Expert Heuristic EvaluationMy Cleint’s Project

Client: My Client

Date/Time: Date

Author: Dr Ritch Macefield

Recipient(s): My Client

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

Table of Contents1. Project objectives............................................................................................................................. 3

1.1. Evaluation objectives.................................................................................................................. 3

1.2. Product objectives...................................................................................................................... 3

2. About Expert Heuristic Evaluations................................................................................................3

2.1. Overview.................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2. Relationship with Usability Studies.............................................................................................3

2.3. Conduction of Expert Heuristic Evaluations................................................................................4

2.4. Common Heuristics.................................................................................................................... 5

3. Heuristic Used in this Evaluation....................................................................................................5

3.1. Nielsen’s Heuristics for User Interface Design............................................................................5

3.2. Lund's Expert Ratings of Usability Maxims.................................................................................7

3.3. Tognazzini’s principles of interaction design..............................................................................8

3.4. Shneiderman’s The Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design....................................................12

4. Evaluation Methodology.................................................................................................................13

5. Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 13

6. Evaluation........................................................................................................................................ 13

7. References....................................................................................................................................... 14

8. Appendix 1 – Author’s CV..............................................................................................................15

9. Appendix 2 – Selection of Author’s Publications.........................................................................18

Page 2 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

1. Project objectives

1.1. Evaluation objectivesThis evaluation aims to provide an objective evaluation of my client’s web site.

1.2. Product objectivesWithin the scope of this evaluation, the product objectives are to deliver a product that is:

as easy to cognize as possible.

as easy to use as possible.

Both of these are particularly challenging for this product as it is highly novel in nature.

2. About Expert Heuristic Evaluations

2.1. OverviewExpert heuristic evaluations belong to the class of discount usability evaluations, with the essential idea of a discount usability evaluation being that they are quicker and cheaper to perform than usability studies with a sample of participant users; often referred to as just “Usability Studies”.

There are two components in Expert Heuristic Evaluation – “Expert” and “Heuristic”. The idea of the “Expert” component is that the opinion of an expert in usability is more valuable, and has more credibility, than a non-expert. Of course, what constitutes an experts is a highly debatable topic but good Expert Heuristic Evaluations are typically carried out by practitioners who have considerable gravitas in the field of usability engineering, that typically comes from both extensive practical experience and advanced specialist academic qualifications this field. Indicator’s of this author’s gravitas can be found in appendices 1 and 2.

The generic idea of the“ Heuristic” component is that we aim, through the evaluation, to reach an excellent solution, whilst recognizing that this solution may not be optimal. This idea was first applied to usability evaluation by Nielsen & Molich (1990). The process of doing this relies on assessing the usability of an interface with reference to a well establish (proven) set of generic principles, guidlines or criteria that drive good interface design known as the “Heuristics” – often referred to as ‘rules of thumb’. The aim of this is that the evaluation is moved away from the direction of opinion and more towards the direction of measurement and, therefore, greater objectivity. Whilst these components are distinct, they are typically interrelated in real evaluations because the heuristics are typically applied by a usability expert.

2.2. Relationship with Usability StudiesExpert Heuristic Evaluations can never be a direct substitute for Usability Studies. This is because human behaviours is diverse, unpredictable and variable. Users often surprise us – they fail when we think it should be easy and the interface seems (theoretically) to address all the heuristic well; and sometimes sail through operations we predict may be difficult. Expert Heuristic Evaluations can also not produce the kind of positivist statistical data that can be gained from a Usability Study conducted with a reasonable sample size, so inevitably have less credibility as evidence that an interface design is likely to work well. Rather, Expert Heuristic Evaluations are more interpretivist in nature and only aim to give an approximation of the findings we would expect from a Usability Study with a large

Page 3 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

sample size. However, Expert Heuristic Evaluations are often used to complement Usability Studies that have a relatively small sample size. Since these two methods of evaluation are qualitatively different, evaluating the usability of an interface using both techniques allows the researcher to triangulate the results and establish area of commonality.

Another key difference between Expert Heuristic Evaluations and Usability Studies is that Usability Studies only (aim to) identify problems with interfaces. By contract, good Expert Heuristic Evaluations recommend (a range of) potential solutions to any problems identified.

