3/12/97
21 evaluation forms received from approximately 45 attendees (CHI Chapter members)
Very good.
Great
Excellent > provides practical methods I can incorporate.
Great content. Before/after design examples (for redesigns) would be really interesting.
It was excellent. The steps were clearly described and defined, and Kathy's enthusiasm is contagious.
Good! Good overview, touched on complete process.
Well done.
Good.
Good pace, on task.
Great energy and pace. Great topic.
Very good. Too rushed though.
Greatenjoyed it.
Engaging.
Excellentwell organized, fast pace, audience participation built-in.
Interesting and valuable.
Very good.
Good job, was straightforward and easy to comprehend.
Great.
I had trouble grasping the concept until there were clear examples. Seemed to beat around the bush too long before speaker got to the heart.
Good.
Good.
Appealing. Seems to be an excellent way to organize and sequence early tasks.
Interesting.
Seems reasonable. Would like to try.
Good for very early in design, like that you have deliverables, and concrete steps.
Greatit's what I completely believe in but can't get mgmt. to buy off!!
Seems fuzzy to me. Abstract. It got clearer along the way. It's a big idea.
Great approach.
Useful idea to accomplish a user centered design.
Good.
Seems very useful.
Relates well to industry, easy to apply. need more examples sprinkled into slides (?)
Makes lots of sense.
Useful and fairly practical.
Interesting!
Makes a lot of sense.
Quite useful.
Very good, we'll use it.
Great.
Good. I'm looking forward to trying it.
Very useful! gave me a framework by which I can tie together disparate UI design experiences in the past.
Very interesting!
[Note: The example project has been modified for CHI'98.]
Very good. Not too large, not too small. Seemingly simple but illustrates how nothing is simple.
Good to bring "concepts" to life!
OK.
Good, but hardest part is the concepts and I would have liked to experience that part.
Hard to tellI liked what I saw but didn't get enough time to really get into it.
Is too big to cover in a session of this length. I'd choose a more limited example.
Nice and simple for the group. Time permitting, a more complex one may be more helpful.
It worked for the time available.
OK.
Simple was good, but maybe a bit more time on the example would help.
Nice and simple.
Kind of boringalthough I understand that it is simple.
Good exampleeasy to conceptualize.
OKnot most exciting.
OK to illustrate process quickly, but perhaps too simple and straightforward to show very many potential pitfalls.
Made ideas clear.
So-so. It's tough to do well in a short time frame. Familiarity and simplicity led to quick progress, but few "ah-ha!s." Try to lead to examples of using central concept (leave it displayed?) to help out.
OK (a UI design course I took used a similar example).
Overly simple, but appropriate to timeframe.
Goodit did support your points well.
Difficult to apply the theoryI suggest maybe giving more anecdotes when discussing the concepts.
Very good. Lots of enthusiasm and upbeat manner. A little too rushed. Some points deserve elaboration.
Good.
Great.
Very good, personable, kept it moving.
Interactive, I could hear her well. It was difficult to read flip chart pages, though.
Wonderful. Her stories/experiences are interesting; I'd mention more of these.
Excellent. Clear.
Comfortable, light style; good incorporation of "war stories" and humor.
Good job, Kathy. Lively and fun.
Great, good mix of experience, war stories and information provided, great energy and pace never bored.
Said not to use process, but referred to it as a "process" throughout the whole presentationuse framework if recommending it.
Very enjoyable.
Animated, lucid, fun, knowledgable.
Fabulousyou have excellent presentation skills.
Energetic and non-threatening. Professional, yet down-to-earth. Easy to listen to.
Great, open to questions.
Very good, kept me engaged and interested.
Great.
A little disorganized.
Goodspeed was about right.
High energy.
Overheads good. Handouts should be more elaborate. Suggest including more "why" for each step or benefit derived from each step.
Good.
Fine.
Very goodcould add some notes.
FineI appreciate the handouts.
OK. Functional. More fun with color or pictures. Early slides were entertaining.
Thanks for providing space for notes on the handouts next to each overhead.
Just ok.
Good, liked handouts with slides and room for notes.
Thorough.
Swell.
Overheads and handouts could be more FUN graphicallyweb site toosee me!
Overheads were pretty clear. Speaker followed them well. Handouts corresponded to overheads exactlygood. Good to leave space for notes on right side.
Added value.
Good.
Great.
Fine. Handouts could be more detailed and in larger print.
Excellent.
The example project and presentation stylesimple and direct.
Central conceptfill in the sentence.
