1. Ruby, Kuo | HCDE 598
Design Project Brief v 1.0
Create by Ru-ping (Ruby) Kuo | 2012/4/6
Project Name: The practical toolbox on web usability and design
Project goals:
“On the Web, usability is a necessary condition for survival. If a website is difficult to use, people leave. If the
homepage fails to clearly state what a company offers and what users can do on the site, people leave. If users
get lost on a website, they leave. If a website's information is hard to read or doesn't answer users' key questions,
they leave.1” (Jakob Nielson, 2003)
The importance of web usability is self-evident, however, most web projects still struggle to fulfill usability
criteria because the limitation of resources such as time, cost, and skills. Therefore, this project intends
to design a framework for guiding practitioners adopts usability activities and techniques effectively.
Meanwhile, I will create a website which provides a serial of usability methods and tools (especially focus
on web projects). In addition, and more importantly, since this project focus on assist users who with
limited knowledge and experience of usability to choose most suitable techniques and effectively apply
them in their works, the website will provide the following features:
1. An overview of UCD (User Centered Design) methodology in practice.
2. A series of usability techniques (methods and tools) with multiple selection criteria, for example,
project phases, type of research goals and problems, and type of limitations (e.g. time, budget,
or skills).
3. The summary and the step-by-step guidelines of each technique in order to help practitioners
acquired their knowledge through a leaning-by-doing process.
4. Extended reference materials for help practitioners design research tools, accumulate
knowledge, and communicate with other community members.
Target Users:
The target users of this project include:
1. Website planners, designers, developers, PM, and even owners. Especially for those who are
working in small or medium enterprises and organizations without ample usability resources or
any usability expert.
1
Usability 101: Introduction to Usability (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html)
1

2. Ruby, Kuo | HCDE 598
2. General end users (e.g. other professional workers or students) who need to adopt and apply a
suitable usability method in the right time and right condition.
3. General end users who are interested in this topic.
User Goals and Top User Scenarios:
According to studies of UCD practice in internet industry, although most of web designers and developers
claim they and their companies consider users as an important issue, most of them lack sufficient
knowledge and experience of web usability [1, 3]. Many researches find that informal and discount
methods are accepted widely in the filed [2, 4, 5]. In addition, some usability experts (e.g. Nielson, and
Krug) propose the concept of low-hanging fruits in order to claim that the values of discount usability
methods.
Meanwhile, this project holds the similar point of view and focus on these specific scenarios:
User goals User scenarios
1. The need to conduct user and usability research Select a method or a serial of methods
but only with limited knowledge, experiences and [1] users attempt to choose a
method/methods to solve their problem
resource.
[2] methods table page
2. The need to conduct user and usability research in
users select a method from method table
the beginning of project phase (because the time by filtering with “project phase” (or other
requirements)/ or use wizard function to
pressure of project lifecycle) and prefer to use
get the suggested methods/ or refer to case
research activities that not requiring users involve study (sharing by other users) section to
find a suitable method
directly.
[3] method Introduction pages
users read the content in order to confirm
the decision/ users may read the
suggestion list to learn other suggested
methods or related information.
[4] users found the most suitable
method/methods. And gather the
necessary information for help them
conduct the study.
[5] users may decide to create a profile in
order to save the results. / or users may
click the printing button to print out a hard
copy./ or users may click the download
button to download pdf version.
3. The need to discover requirements and gather Obtain or customize research tools
materials (content) from stakeholders. [1] users attempt to obtain/customize a tool
(form or template) in order to help them
2

3. Ruby, Kuo | HCDE 598
4. The need to provide tangible ways to collect data.
communicate with stakeholders in order to create [2] tool select page
users select a tool from the list /or by
a common view before design and development
filtering with “purpose” (or other
phase. requirements)/ or refer to case study
section to find a suitable tool/tools.
[3] tool design pages
users read the content in order to confirm
the decision/ users read the content in
order to learn how to customize the
tool/form/template.
[6] users may decide to create a profile in
order to save the results. / or users may
click the download button to download the
tool sample or template/ or users may read
the suggestion list to view related tools that
share from other users.
Project deliverables:
Deliverable Date
Phase 1 Discovery (~Apr. 6)
Requirement discover and analysis ~ Apr. 6
Project Scope Statement (scope-boundary, high level functions/features list; ~ Apr. 6
milestone & deliverable)
Market, competitive research & analysis ~ Apr. 6
User needs research & analysis ~ Apr. 6
Phase II Define (Apr. 9 ~Apr. 24)
WBS & project schedule ~ Apr. 10
User case analysis & define / flow design ~ Apr. 17
(~Apr. 6 user case analysis)
(Apr. 13 user case define)
(Apr. 17 user flow define)
Content list (IA) ~ Apr. 17
st
Content design & copy writing ~ Apr. 24 (1 check point)
Wireframe ~ Apr. 24
Creative concept (tone & manner) ~ Apr. 17
Design style guidelines ~ Apr. 17
Phase III Design & Develop (Apr. 23 ~ May. 15)
3