2.3. Conducting Expert Heuristic EvaluationsWhen conducting Expert Heuristic Evaluations it is not typical for the expert to attempt to map interface problems directly to the heuristics (particularly outside of academic contexts). This is for two reasons. First, the mapping of interface problems and features to heuristics is typically complex, convoluted and mutli-dimensional. If nothing else, this makes the mapping very challenging to present/structure; particularly when the audience for the evaluation are not all specialists in usability engineering. Second, an interface problem and/or feature can map to numerous heuristics which would often make for over verbose explanations of problems and recommended solutions. Rather, experts conducting the evaluation typical just state what heuristics are being used for the evaluation then ‘keep these in mind’ when identifying problems and recommending their solutions.

It is common for experts performing the evaluations to do three key things in their evaluations:

Uniquely identify each problem or issue and their related recommended solution(s) so that they can be easily referenced.

Prioritise, or rank, each problem or issue relation to severity. This then maps to a priority for fixing the problems.

Reference problems, issue and recommended solutions to screenshots of the system.

Outwith the above, there are many variations on the specific method used to perform Expert Heuristic Evaluations. These include:

Screen by screen or page by page analysis.

Following a goal-task-action model that is in keeping with (what is in strict terms is a different type of evaluation method known as) a Cognitive Walkthrough.

Following a prescribed user journey(s); that may be also used in a parallel Usability Study of the system.

Nielsen (1992) and Nielsen & Landauer (1993) argued that heuristic evaluations should be performed by three experts. This recommendation was based on extensive research as to how many problems individual experts are likely to find in an interface, with three experts being likely to find circa 60% of the problems. After this number, they argued that amount of additional problems found tails off significantly as the number of experts is increased (e.g., 10 experts being required to find 85% of the problem). Based on this work, they further argued that 3 experts represented the optimum cost benefit for these type of review.

There has been much discussion about this research and associated recommendation since it was published, and in the last decade many usability engineers have questioned its validity. This has not least been driven by the commercial reality that the cost of using three experts is typically high; often making the cost similar to that of conducting a Usability Study. Whilst the use of multiple expert for

Page 4 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

heuristic evaluations remain common, it has also become common to use just one or two experts, and this is particularly true if the evaluation is being conducted in parallel to a Usability Study of the system.

2.4. Common HeuristicsThe following heuristics are commonly used in Expert Heuristic Evaluations:

Nielsen’s “Heuristics for User Interface Design”; which originated with the concept of heuristic evaluations (see Nielsen, 1995).

Nielsen’s “Top 10 Mistakes in Web Design” (see Nielsen, 2011).

Lund's “Expert Ratings of Usability Maxims” (see Lund,1997).

Tognazzini’s “Principles of interaction design” (see Tognazzini, 2014).

Shneiderman’s “Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design” (see Shneiderman, no date).

These are by no means the only heuristics and custom heuristics can also validly be used as the context for the evaluation dictates

3. Heuristic Used in this EvaluationNielsen’s Top 10 Mistakes in Web Design were not used as they did not apply well in this context. The following subsection document the heuristics used.

3.1. Nielsen’s Heuristics for User Interface DesignTaken from Nielsen (1995):

Visibility of system statusThe system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time.

Match between system and the real worldThe system should speak the users' language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. Follow real-world conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order.

User control and freedomUsers often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked "emergency exit" to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.

Consistency and standardsUsers should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions.

Error preventionEven better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a problem from occurring in the first place. Either eliminate error-prone conditions or check for them and present users with a confirmation option before they commit to the action.

Page 5 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

Recognition rather than recallMinimize the user's memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate.

Flexibility and efficiency of useAccelerators -- unseen by the novice user -- may often speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both inexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions.

Aesthetic and minimalist designDialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility.

Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errorsError messages should be expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.

Help and documentationEven though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to search, focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large.

3.2. Lund's Expert Ratings of Usability MaximsTaken from Lund (1997):

1. Know thy user, and YOU are not thy user.

2. Things that look the same should act the same.

3. Everyone makes mistakes, so every mistake should be fixable.

4. The information for the decision needs to be there when the decision is needed.

5. Error messages should actually mean something to the user, and tell the user how to fix the problem.

6. Every action should have a reaction.

7. Don’t overload the user’s buffers.

8. Consistency, consistency, consistency.

9. Minimize the need for a mighty memory.

10. Keep it simple.

11. The more you do something, the easier it should be to do.

12. The user should always know what is happening.

13. The user should control the system. The system shouldn’t control the user. The user is the boss, and the system should show it.

