableGoal = Section1 tableRegion = School tableSchool type = School tableSchool division = School tableTTAC region = School table

T/TAC Online PresentationImplementation:http://atlab.gmu.edu/lip/index.htm

http://atlab.gmu.edu/lip/index.htm

T/TAC Online PresentationImplementation:


Evaluation:

• No spell check• Small input boxes• No formatting available

Front-End


FlowchartFlowchart


Iterative Development• Rapid prototyping method

– Cross-checking, reworking of prototype drafts

– Approval and collaboration with clients

Tools Used: PowerPoint HTML


First Draft Phase: Advanced SearchFirst Draft Phase: Advanced Search


Fourth Draft Phase: Advanced SearchFourth Draft Phase: Advanced Search

http://immersion.gmu.edu/ttac/spring2004/group2/NewPrototype/new/school.html


T/TAC Online PresentationFront-End Development

• Category Search

• Keyword Search

• Advanced Search

HTML draft:http://immersion.gmu.edu/ttac/spring2004/group2/NewPrototype/new/school.html



T/TAC Online PresentationIterative Development

• Rapid prototyping method– Meetings with Pat– Cross-checking of iterative drafts

Tools Used: PowerPoint HTML

Formative Evaluation


Formative Evaluation is used to:

• To identify the strengths and weaknesses while they are still in the development stage of design

• To verify the completeness of the information • To determine if users can easily locate information


Evaluation School Improvement Page:

• The purpose of this formative evaluation is to get a complete assessment of the prototype in order to confirm and/or advance the initial design of the local improvement plan data search system

Evaluation Strategy

Formative Evaluation

Expert ReviewExpert Review Small GroupSmall Group

One-to-OneOne-to-One Self-EvaluationSelf-Evaluation



Expert review:

The purpose of our expert review is to verify that the content is correct, the design is proceeding in the right direction, and that the categories and terms are clear,


• Expert Reviewers: Dr. Michael Behrmann, Dr. Patricia Abrams, Dr. Shuangbao Wang.

• Methods used: (1) notes, (2) questionnaire , and (3) interviews


One to one: The purpose of this stage of evaluation is to

verify the program's responsiveness, and flexibility.


• One to One Reviewers: Various volunteers

• Methods used: (1) tests and (2) field notes


Self-Evaluation: The purpose of this stage of evaluation is to verify the program's responsiveness, and flexibility. To check for errors.


• Self-Evaluation: TTAC 2

• Methods used: (1) tests and (2) notes


Small group: The purpose of small group evaluation is to

check how well the instruction works with more varied learner, and to see how well the instruction teaches without the designer’s intervention


• Small Group: Technical Assistants from the Virginia Department Of Education

• Methods Used: (1) tests, (2) field notes, (3) questionnaires, and (4) observation.


Expert Review


• How might you use this system in your work?

• What should we consider in the design of the system to ensure that TAs can search for information easily?

• What should we consider in the design of the system to ensure that the public can find information easily?


What is your overall opinion of the system?

• Dr. Behrmann: You guys have really done a great job. I am pleased. You are on target .

• Dr. Pat Abrams: The system is friendly to use and easy to follow.

Usability

Purpose of usability testing: • To verify if the system provides all the performance

support tools that the users require to perform a given task. (i.e. print, email, download etc.)

• To verify that the format, categories, and navigation of the website are organized correctly.

• To verify the ease of use and understanding of the three search options intended to help the user locate specific information on local improvement projects/state-operated programs


Usability testing methods:

• Expert review

• One to one

• Self evaluation

• Small group


Usability Schedule:

Feb 11,04 - Determine test audience. Begin recruitment for usability

Feb 23, 04 - Write first version of script; construct test tasks / scenarios; schedule practice tests

March 03 to March 26, 04 – expert review, one to one, self evaluation of prototype

March 29, 04 – Small group usability testing at Richmond, VA

March 30 to April 15, 04 – Combined analysis, wrote recommendations, presented changes to the programmer


Usability tests

UsabilityTesting

Expert ReviewExpert Review Small GroupSmall Group

One-to-OneOne-to-One Self-EvaluationSelf-Evaluation


Usability Testing at Richmond – Small GroupWho did we test?

• Technical Assistants• VDOE Staff Members

What did we do?

• Usability tests were administered on 6 users for an hour. • A set of tasks, scenarios were given and a questionnaire for the participants to complete at the end.


Usability test instruments

Scenarios

Observa

tions

Questionnaire

Led to Results


Overall Usability results:

• The system was considered easy to use, very user friendly with relevant data fields

• Easy to access and would assist administrators in writing LIP proposals

• All 3 search options were useful especially advanced search option


Overall Usability results:• Layout of the system was considered to be extremely easy to follow

• Technology assisted the users in finding information especially for those who did not consider themselves as “Techno wizards”

• Design team was praised for the “great work” done in creating a tool that would provide easy access to information across divisions


Usability Results Summary:

Overall, the usability test showed very few problems with the School Improvement site. The few problems encountered dealt with the need for expanded explanations.

One of the most important observations made by the design team was to rearrange the LIP page to allow all three search options to be seen above the fold.


Overall Usability Recommendations:

• Move the introductory paragraph on the School Improvement page, possibly to the welcome page for the TTAC site

• On the top of the sub-categories page, it should say that only those sub-categories are highlighted that have data

• Increase attention to “SEARCH TIPS” and “GLOSSARY”


Overall Usability Recommendations:• There is a need for a help section. Whether this should be site wide help or LIP only help needs to be determined

• Category definitions should be along side option 1 (if these are the only categories defined)

• Opening paragraph on the site should be a little more detailed

• A LIP development resource for the LEA’s


Future

Future Recommendations:

• Develop a method for inputting data for Proposals / Reports

• Develop a method for displaying LIP Reports

• A LIP development resource for the LEA’s


t/tac 2: barbara finn tabitha parchment monisha tripathy jocelyn tyler nantana wongtanasirikul

Documents

ttac online presentationdesign

school tableschool division

school tablettac region

school tableschool type

advanced search http

proposals tablesubcategory

proposals tablegoal

prototype draftsapproval