4. Ruby, Kuo | HCDE 598
nd
(cont.) Content design & copy writing ~ May 7 (2 check point)
~ May. 15 (finalized)
Design style guidelines update ~ May. 15
Content list (IA) update & finalized ~ Apr. 24
Prototyping ~ May. 15
Look and feel design ~ May 5
HTML coding and Front-end scripting ~ May. 15
Phase IV Deploy (May. 16 ~ May. 29)
Usability testing & finding report ~ May. 15
Revise (if necessary) ~ May. 22
(cont.) HTML coding and Front-end scripting ~ May. 26
Qualitative control / beta test ~ May. 26
Project closure ~ May. 29
Design style guidelines finalized ~ May. 29
References:
[1] Kuo, R. & Lee, J. (2006). An Exploratory Study of Usability Practice from User-Centered Design View: Meanings, Methods and
The Current Situation in Taiwan ‘s Internet Industry. The 7 th Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, Taipei ,
Taiwan.
[2] Mao, J.-Y., Vredenburg, K., Smith, P. W., & Carey, T., User-centered Design Methods in Practice: A Survey of The State of The
Art. The 2001 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative research, Toronto, Ontario, (2001).
[3] Peissner, M., & Röse, K.m Usability Engineering in Germany: Situation, Current Practice and Networking Strategies. The 1st
European UPA conference on European usability professionals association conference, London, UK, (2002).
[4] Venturi, G., & Troost, J., Survey on The UCD Integration in The Industry. The third Nordic conference on Human-computer
interaction, Tampere, Finland, (2004)..
[5] Vredenburg, K., Mao, J.-Y., Smith, P. W., & Carey, T., A Survey of User-centered Design Practice. The SIGCHI conference on
Human factors in computing systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, (2002).
4

5. Ruby, Kuo | HCDE 598
Appendix: Competitor Analysis (Methods table)
Three examples are selected based on the goals of my project. I choose them because they all focus on
the topic of usability in practice, and the method table created by each product are great reference to
present the key concept of my project. In addition, I could learn advantages from these outstanding
products by carefully analysis them.
Usability Net http://www.usabilitynet.org/home.htm
Product description:
A European Union project that
provides usability and user centered
design resources to practitioners,
managers and EU projects.
The project started in February 2001
and finished in July 2003, last updated
in January 2006.
Key Features:
Usability methods table (basic
introduction, benefits, steps in
practice, case studies, extend
references of each method)
Design guidelines
Usability for manger section
Extended reference, for example,
global organizations, local activities,
forums, discussion list, annual
conferences, booklist, websites list,
courses.
Total methods:39
Pros
1. Plentiful content, clear position and goals. Target audiences including managers level (who have
decision-making power) and provide proper and useful content for them.
2. Organize methods with 4 filtering criteria: general purpose of methods, limited time/resource, limited skills,
and no direct access to users in order to assist practitioners select a suitable method.
3. Provide various extended reference (link to other websites).
4. Introduce benefits of each method or tool.
Cons
1. Only provide basic introduction of each method or technique, users who with limited knowledge of usability
hardly in practice them by reading the information.
2. The overall summary of each method didn’t separate by different application (for example, website, software,
or mobile).
3. Didn’t provide sample of research tools or provide information about tools design.
5

6. Ruby, Kuo | HCDE 598
The Usability Methods Toolbox (http://usability.jameshom.com/)
Product description:
This website create by James Hom
(and his professor Lou Freund, SJSU)
Hom attempted to compile
information about almost all of the
methods and techniques (well, ok, a
lot of them) used in usability
evaluation.
The project started in 1996 and last
updated in June 1998.
Key Features:
Usability methods table (categorize
by the nature/character of method:
inquiry, inspection, testing, and
related techniques)
Extended reference.
Total methods: 27
Pros
1. Terminology, for example the label of category is consisting with HCI professional language.
2. Accessibility: Text-based content and well navigation design.
3. Provide instruction information of each method. And provide related information by extending links (website,
article, research paper, books, and more).
Cons
1. Only focus on information of usability methods.
2. The overall summary of each method didn’t separate by different application (for example, website, software,
or mobile).
3. Didn’t provide sample of research tools or provide information about tools design.
6

7. Ruby, Kuo | HCDE 598
Usability.Gov (Research-based web design and usability guidelines)
Product description:
The Research-Based Web Design and
Usability Guidelines, compiled through
an extensive process of research and
review, bring users those best
practices. The document created by
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services’ (HHS) and University of
Maryland, and first published in 2003.
Key Features:
Focus on web design and usailbity.
Each guideline is supported by
related research papers, and index
with two characteristics: relative
importance and strength of
evidence.
Total guidelines: 197
Pros
1. Focus on web design and usability.
2. Create as a pdf document. Allow users read it on-line or off-line.
3. Provide complete list of reference (sources).
Cons
1. Only focus on web design guideline.
7