Page 6 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

14. The idea is to empower the user, not speed up the system.

15. Eliminate unnecessary decisions, and illuminate the rest.

16. If I made an error, let me know about it before I get into REAL trouble.

17. The best journey is the one with the fewest steps. Shorten the distance between the user and their goal.

18. The user should be able to do what the user wants to do.

19. Things that look different should act different.

20. You should always know how to find out what to do next.

21. Don’t let people accidentally shoot themselves.

22. Even experts are novices at some point. Provide help.

23. Design for regular people and the real world.

24. Keep it neat. Keep it organized.

25. Provide a way to bail out and start over.

26. The fault is not in thyself, but in thy system.

27. If it is not needed, it’s not needed.

28. Color is information.

29. Everything in its place, and a place for everything.

30. The user should be in a good mood when done.

31. If I made an error, at least let me finish my thought before I have to fix it.

32. Cute is not a good adjective for systems.

33. Let people shape the system to themselves, and paint it with their own personality.

34. To know the system is to love it.

3.3. Tognazzini’s principles of interaction designThe following are adapted from Tognazzini (2014):

Aesthetics Principle: Aesthetic design should be left to those schooled and skilled in its application:

Graphic/visual designers.

Principle: Fashion should never trump usability.

Principle: User test the visual design as thoroughly as the behavioral design.

Anticipation

Page 7 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

Principle: Bring to the user all the information and tools needed for each step of the process.

Autonomy Principle: The computer, interface, and task environment all “belong” to the user, but user-

autonomy doesn’t mean we abandon rules.

Principle: Enable users to make their own decisions, even ones aesthetically poor or behaviorally less efficient.

Principle: Exercise responsible control.

Principle: Use status mechanisms to keep users aware and informed.

Principle: Keep status information up to date and within easy view.

Principle: Ensure status information is accurate.

Color Principle: Any time you use color to convey information in the interface, you should also use clear,

secondary cues to convey the information to those who cannot see the colors presented.

Principle: Test your site to see what color-blind individuals see.

Principle: Do not avoid color in the interface just because not every user can see every color.

Principle: Do not strip away or overwhelm color cues in the interface because of a passing graphic-design fad.

Consistency Principle: It is just important to be visually inconsistent when things act differently as it is to be

visually consistent when things act the same.

Principle: Over time, strive for continuity, not consistency.

Principle: “The most important consistency is consistency with user expectations”—William Buxton.

Defaults Principle: Defaults within fields should be easy to “blow away”.

Principle: Defaults should be “intelligent” and responsive.

Principle: Replace the word “default” with a more meaningful and responsive term.

Principle: Both your vocabulary and visual design must communicate the scope of a reversion.

Discoverability Principle: Any attempt to hide complexity will serve to increase it.

Principle: If you choose to hide complexity, do so in the showroom only.

Principle: If the user cannot find it, it does not exist.

Use Active Discovery to guide people to more advanced features.

Principle: Controls and other objects necessary for the successful use of software should be visibly accessible at all times.

Page 8 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

Principle: There is no “elegance” exception to discoverability.

Principle: With the exception of small mobile devices, controls do not belong in the middle of the content area.

Principle: Communicate your gestural vocabulary with visual diagrams.

Principle: Strive for Balance.

Principle: User-test for discoverability.

Principle: Look at the user’s productivity, not the computer’s.

Principle: Keep the user occupied.

Principle: To maximize the efficiency of a business or other organization you must maximize everyone’s efficiency, not just the efficiency of the IT department or a similar group.

Principle: The great efficiency breakthroughs in software are to be found in the fundamental architecture of the system, not in the surface design of the interface.

Principle: Error messages should actually help.

Principle: Give users well-marked roads and landmarks, then let them shift into four-wheel drive.

Principle: Sometimes you do have to provide deep ruts.

Principle: Offer users stable perceptual cues for a sense of “home”.

Principle: Make Actions reversible.

Principle: Always allow “Undo”.

Principle: Always allow a way out.

Principle: Make it easy and attractive to stay in.

Fitts’s Law Principle: The time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target.

