CHI/UPA 2007 summary
Summary of the main problems experienced by
participants (User Experience practitioners) while doing Agile UCD.
|
Problem
|
Symptoms
|
Possible Solutions
|
|
Not enough design time.
|
•
Developers
waiting on designs
•
Design quality
drop
•
Designs not
verified with customers
|
•
Separate and
parallel UX Design/Developer tracks [1,2]
•
Scope UX
activities to be small, incremental [1]
•
RITE usability
testing [3,4]
•
Rapid contextual
design [5]
•
Design chunking
[1]
•
Combine
different UX activities into one session [1,6]
•
Bring user to
you [6]
|
|
Sprints
are too short
|
• Designs
can’t be finished in time
• No
time for usability testing
• No
time to set up customer contact
|
|
Not
enough user feedback
|
• Feedback
not early enough
• No
data to act on – opinions rule
• Product
isn’t validated
|
|
Weak
Agile "customer" [7]
|
• End-users
and clients won’t participate
• Can't
get buy-in from rest of team
• Non
informed decisions are made
|
•
UX person can
act as Agile customer [7]
• Each
UX person works on one scrum team [7]
• Choose
the scrum teams wisely
•
Validated
designs are passed to developers to implement [1,2]
•
UX participates
in cycle planning [2,6,7], bringing appropriate user feedback [1,2]
•
No features go
in unless something comes out
|
|
UX
is not full‑time on one Agile team
|
• UX
time spent in many meetings instead of on designs and iterations
• Demoralized
by UX quality drop
|
|
No
sprint/cycle planning
|
• Large
backlog of features/bugs
• Prioritization
feedback ignored
• No
control over timing of designs
|
|
User
feedback is ignored
|
• Feature
set is cast in stone
• No
time to incorporate changes
• No
re-ordering of features is allowed
|
|
Missing
the "big picture"
|
• No
shared vision or end goal
• Too
much focus on details
• Hard
to prioritize/make design decisions
|
•
Persuade Agile
team to adopt Cycle Zero
•
Lighten
requirements gathering process
•
Shorten time to
1 or 2 sprint lengths.
|
|
Poor
communication.
|
• Misunderstood
designs
• Agile
team doesn't buy-into designs
• Important
information is lost
|
•
Include
developers in design process [1]
•
Usability
included in acceptance criteria [1,2]
•
Daily contact to
check progress [1]
•
Design cards for
stand-up meetings [1]
•
Issue cards for
usability reporting [1]
•
Documents are
for design team [1,2]
|
|
Team
isn't co-located
|
• No
sense of team - lack of trust
• Language
and/or time barriers
• Not
enough communication
|
•
Telecommuting
tools (phone and web-based replacements)
•
Co-locate for
cycle planning
|
|
Dependency
issues
|
• Requiring
input from non-Agile teams (e.g., marketing sign-offs, lawyers)
• Can't
get things in time to complete sprint
|
•
A scrum leader
or facilitator with strong persuasion skills can move things along quickly.
|
References
[1] Sy, D. (2007). Adapting Usability Investigations for Agile User-centered Design. Journal of
Usability Studies 2, 3 (2007), 112-132
[2] Miller, L. (2005). Case Study of Customer Input for a Successful Product. Agile 2005 Conference Proceedings.
[3] Medlock, M., Terrano, M.,
Wixon, D. (2002) Using the RITE Method to Improve Products: A Definition and a Case Study. Proceedings of UPA 2002. Orlando: Usability Professionals’
Association.
[4] Schrag, J. (2006). Using
Formative Usability Testing as a Fast UI Design Tool. Proceedings of UPA
2006. Denver/Broomfield: Usability Professionals’ Association.
[5] Holtzblatt, K., Wendell,
J.B., and Wood, S. (2005). Rapid Contextual Design. San Francisco, CA:
Morgan Kaufman/Elsevier.
[6] Sy, D. (2006). Formative
usability investigations for open-ended tasks. Proceedings of UPA 2006.
Denver/Broomfield: Usability Professionals’ Association.
[7] Miller, L. (2006). Interaction Designers and Agile Development: A Partnership.
Proceedings of UPA 2006. Denver/Broomfield: Usability Professionals’
Association.
|