The Graffiti Wall: An Emerging Method for Gathering Qualitative Feedback in a Public Setting
•
1 gostou•3,094 visualizações
A multi-phase project ascertaining the core issues and potential solutions UX professionals encounter in AGILE environments. All scrum roles were represented and engaged in the process. The core issues found are presented here in this presentation. A paper summarizing the potential solutions to the core issues we identified will soon follow.
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Destaque
Destaque (8)
Semelhante a The Graffiti Wall: An Emerging Method for Gathering Qualitative Feedback in a Public Setting
Semelhante a The Graffiti Wall: An Emerging Method for Gathering Qualitative Feedback in a Public Setting (20)
Último
Último (20)
The Graffiti Wall: An Emerging Method for Gathering Qualitative Feedback in a Public Setting
- 1. The Graffiti Wall An Emerging Method for Gathering Qualitative Feedback in a Public Setting Peter Roessler, User Researcher, Salesforce.com Anshu Agarwal, Usability Analyst, Salesforce.com UPA 2009 International Conference
- 2. Where We Currently Stand The Graffiti Wall is an emerging method for qualitative asynchronous data collection that functions in a public setting to gather feedback from a large, diverse audience. This approach overcomes some of the drawbacks of existing methods and provides researchers with an alternative approach in specific contexts.
- 3. What we will share today • The back story on the workshop motivating exploration of an alternative data collection method • The formation of the method framework, including audience and context considerations • Share our pilot experience with the Graffiti Wall method, including findings, takeaways, and planned future work
- 5. Data Synthesis Brainstorming Prototyping Gathering
- 6. AGILE/User Experience Workshop • Large number of attendees; all UE practitioners on AGILE teams • Brainstormed large data set of UE-specific issues in AGILE • Tight workshop schedule precluded clustering the issue sticky notes • Band-aid solution: Artificial topics were created for solution brainstorming
- 7. Process broke down without proper analysis of issues Data Synthesis Brainstorming Prototyping Gathering
- 8. How might we recover the potential value from the workshop data and prevent lost effort?
- 9. Post-workshop Synthesis • All issue sticky notes were clustered over several weeks • Eleven (11) discrete issue buckets were created and a core question summarizing the expressed concerns was formulated for each • Most of the original solution sticky notes from the workshop brainstorm did not logically sort into the new issue buckets
- 10. Determine the best way to repeat the solution brainstorming, post-workshop, with the eleven (11) core questions truly concerning UE staff on AGILE teams OUR CHALLENGE
- 11. FORMATION OF THE METHOD
- 12. Key Criteria 1. Open up the exercise to all roles in the AGILE development cycle 2. Identify well-attended events or venues where we could find all AGILE team roles represented in one place 3. Given the heterogeneous audience, take into account variations in their personality types and their preferred mechanisms for providing feedback
- 13. Known flaw: Group data-gathering methods such as focus groups or group brainstorming potentially suppress the expression of ideas for a subset of the participants
- 15. http://www.personalitypage.com/ISTJ.html Success for us meant being flexible enough to accommodate these differences
- 16. VARK Learning Styles According to Neil Fleming, people have a sensory preference when processing and exchanging information V = Visual Learner (prefers visual aids) The method should also allow A = Auditory Learner (prefers lectures) participants to contribute to the R = Read/Write Learner K = Kinesthetic Learners (prefers experience) data collection in multiple ways to accommodate different learning styles
- 17. Resulting Framework • Ideal Venue: AGILE2008 Conference Toronto • Make the working space as visible and public as possible to maximize contributions • Support emergent behavior by using a large amount of physical space • Make any contribution-sharing optional • Have a moderator available to engage at a level driven by the participant • Eliminate any time constraints for the activity • Seed the brainstorming space with visual contributions to create awareness of the option
- 18. Final Plan • Set up like a brainstorm from a content perspective • Place in a space public to the target participants, much like an expo or demo booth • Have moderators present to answer questions from potential participants • Keep set up for the length of the event where it is installed • Use a large amount of physical space to offer more opportunities for private contributions as well as ad hoc discussion among groups willing to engage • Seed the installation with written and visual contributions to serve as examples for participants
- 19. More on Physical Space • Need at least 20 feet of wall space • Display the items driving your activity on the top of each foam board • Use standard 4’x 8’ pieces of foam board for the canvas • Be prepared to move the installation around • Can use basic folding tables as a working space
- 20. Materials
- 21. Materials
- 22. More on Process • We visually tracked response volumes for each of our four primary roles, based on assigned colors • Photos and video were captured of the Graffiti Wall’s progression over the course of the week • For a variety of reasons, it was critical to have moderators present at all times
- 24. The Action Initial Location Hallway Idle Beginnings
- 25. Initial Location
- 26. 2nd Floor Escalators Better Physical Locations