Multiple Fitts: The time to acquire multiple targets is the sum of the time to acquire each.

Principle: Fitts’s Law is in effect regardless of the kind of pointing device or the nature of the target.

Principle: Fitts’s Law requires a stop watch test.

Human Interface Objects Principle: Human-interface objects can be seen, heard, felt, or otherwise perceived.

Principle: Human-interface objects have a standard way of being manipulated.

Principle: Human-interface objects have standard resulting behaviors.

Principle: Human-interface objects should be understandable, self-consistent, and stable.

Page 9 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

Principle: Use a new object when you want a user to interact with it in a different way or when it will result in different behaviour.

Latency Reduction Principle: Keep users informed when they face delay.

Principle: Make it faster to begin with.

Learnability Principle: Limit the Trade-Offs.

Principle: Avoid only testing for learnability.

Metaphors, Use of Principle: Choose metaphors that will enable users to instantly grasp the finest details of the

conceptual model.

Principle: Bring metaphors “alive” by appealing to people’s perceptions–sight, sound, touch, and proprioception/kinesthesia–as well as triggering their memories.

Principle: Expand beyond literal interpretation of real-world counterparts.

Principle: If a metaphor is holding you back, abandon it.

Protect Users’ Work Principle: Ensure that users never lose their work

Readability Principle: Text that must be read should have high contrast.

Principle: Use font sizes that are large enough to be readable on standard displays.

Principle: Favor particularly large characters for the actual data you intend to display, as opposed to labels and instructions.

Principle: Menu and button labels should have the key word(s) first, forming unique labels.

Principle: Test all designs on your oldest expected user population.

Principle: There’s often an inverse relationship between the “prettiness” of a font and its readability.

Simplicity Principle: Balance ease of installation vs. ease of use.

Principle: Avoid the “Illusion of Simplicity”.

Principle: Use Progressive Revelation to flatten the learning curve.

Principle: Do not simplify by eliminating necessary capabilities.

Page 10 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

State Principle: Because many of our browser-based products exist in a stateless environment, we have

the responsibility to track state as needed.

Principle: State information should be stored in encrypted form on the server when they log off.

Principle: Make clear what you will store & protect the user’s information.

Visible Navigation Principle: Make navigation visible

Principle: Limit screen counts by using overlays

3.4. Shneiderman’s The Eight Golden Rules of Interface DesignTaken from Shneiderman (No date):

Strive for consistencyConsistent sequences of actions should be required in similar situations; identical terminology should be used in prompts, menus, and help screens; and consistent color, layout, capitalization, fonts, and so on should be employed throughout. Exceptions, such as required confirmation of the delete command or no echoing of passwords, should be comprehensible and limited in number.

Cater to universal usabilityRecognize the needs of diverse users and design for plasticity, facilitating transformation of content. Novice to expert differences, age ranges, disabilities, and technological diversity each enrich the spectrum of requirements that guides design. Adding features for novices, such as explanations, and features for experts, such as shortcuts and faster pacing, can enrich the interface design and improve perceived system quality.

Offer informative feedbackFor every user action, there should be system feedback. For frequent and minor actions, the response can be modest, whereas for infrequent and major actions, the response should be more substantial. Visual presentation of the objects of interest provides a convenient environment for showing changes explicitly.

Design dialogs to yield closureSequences of actions should be organized into groups with a beginning, middle, and end. Informative feedback at the completion of a group of actions gives operators the satisfaction of accomplishment, a sense of relief, a signal to drop contingency plans from their minds, and an indicator to prepare for the next group of actions. For example, e-commerce web sites move users from selecting products to the checkout, ending with a clear confirmation page that completes the transaction.

Prevent errorsAs much as possible, design the system such that users cannot make serious errors; for example, gray out menu items that are not appropriate and do not allow alphabetic characters in numeric entry fields. If a user makes an error, the interface should detect the error and offer simple, constructive, and specific instructions for recovery. For example, users should not have to retype an entire name-address form if they enter an invalid zip code, but rather should be guided to repair only the faulty part. Erroneous actions should leave the system state unchanged, or the interface should give instructions about restoring the state.

Page 11 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

Permit easy reversal of actionsAs much as possible, actions should be reversible. This feature relieves anxiety, since the user knows that errors can be undone, and encourages exploration of unfamiliar options. The units of reversibility may be a single action, a data-entry task, or a complete group of actions, such as entry of a name-address block.

