Previous | Table of Contents | Next |
The Bridge facilitates everyone contributing to all the activities. One way is by educating every participant in the other participants areas of expertise. That education is done mostly informally, sprinkled throughout the analysis, design, and testing activities as the topics naturally arise. Another way is getting participants to support each other by using their particular expertises to fill in the information missing from the other participants ideas. For example, a user might compensate for the usability engineers lack of task knowledge by designing a window by writing some field names on a photocopied empty window. The user might then complain that there is so much information in that window that the pieces needed at any one time are hard to find. The usability engineer might instantly respond, filling in the users missing GUI design knowledge by suggesting segmenting the windows contents into notebook pages. This symbiosis is no different than the usability engineer relying on the developer andsystem engineer for new ideas about how the underlying technology can help.
Getting even one representative of each of the stakeholder groups sometimes would lead to more than the five or six session participants that we allow. In that case, only the stakeholders most critical to the GUI per se sit at the table three users, one usability engineer, one system engineer, and one GUI developer. The other stakeholders are allowed to silently observe, preferably from another room. There are other techniques for handling too many stakeholders for a single session, such as having successive design sessions with overlapping membership, and running two tables at once with synchronization of the tables after each substep of the methodology. With techniques such as those, The Bridge has been used successfully in projects having more than 30 distinct user populations, and in projects having over 100 staff (developers, system engineers, usability engineers, etc.). Such advanced techniques are beyond the scope of this chapter.
The presence of representatives from all the stakeholder groups at the same table allows rapid iterations of designing and testing, via two mechanisms of increased efficiency:
PANDA improves the effectiveness of design as well as its efficiency. The ideas generated by the team collaborating in real time often are far superior to the ideas that could have been generated by the same people working isolated from each other for any amount of time, even if they were communicating with each other asynchronously or through narrow bandwidth media (Muller et al., 1993).
The great efficiency and effectiveness of the PANDA approach cannot be attained merely by throwing this bunch of people together into a room. Standard-style meetings do not encourage true collaboration. These stakeholders can actively collaborate best in a fluid atmosphere that is barely on the organized side of chaos a whitewater model of analysis, design, and assessment.
Previous | Table of Contents | Next |