Testing designs can be an elaborate research project, or simple, easy, little activities that can ensure the design does what it is supposed to do. As architects we often think people will use our buildings just as we would. But how can we know unless we test it?
Task Centered Usability Testing is a simple group of tests that you can do throughout a design process. The main common feature is they are "task centered" - in that the user is asked to perform a task, and you record or document their progress to see if your design has any "bugs" or if there are improvements you can make.
A common method of recording data for this test is to use a "think aloud" approach, where they user just simply says what they are doing while they are doing it, and a person writes down what they said, or records it on video. Afterwards the test can be corroborated into a chart showing where the user may have had issues and where there can be improvements on the design.
Cognitive walkthroughs are when a user does a walkthrough but there is some level of imagination going on. If you need to use a prototype or paper version of your design, then people will have to use a level of imagination to "perform" your task. This is very similar to Architecture when we examine drawings or a model. Framing the walkthrough as a "task centered" approach could add to what is currently practiced - such as, if you designed a kitchen, you could ask a person to make a sandwich in your kitchen as see how easily they find ingredients or dishes. You could do this at IKEA and test "real" kitchens. You could make a simple experiment to see which layout works best for sandwich making. Quantitative data you could collect would include how many steps it took, or how long it took to do it. You could also just start with a drawing in plan, or a cardborad model and trace your movements around the room.
A pluralistic walkthrough is when a design is tested simultaneously by more than one person. This would be excellent in an architecture office. A groups of in-house designers take a in-progress set of design drawings and try to complete a task. They write down what they do and how, and before attempting a second task they discuss their findings as a group. This is similar to a group critic but focuses the discussion around usability, forces the designers to think like a user and promotes practical discussion. This would be a very easy way to structure a weekly design meeting at a large office.
Image from IKEA.com
Some fun links!
Article about a fellow CMD student in my program. So inspiring!
http://www.ucalgary.ca/utoday/issue/2015-09-18/researcher-explores-potential-mind-body-and-music-connection
A office in California using participatory design methods to engage communities, "Intercultural Urbansim":
http://www.placeit.org/gallery.html
University of Calgary Research Platform for evidence based design
http://makecalgary.com/
Civitas - Design team on St. Patricks Island
http://civitasinc.com/newsroom/
WArchitecture
http://www.w-architecture.com/studio/collaboration
No comments:
Post a Comment