Support internal locus of controlExperienced users strongly desire the sense that they are in charge of the interface and that the interface responds to their actions. They don’t want surprises or changes in familiar behavior, and they are annoyed by tedious data-entry sequences, difficulty in obtaining necessary information, and inability to produce their desired result.

Reduce short-term memory load.Humans’ limited capacity for information processing in short-term memory (the rule of thumb is that we can remember "seven plus or minus two chunks" of information) requires that designers avoid interfaces in which users must remember information from one screen and then use that information on another screen. It means that cell phones should not require re-entry of phone numbers, web-site locations should remain visible, multiple-page displays should be consolidated, and sufficient training time should be allotted for complex sequences of actions.

4. Evaluation MethodologyThe methods adopted was to follow the user journey supported by the prototype, and which was used by UserVision to perform a usability study. More specifically a ‘two-pass’ method was used. The first pass was to simply complete the user journey and gain familiarity with this and the prototype. Comments were made in the second pass linearly as the journey progressed.

Issues and problems were identified at two levels:

Page, or particular state of a page.

Features, or sets of features.

Issues and problems are referenced to screen shots of pages, or particular states of a pages. For features, or sets of features, issues and problems are cross referenced to numbered translucent overlays. In all cases issues and problems were categorised using the taxonomy, and colour coding, of severity levels shown in Table 1:

Level Colour Definition

Minor Yellow Users can easily work around this problem. It is unlikely to have significant impact on usability metrics (task effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction).

Serious Orange Users may have difficulty, but the majority will able to find workarounds. It is likely to have significant impact on usability metrics.

Critical Red Many users would be unable or unwilling to proceed with the task. The viability of the product is compromised.

Table 1: Severity levels for issues and problems

Page 12 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

5. Executive SummaryThere were a large number of critical and serious problems and issues identified in the evaluation. In general terms:

There is a critical lack of communication in the conceptual model of the game on the home page. It is recommended to develop the home page concept very successfully tested by R.Macefield.

There is a general critical lack of affordance, and weak calls to actions across the entire design.

There are numerous critical problems with the acquisition journey. It is disjointed, has low affordance and in fundamentally sub-optimal in meeting its primary goal. The use of a basket and in-situ picking of places is at the root of many of the problem and issues. It is recommended to develop the wizard based model successfully tested by R.Macefield.

There is are serious problem with the primary navigation/Information Architecture (IA). It is recommended to develop the primary navigation/IA concept used in the prototype’s developed by R.Macefield.

There is a serious problem with visual design of the game page. It is overly complex and is in danger of introducing the Art museum effect. The visual design needs redevelopment to make it cleaner and simpler, and ensure good affordance.

There serious are questions as to how some features will scale in the real systems. It is recommended to apply scaling test to all features to drive solutions to these.

6. Evaluation[[INSERT AXURE SPEC]]

Page 13 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

7. ReferencesCHEN, B., WANG, H., PROCTOR, R. & SALVENDY, G. (1997). A human-centred approach for designed world-wide web browsers. Behaviour Research methods. Instruments & Computers, 29 (2), pp. 172-9.

LUND, A. M. (1997). Expert ratings of usability maxims - A study of the heuristics design experts consider important for good design. Ergonomics in Design, 5(3), pp. 15-20.

NIELSEN, J. (1992). Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. Proc. ACM CHI’92. (Monterey, CA, 3–7 May), pp. 373–380.

NIELSEN, J. & LANDAUER, T. K. (1993). A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IFIP INTERCHI'93 Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24-29 April 1993. pp. 206-13.

NIELSEN (1995). 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. [Online]. Nielsen Norman Group. <http://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/> [Accessed 25 Apr 2014].

NIELSEN (2011). Top 10 Mistakes in Web Design. [Online]. Nielsen Norman Group. <http:// http://www.nngroup.com/articles/top-10-mistakes-web-design/> [Accessed 25 Apr 2014].

NIELSEN, J., & MOLICH, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Proc. ACM CHI'90 Conf. (Seattle, WA, 1–5 April), pp. 249-25.

SHNEIDERMAN, B (NO DATE). The Eight Golden Rules of interface design. [Online]. University of Maryland. Available from: <mime1.marc.gatech.edu/mime/papers/colorTR.html> [Accessed 25 Apr 2014].

