Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

aifia-metrics - Re: [Aifia-metrics] Agenda for the group

aifia-metrics AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Towards standard methods and metrics for evaluating IA

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Livia Labate" <liv AT livlab.com>
  • To: <aifia-metrics AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Aifia-metrics] Agenda for the group
  • Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:12:47 -0300

Thumbs up from me as well Rashmi.

Re Steve's comments, I think that a great majority of these metrics will me
multi-disciplinary (since that's the nature of our work). I might be easier
to say what is NOT specifically related to IA than the opposite. But I don't
think that's a problem. In fact, it reinforces the notion that IA is
strictly linked to UX design and project planning/strategy.

Livia Labate
_______________________________
liv AT livlab.com | www.livlab.com

----- Original Message -----
From: <Steve.Mulder AT corp.terralycos.com>
To: <aifia-metrics AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 4:14 PM
Subject: RE: [Aifia-metrics] Agenda for the group


Hi -

A big thumbs up from me. I'm excited to see where this scope takes us.

I'm also interested in what we define as IA metrics vs. broader user
experience metrics. We (the User Experience Group at Terra Lycos) have
been working recently on defining a set of broader metrics for our group
to use on a regular basis. A familiar metric such as "Task completion
rate" crosses so many disciplines; how (and why) do we try to define
solely IA-related metrics?

Steve Mulder







Rashmi Sinha <rashmi AT rashmisinha.com>
Sent by: aifia-metrics-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
06/27/03 02:32 PM

To: aifia-metrics AT lists.ibiblio.org
cc:
Subject: RE: [Aifia-metrics] Agenda for the group


Hi,

Below I have summed up the jist of the comments on the agenda for the
group:

-Scope of initiative should be broad. Should include evaluation methods,
metrics, guidelines, patterns, rules-of-thumb, do's and don't. For every
such contribution, it would be nice to know what worked and what did not.

-Bottom up approach (letting people share methods and measures) is
appropriate right now. For this some sort of a community infrastructure
for
sharing is needed.

-Top down approach (standards etc.) are a worthy goal and worth aiming
for.
We do not know enough to push ahead with that currently. But its important

to keep that in mind as we go on with the project.

Can we go around and get some feedback, suggestions on this summary? Some
quick ay's and nay's, suggestions, refinements would be great. Lets make
sure to hear from everyone on the list before we forge ahead.

cheers!

-rashmi



At 03:49 PM 6/20/2003 -0700, Susan Campbell wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I share Liv's perspective that it's too soon for standards, and we can
gain
>a lot learning from each other on what worked well and what failed. I
prefer
>the bottom up method to get for sharing information, but top-down is
useful
>when it comes to formatting all the ideas into a useful format (paper,
best
>practices checklist, website, etc.)
>
>I'd also like to hear about the range of measures IAs need. These needs
>might naturally come out of method discussion.
>
>A bit on me...
>Susan Campbell...I lead Information Architecture and Usability
Engineering
>at ZAAZ, a web agency in Seattle. Trying to balance work with outdoor
>sports so you probably won't reach me after hours ;)
>
>Glad to be involved and meet you all.
>
>Have a great weekend,
>Susan
>_______________________________________________
>Aifia-metrics mailing list
>Aifia-metrics AT lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/aifia-metrics


_______________________________________________
Aifia-metrics mailing list
Aifia-metrics AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/aifia-metrics


_______________________________________________
Aifia-metrics mailing list
Aifia-metrics AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/aifia-metrics





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page