Attempting to have a method to get at conceptual design.
The systematic approach.
Having an example we can all relate to.
Presentation style. Concept I can use in work.
Example.
Good exampleincluded a project.
Stories about real projects.
Working thru the example.
Good at keeping audience involved and liked how kept us on track.
Liked your style of speaking.
Doing the exercise made the concepts tangible.
EVERYTHING.
The clear distinction between object and task models. Also, speaker's tips from experience.
The framework.
The concept of "don't mix object and task orientation in 1 level of U/I. Usually use 1, followed by the other at the next level." One of those great insights, it's obvious once it's pointed out.
Going through an example project.
Hearing about the framework, then hearing examples.
I found your relating of usability tests in the real world vis-a-vis your framework very helpfulnow I understand what usability tests really accomplish.
[Note: CHI'98 will be three hours instead of two.]
No counter examplessituations which call for variations and some variations.
If design team doesn't have time they wouldn't hire consultantI'm not a consultant and find this a very real problem.
Not getting very far in the example.
Not getting to do enough with this example to really see results.
??
Limited time.
The food? Nah, that was even pretty good.
Ran out of time for questions. Didn't start on time, so made it harder for you to get through it on time.
Bookshop examplekind of boring.
That we didn't have more time to complete project (Bookstore)I'm compulsive.
Got a bit rushed toward end. Example was somewhat simplistic, but probably appropriate for this timeframe.
A little rushed. (Not your fault.) Might have to change the scope of talk.
Lack of time, tendency of audience to go off into unproductive tangents. Probably works better w/ smaller crowd.
No discussion of trade-offs (eg. "flexible" and "fast" may be in conflict).
Not understanding what the framework was until 30 minutes into presentation. Confusion over term "object."
Don't try to work through the example without enough time. Brainstorm a few objects and tasks but then show the completed example (and don't hand it out in advance).
This would be a great tutorial4 hours at least.
Provide info on how to generate ideas (right kind of ideas).
Hard to saywould it work to use the BookShop example as you introduce each part of the framework instead of after explaining it? Just an idea.
It would have helped me to have more definitions of terms (on the slides and discussed)like "OBJECTS" and "OBJECT MODEL"it took awhile to nail down what this meant. Also "requirements"what users require, what developers require, what coding language demands? These more abstract terms need concise, working definitions.
Discuss more case studies. Discuss different user groupsadministrators, power users, basic users.
More stories, avoid [?]
Objects vs. tasks need examples up front, there were at least 5 of us that didn't get it.
Consider working example into concept presentation; i.e., lecture a little, do a little.
COLOR! Electronic presentationshow some before and after UI'sAldus products?
Build in more examples of how the process can go astray. Try to follow it through to actual interface design, at least in one aspect.
1) Slide 12 "Object Model" we got confused with programming technique. 2) More of your personal experiences.
Set up "gotchas" in example that illustrate the important techniques, without being too obvious.
Can we do steps that make assessment easier? (I didn't feel we could do that given the stuff we'd come up with.) Give more examples of when object model is more appropriate than task model (I'm not clear about this).
Tell us, show us what the framework is, then tell who does it, the benefits of it, etc.
I wonder if working through the example project with a client team before tackling their project would be better than just starting with their problem.
Thanks for sharing your war stories.
Very interested in your topic as it seems to be the big problem in products.
Very good job!
Thank you so much for doing this. It's refreshing to see this type of design being done since I am unable to do it at my company.
Thanks. This was enjoyable and will be useful for my work. Would be an excellent conference workshopwith time adequate to work through examples.
What about technological limitations? This is the best way, but it can't be coded. Start over?
Great concepts. Bibliography of articles on this topic might be nice.
Appreciated the emphasis that this process precedes UI design and usability.
Thank you, great info, ideas and sharing experiences.
Good topic.
This presentation alone was worth my year's dues to PS SIGCHI.
You are better than most of my professors (I am a student at PLU). Thanks for coming. I learned a lot. P.S. If you ever want to practice your talk at a University I could set it up at Pacific Lutheran University (PLU).
I'm curious how this presentation works out w/ a hostile audience. SIGCHI audience, you were preaching to the choir.
Isn't marketing involved in defining the central concept? We need to make sure development/design team is in alignment with marketing! I think usability testing is still valuable, though I agree conceptual design and task/user analysis is critical.
I'd like to hear more.
Analogize 'objects' and 'tasks' to nouns and verbs (at least this is what I was thinking as I listened to you).