TOGNAZZINI, B. (2014). First Principles of Interaction Design (Revised & Expanded). [Online]. Ask Tog. <http://asktog.com/atc/principles-of-interaction-design> [Accessed 25 Apr 2014].

Page 14 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

8. Appendix 1 – Author’s CV

Dr Ritch MacefieldA widely experienced heavyweight freelance expert in: User Experience Design (UXD), UX Strategy

User Centred Design (UCD), Information Architecture (IA), Interaction Design and Usability Engineering.

Summary

Background Worked in IT since 1985 with a blue chip background – at the fortune 100 Data General Corporation was

promoted to be the UK’s youngest ever Senior Consultant and won numerous international awards for excellence. International experience spans over 20 countries. Performed IT consultancy at board level in eg, GEC, AMEC, Tyrell F1 racing and co-lead the $180M Green Line

project at TetraPak (world’s largest private company). An excellent communicator having taught “Consulting Skills” and “Advanced Interpersonal Communication skills”

at Masters level in (high ranking) Universities across the world, as well as in numerous commercial organisations. Written numerous papers and articles on UXD & Usability in high profile refereed international journals and

magazines, was on the editorial board of the “Encyclopaedia of HCI” (2007), and co-authored 3 books on IT and education.

UX/UCD/Usability Worked in UXD/UCD/IA/Interaction Design and Usability engineering since 1995. Previous experience in development/coding, IT Project Management, Business Analysis, Business Process

Engineering and IT/Business Strategy allows excellent operation in multi-disciplinary environments and with senior stakeholders.

Extremely strong in: UCD methods (eg, ISO9241-210), Information Architecture, Interaction Design and Usability Testing.

Has led and/or managed UXD/UCD on $Multi-Million projects in eg, Bank of America, Thomson-Reuters, Dell Computers and Visa.

Specialist UX/UCD/Usability Expertise UX based ideation and aligning UXD with business strategy, including lean UX, and quickly translating ideas into

tangible interface concepts. Requirements elicitation & Senior stakeholder liaison, including: lean UX approaches, workshops, focus groups

and brainstorm facilitation, Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) with Root Definitions and CATWOE Analysis. Finding elegant solutions to complex interaction design problems using Design Space Analysis and paper

prototyping. Integrating UXD & UCD into Agile methods and moving organisations to modern prototyping tools and methods. UX related organisational change: including re-engineering UX processes, coaching and mentoring (senior

members of) UXDs teams. Iterative usability and acceptability testing of early conceptual prototypes, including: designing & facilitating

complex/novel usability tests, quantitative testing with statistical analysis, questionnaire design and expert/heuristic usability evaluations.

Educational BA (Hons) Creative Design (technology) from Loughborough University of Technology. MSc (Distinction) IT-Computing, passed with grade average of over 80% from Loughborough University. PhD in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) from the UK’s ESRI research centre – an internationally recognised

centre of Excellence in HCI research. Thesis title: “The derivative model approach to improving ICT usability”.

Page 15 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

UK Qualified technology teacher Cert. Ed. Sec. (Design & Technology) from Loughborough University of Technology.

Lectured at Masters level, across 5 countries in: UX, UCD, Usability, IT Strategy, Business Analysis, IT Development methodology.

Professional Qualifications PRINCE 2 Foundation Certificate from NES AIM Academy (passed with 84%). Member of, and speaker for, the User Experience Professionals Association (UXPA). Fellow of the Institute for Learning (IfL) and EU approved IT Trainer-Trainer. Licenced Master Prac/NLP & Certificate in "NLP Techniques for Advanced Learning and Facilitation". Certificate in Transitional Analysis. Assessed Masters module in “Advanced Socio-Technical System Design” from Loughborough University. Assessed Masters module in “Research Methods” from Wolverhampton University,

Axure CEO of Ax-Stream – the only approved Axure trainers in Europe. Advanced/complex Axure prototyping including: Developing 'intelligent' widget libraries and custom specification

templates. Strategic work around integrating Axure into Agile/UCD methods. Contributor to “Axure RP 6 Prototyping Essentials” and “Axure Prototyping Essentials for Axure 7” books. Regular panel speaker at “AxureWorld”, owns the “Axure RP Pro” LinkedIn group and “SiFu” on Axure’s forum.