- 28. Adjacent to the Expo Floor
- 30. WHAT WE LEARNED
- 31. Contributions from All Roles for All Questions
- 33. Mix of Different Engagement Styles
- 34. Evidence of Visual Thinkers in the Crowd
- 35. Takeaways + Δ Disagreement was evident in responses A lot of partial threads Supporting both big groups/intimate Missing out on the conversation Contributions from a diverse audience Constant installation management‘ Visual and auditory communication Instruction Poster not effective support ‘ Opportunities to moderate Loss of supplies conversations ‘Mobility of the Fom-Cor
- 36. FUTURE WORK
- 37. Experiment more with visual prompts
- 39. Explore other public settings
- 40. Conclusion The Graffiti Wall is an emerging method for qualitative asynchronous data collection that functions in a public setting to gather feedback from a large, diverse audience This approach overcomes some of the drawbacks of existing methods by supporting both solitary engagement and lively group discussion while also being inclusive of varied communication styles
- 42. Audience Activity 1. How do you envision applying this technique or adapting this technique to your current work? 1. Comments, criticisms, ideas for evolving the Graffiti Wall technique that have not yet been discussed 2. Are there any tips or tricks to quick and dirty data analysis, packaging, or distribution that were missed in the initial workshop of this Case Study?
Notas do Editor
- We have stood by this theory for some time now. Of course, it’s precisely this audience that may have me running out of the conference, tails between legs… We will be inviting your feedback, praises and criticisms in order for us all to collectively critique what is being shared and in order to realize its potential benefit to the community Moving forward from here, I will be building context for everyone that will help this position statement on the method make more sense…
- We can think of a generic user-centered design process as interleaving divergent and convergent methods Data gathering allows you to learn from your target population; “drinking from the firehose” Synthesis/data analysis converges findings down into core observations, drivers, and issues Brainstorming methods encourage divergent thinking once again to imagine potential solutions Prototyping/piloting/testing all help us to converge again on a final solution
- Held a workshop with UE practitioners using AGILE The intent was to brainstorm a broad set of UE-specific issues experienced in AGILE environments Unfortunately, the workshop utilized artificially suggested topics for bucketing the issues instead of allowing time for themes to emerge The same buckets were used for solution brainstorming
- We can think of a generic user-centered design process as interleaving divergent and convergent methods Data gathering allows you to learn from your target population; “drinking from the firehose” Synthesis converges findings down into core observations, drivers, and issues Brainstorming methods encourage divergent thinking once again to imagine potential solutions Prototyping/piloting/testing all help us to converge again on a final solution
- Looking at some of the aftermath Large volume of contributions Colors represented folks that (loved, hated, or were neutral about AGILE, or just didn’t know) That dimension not useful at the end of the day Many stickies not even placed into the categories, further proof that the approach taken in the workshop didn’t work
- Pulled all contributions out of the groupings and conducted a proper synthesis in a dedicated space over the course of several weeks 11 issues buckets emerged, for which we articulated a question for each Not surprisingly, solution sticky notes did not fall logically into the new categories
- Challenge: repeat the solution brainstorming with the new issue buckets would be very difficult to gather the same group (and volume) of practitioners in order to repeat the brainstorming exercise all the questions were printed in the proceedings if you would like to review them Point is these were the basis for the subsequent solution brainstorming exercise
- We thought, ‘well, if we are going to do this, it may be that much more informative if we solicited the opinions of all the core roles of a typical AGILE development team First problem: Where could we hit them all at once? Problem two: this also suggested the need for an approach that would take into account a spectrum of personality types Designing for this in mind would not hinder, but rather theoretically increase feedback quality and quantity
- The more we thought about this, the more it became obvious that is was a fundamental flaw in traditional methods such as focus groups Dominating personalities Safe environment for sharing is difficult to create Pressure to generate ideas under defined time constraints What ideas or issues go unexpressed based on the environment in which we ask for feedback?
- The more we thought about this, the more it became obvious that is was a fundamental flaw in traditional methods such as focus groups Dominating personalities Safe environment for sharing is difficult to create Pressure to generate ideas under defined time constraints What ideas or issues go unexpressed based on the environment in which we ask for feedback?
- The more we thought about this, the more it became obvious that is was a fundamental flaw in traditional methods such as focus groups Dominating personalities Safe environment for sharing is difficult to create Pressure to generate ideas under defined time constraints What ideas or issues go unexpressed based on the environment in which we ask for feedback?