Work Experience

Selection of Recent Major Contracts Lead UXD and Researcher: redevelopment of Financial Control Authority (FCA) web site. Nov, 2013 – Present

Lead UXD and Usability Engineer at Inchcape: $5M project across 130 countries. Apr, 2013 – Nov, 2013

Lead UXD and Usability Engineer on major Multi-$M global project for Visa Europe. June, 2013 – Sep, 2013

Prototyping new large scale product concepts for global teleco and finance groups. Dec, 2011 – Present

Head of Prototyping & Usability at Dell Computer Social Commerce.($50M project) Aug, 2011 – Feb 2012

Lead UXD and UCD Consultant at Thomson-Reuters (2 x $10M projects). Feb, 2010 – May, 2011

Strategic UX Consultant & Lead UXD in Vodafone’s corporate (global) UX team. July – Sept, 2009

Customer Experience Manager (Europe) at the Bank of America ($10M project). Aug – Dec, 2008

Staffordshire University (Part-Time) 2001 – 2008Senior Lecturer, Applied Computing Division, School of Computing Co-designed and co-taught the modules: “User Interface Design and Modelling”, “Evaluating Interaction” and

“Perspectives on System Design” and was solely responsible for teaching usability testing and UCD within the division.

Designed and led the master level modules: “IT Strategy” and “Business Process Re-Engineering with IT”.

Formed part of editorial team for the “Encyclopaedia of HCI” (2007).

Differentis Ltd 2000 – 2001A spin off from Computer Sciences Corporation: an agency/consultancy specialising in large-scale e-Commerce.

Head of Usability Engineering & User Experience (UE) Thought Leader Responsible for promoting/Evangelising User Centred Design methods both inside and outside the organisation.

Designed and lead a £70K usability test of Skandia’s extranet for financial advisors.

Page 16 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

Performed high-level user requirements and IA analysis for British Gas Group’s and Unilever’s global intranet projects.

Became a fellow of HUSAT (HUman Sciences and Advanced Technology) research institute; an internationally recognised centre of Excellence in HCI Research and Consultancy

Wolverhampton University (Part-Time) 1992 – 2000Senior Lecturer, Information Management Division Conceived, designed, and championed the university's under-graduate awards in e-Commerce.

Conceived and designed the modules: “Modelling Business Applications” and “Modelling Internet Applications”.

Retained by McGraw-Hill to review their range of e-Commerce strategy books.

Data General Corporation 1987 – 1992The fortune 500, $1.4 Billion ‘blue chip’ corporation supplying IT/IS world-wide; now part of the EMC corporation.

Promoted twice to become the UK’s youngest ever Senior Consultant.

Performed group board level consultancy across 11 countries in blue chip multinationals such as: AMEC, Tyrell F1 racing and co-lead the $180M Green Line project at TetraPak (world’s largest private company).

Education

PhD, Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Loughborough University (Part-time) 2001 – 2007 Thesis title: “The Derivative Model Approach to Improving ICT Usability” with key words including: Web usability,

Usability Engineering and Conceptual Model.

Conducted at Loughborough University’s Ergonomics and Safety Research Institute (ESRI); an internationally recognised centre of Excellence in HCI research.

External examiner: Professor Harold Thimbleby, BSc, MSc, PhD, FIET, CEng, HonFRSA, Head of Future Interaction Technology lab (FIT lab) at Swansea University. Formerly Professor of HCI at UCL. Winner of a Royal Society-Wolfson Research Merit Award and a BCS medal for HCI work with Circa 400 high-profile publications and five books on HCI.

MSc (Distinction), IT (Computing), Loughborough University 1999 – 2000 Passed with a grade average of over 80% on a full-time course, whilst also working full-time.

Project/dissertation: The use of interactive spreadsheets as a bi-directional interface to disparate relational data bases for MIS purposes – scored 82%.