- VARK is a framework first described by Neil Fleming of Lincoln University, New Zealand in 1987 provides users with a profile of their learning preferences; the ways that they want to take-in and give-out information gave us a framework, as well as published evidence, that these variations in cognitive processes in fact exist and, in our case specifically, are worth designing for
- Reliably strong attendance of all AGILE community members (Developers/QA, User Experience, Product Managers, Scrum Masters) Significant unstructured time available to conference attendees
- Aware of this practice, based on anecdotes of informal discussions, that this approach is something often followed by members of Industrial and other design teams When applied externally to specific group s, we are proposing that the method may potentially provide these benefits described
- You will need at least 20 feet of wall space or other vertical surface that will allow a large number of participants to freely interact Use the top two feet of each foam board for displaying the items driving your activity (e.g. the UE Issue Questions used) Use standard 4’x 8’ pieces of foam board for the canvas since it is lightweight, can be placed along most vertical surfaces, and is easy to move around Be prepared to move the installation around at a moment’s notice to determine the physical location that maximizes awareness, interest, and participation Use basic folding tables as a working space and area to organize your supply bins
- Several pieces of 4’x8’ foam board (pieces needed determined by number of research questions) Roll of plain white plotter paper for additional contribution area (optional) Pre-cut sheets of paper for table drawing and creating new topic categories Industrial or duct tape for securing plotter paper Large instruction poster to provide additional guidance for contributors Scissors Large supply tables and a few chairs Supply bins Colored and black Crayola® brand washable markers “ Super sticky” Post-it® brand sticky notes ; 4 colors and multiple sizes Large color-coding labels ; 3 colors (optional) 5-10 clipboards to help participants write responses Digital camera for high-resolution photos Seed content under each question displayed to encourage initial participation and build interest
- Really based on how you’d like to segment your data Facilitators must be present at all times Contributors ask a variety of questions about the open format Ad hoc group discussions may benefit from guidance Quality control is necessary to manage any additional process complexity such as assigned sticky notes colors based on the participant’s role Facilitators help to create a safe, friendly, approachable space
- Our prerequisite was placement in a high foot traffic location Few locations were less desirable than where the Graffiti Wall was set up on Day 1 The only access to this initial location was down a long hallway at the top of a set of escalators The bulk of the foot traffic was two floor away at the expo area and registration
- After failed attempts at asking for permission to relocate, we decided to attempt different spots including the escalators and the Expo floor
- This routine of moving to a new spot each morning inadvertently created increased interest in conference attendees
- When set up at the Expo floor, vendors would come by and check the Graffiti Wall out during their slow periods
- Feedback steadily built up over time each day; attendees had the flexibility to contribute at whatever time worked best for them [view top/bottom, columns from left to right]
- The use of colored sticky notes to distinguish different roles within AGILE, we were able to confirm coverage from all roles across all proposed questions Notably significant numbers of blue sticky notes (assigned to Devs and QA) were present in the end Also, notably, a lot of additional interesting data to sift through
- Participants built off of each other’s contributions and illustrated their comfort with the expression of conflicting opinion, often a major concern for us in focus groups or even in the lab. Any hint of your own opinions or the opinions of he majority often influence AGREEMENT. Statement by a Developer > response by UE > retort by Product Owner Solution disagreement among two Developers Would these conversations/conflicting opinions have come out so clearly in a focus group?
- Significant amounts of both solitary engagement and lively group discussion were observed Evidence that our method is inclusive of contributors with various preferences
- The contributions of visual artifacts by participants supports the theory that this is in fact potentially an unmet need At least serving the visual learner in addition to read/write learners Auditory not represented in the slides because is was recognized by the moderators given how they were engaged in conversation by some individuals who wanted to tell us what they thought
- Several variations to the method are worth further investigation in order to test its robustness and expand its potential research data gathering applications:
- Experiment with the use of visual prompts as an alternative to verbal content Some examples of visual prompts are: mockups, prototypes, screenshots CONCEPT VALIDATION Facilitators could direct the form that the requested feedback takes (e.g. list of use cases, creation of lo-fi sketches)
- Solicit design ideas with user-centered artifacts as alternatives to verbal content, such as : storyboards, scenarios of use , and even personas
- Explore a variety of other public settings with this method that supports a safe, anxiety-free environment such as at a school or playground
- IDEAS: to pass out post-it notes and have folks write down their answers after they contribute Have a scribe write out audience answers and place them on the Wall Place Wall in a public conference space that will allow contributions *after* the session (Thursday 3:30-4:10pm) UAs Researchers Managers