BA (Hons) (2:2), Creative Design, Loughborough University 1981 – 1985Cert. Ed. (Secondary), Design & Technology, Loughborough University 1981 – 1985

Professional Qualifications and Memberships

Fellow of the Institute for Learning (FIfL). 2010

Member of, and speaker for, the User Experience Professionals Association (UXPA). 2009

PRINCE2 Foundation Certificate from NES AIM Academy (passed with 84%). 2009

Assessed Masters module in “Advanced Socio-Technical System Design” from Loughborough University. 2001

Assessed Masters module in “Research Methods” from Wolverhampton University. 2001

Certificate in “NLP Techniques for Advanced Leaning and Facilitation” from McKenna, Bandler, Breen. 2001

Licensed Master Practitioner in Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) from McKenna, Bandler, Breen. 2001

Certificate in Transactional Analysis (TA 101) from the Berne Institute. 1998

Page 17 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

9. Appendix 2 – Selection of Author’s PublicationsMACEFIELD, R. C. P. (2013) Acceptability Engineering – the Forgotten Part of UX in Intra-Corporate IS Design. Accepted for publication In UXMatters Magazine.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. (2012) Collaborative Interaction Design Specification. In UXMatters Magazine. Dec, 2012. Available: http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2013/01/collaborative-interaction-design-and-specification.php. Last accessed 21 January, 2013.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. (2012) Agile problems, UX solutions 2: Patterns and prototyping. In UXMatters Magazine. Dec, 2012. Available: www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2012/12/agile-problems-ux-solutions-part-2-thoughts-on-patterns-and-prototyping.php. Last accessed 27 December, 2012.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. (2012) Agile problems, UX solutions: The big picture and prototyping. In UXMatters Magazine. Available: www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2012/11/agile-problems-ux-solutions-part-1-the-big-picture-and-prototyping.php. Last accessed 12 November, 2012.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. (2012) Are You Still Using Earlier-Generation Prototyping Tools? In UXMatters Magazine. Available: www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2012/10/are-you-still-using-earlier-generation-prototyping-tools.php. Last accessed 11 October, 2012.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. (2012) (Why) is Prototyping the Blocker in your Agile UCD Environment? In UXMatters Magazine. Available: www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2012/09/why-is-uxd-the-blocker-in-your-agile-ucd-environment.php. Last accessed 4 September, 2012.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. (2012). Confessions of an Axure Master In UserFocus Articles. Available: www.userfocus.co.uk/articles/confessions_of_an_axure_master.html. Last accessed 6 July, 2012.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. (2012). UX Defined In UXMatters Magazine. Available: www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2012/06/ux-design-defined.php. Last accessed 2 July, 2012.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. (2012). The Wizard of Oz guide to usability testing mobile prototypes In UserFocus Articles Available: http://www.userfocus.co.uk/articles/testing_mobile_prototypes.html. Last accessed 16 April, 2011.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. (2012). The Monty Python guide to user experience design In UserFocus Articles Available: www.userfocus.co.uk/articles/python_guide_to_ux.html. Last accessed 16 April, 2011.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. (2011). 4 Ways to Prototype Faster In UserFocus Articles. Available: www.userfocus.co.uk/articles/prototype_faster.html. Last accessed 2 December, 2011.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. The Derivative Model approach to improving ICT usability. In Proceedings of ICAART, Cognitive Modeling & Interaction Special interest Group, Vilamoura, Portugal 6-8 February 2012, pp. 190-99.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. (2009). How to specify the participant group size for usability studies. In Journal of Usability Studies, 5(1), pp. 34-45.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. (2008). ICT Literacy in the Information Age. In Encyclopaedia of ICT. Eds. CARTELLI, A. & PALMA, M. Texas: Idea group.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. (2007). Usability Testing and the Hawthorne Effect. In Journal of Usability Studies, 2(3), pp. 145-54.

Page 18 of 19

Expert Heuristic Evaluation

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. & WESTLAKE, J. C. (2007). Essential UML: An introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design using the UML. London: Mindshift International.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. & MELLOR, K. (2006) Awareness and Discounting: New Tools for Task/Option-Oriented Settings. Journal Of Transactional Analysis, 36(1), pp. 44-58.

MACEFIELD, R. C. P. (2005). Conceptual models and usability In Encyclopaedia of Human Computer Interaction. Ed. Ghaoui, C. Texas: Idea group, pp. 112-119.

MACEFIELD (2004). Reality check: Clicks and mortar companies show e-tailers the way with ‘back to basics’ approach to B2C In E4SME Proceedings: conference on e-Business in Small-Medium Enterprises, June, 2004, Bolton, UK.

Page 19 of 19