Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
How do you show your clients/employers that you understood their requirements?
What do you recommend to use? Use-Case diagrams? Flow-Charts? Data-Flow-Diagrams? Decision Trees?
I'm not really asking for a very detailed answer. Just something simple to help me communicate with the person who wrote the requirements and to see if both of you are on the same page.
I usually put together a PowerPoint deck fairly early in a project, giving a high-level overview of the project, along with some architectural diagrams (the simpler the better) and screen mockups/wireframes. Then I have a "kick-off" meeting for requirements review, and talk through the business problem and proposed solution.
I simply explain the requirements back in my own language, supplying my assumptions and adding in limitations.
The requirement may be "Button turns green when clicked"
I would ask "Ok, so when the user clicks on the button, the background color of the button turns green, but the text stays the same color?"
Basically prompting the person giving the requirements to explain how THEY envision it working.
My role has a lot of requirements gathering. The best way I find is a two pronged approach, talk through a PowerPoint presentation keeping it all simple and high level, and showing a Proof of Concept or a mock up. Walking and talking the customer through will see them responding with many "what if's" such as "Can I chance the colour?" this gives everyone a broad idea of what they are getting. If you can get something the users can touch and play with that works really well at uncovering the hidden what if.
Then, back this high level up with really detailed low level requirements. Spell out the dotted "i" and crossed "t". Get the users to read through and sign them before anything more than the POC is done. Generally word with a lot of screenshots works well.
Unless the users can bring you UML's and data flow charts, don't use them in anything the customer sees or signs. If it is signed by the customer and you had to regigg the back end to meet a "what if" you have to totally get everything resigned.
The final thing is to ensure that the customers can talk to you in their own words about their requirements and spell out what they are getting. One way to do this is to sit in on any middle management sell to higher management.
Don't try and bamboozle the customer, if they want something changed at the last minute, explain what the cost will be, in time and money, and ask them if this totally required. Doing this, will often stop people making trivial changes, and force them to think about why they want the change.
Requirements are getting what the customer needs from what they say they want.
Edit-
To the point about showing screenshots early- this sometimes requires a good PM to let the customer know the time scales and where everything is at. If the PM helps to set some decent time frames and expectations, the customers won't get excited. The good thing of POC and screenshots is people get an image of what it could be like and can often work that inside their minds.
If you want to avoid screenshots do a wire-frame look or use a whiteboard and 20 mins of drawing. Just remember to save the whiteboard as a photo before you whipe it.
Whiteboarding (and the good old OHP) can be a godsend to requirements gathering- developing a good clear style of drawing concepts can save hours in workshops.
Flow charts tend to confuse some non-technical people (ie clients), as well as data flow diagrams. Use Cases are good and understandable, as well as Business Requirement and Technical Requirement documentation, possible some sort of rough wireframe sketches.
It really depends wich requirements you're talking about.
Functionnal requirements? Maybe that UML is the rigth tool for. But I would prefer a test o test specifications
GUI requirements? Nothing beats a paper and a pencil.
Security requirements? By describing the limits of your security, you avoid unexpected deceptions.
Reliability requirements? Both testing mechannism, and software/hardware backup/recovery plan.
Other requirements: depends of your client.
But anyway, keep in mind, and explain to the client that requirement WILL change during the development phase and that it will always be a discussion and a compromise between cost and functionnality. Being honnest give more confidence to your customer.
I think that the best way to show that you really understand the client idea is to build prototypes.
By the way I was present in the last edition of the Requirements Engineering conference and in one of the workshops (MERE), Siemens was showing and interesting software based on composing a video of the client idea (it was for projects not limited to software) just to ensure that all the requirements are fully understood.
Any way, the thing is that some times a creative way to show them is better. Don't limit yourself to the standard diagrams.
I have had good experiences with creating a simple vocabulary, with terms from the domain and their meanings and relationships, and then go through it and make sure everybody agrees on everything.
Writing and discussing the vocabulary forces you to think, rather than just thinking that "we'll figure that out later".
It's no silver bullet, of course, and should be used along with other means such as a functional requirements specification and possibly a prototype.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
... and how to prove to management that use-cases can be informal and still useful?
Hi folks,
I came in the middle of a project and found out that there are no use-cases, user-stories, requirements, neither anything similar to a specification. Since the deadlines are short, the current dev team don't want to spend time on such things. I wanted to join that project, but by digging more I found out that the current development adds features just by considering their "wow-effect" and chooses what to add just by using the easiness that the underlying technology provides. I was surprised how they have managed to go so far (more than 4 months) without requirements, but this is what we have now. I believe that the way they have chosen is the most sure one to kill the product which has a good marketing value.
Am I right, and what would you do in a similar circumstances to prove the dev team/management to make use-cases/requirements before moving forward? Thanks in advance, kh.
P.S. Two copies of Cockburn's book are on the bookshelf...
You should give your colleagues the use-case spiel :D Tell them that use-cases are useful as they're:
A way of capturing business processes in a manner which is reasonably comprehensible by all stakeholders. This helps to bridge the gap between programmers, clients and users.
Traceable units of functionality. Use-cases are formed (ideally) in the analysis phase, referenced in the design phase, and can be used as sources for test cases later on.
Quick and easy to write up and useful, even if informal.
If you need more ammunition, you might want to read Use cases - Yesterday, today and tomorrow by none other than Ivar Jacobson.
If your colleagues still can't see the potential usefulness of use cases as a business analysis tool, then they're probably beyond help :P You should remind them that they're developing software to meet other people's needs and solve their problems in the long term, not to ostentatiously impress them in the short term with petty gimmicks. And so a little bit of direction and specification helps. Even if the use-cases themselves don't prove to be that useful, the simple act of coming up with them will force your colleagues to consider the actual underlying purpose of the software.
Ask questions, of both sides. Of development, ask them if they are certain that all of the ways in which they have considered using the application are all of the ways in which the end-users will want to use it; if they say they have, ask for proof. Of management, ask if they've ever used software that does everything they want, but still ends up being hard to use (they will have). These questions will seed the concept that what will be delivered might not be what is desired, on both sides; use that seed of an idea, then, to open up discussions (not documents, not at the start) on how the software will be used, and in what way any differences can be resolved. They'll get around to use-case documents eventually.
I am a product manager by profession, and my first reaction to your post is that ideas can come from anywhere, and if the dev team has decent ideas they should be incorporated into the product.
Having said that, a product can not develop a soul (a simple message) through a string of disconnected ideas that do not serve the ultimate purpose: solving the needs of a target user. And, ultimately it boils down to making the case that time is better spent on requirements/use cases that make sense for the product, while the opportunity cost of not having a clear strategy/end goal will lead to too many chefs and a jaded product message.
The ultimate way to make this message hit home is to involve other stake holders and have development demonstrate their work. Eventually, there will be disagreement and a more formalized (less cowboy) approach will lead to a more refined and simple product.
One of the problems you mention is tight schedule and scope creep induced by the devs themselves. Explain them, that by using use cases you can earn time by dropping features, which will potentially end up on the "never used" pile. With use cases you can find out what are the features customers need and will pay for and by removing unimportant features out of the scope you would have time to implement. Use cases apart from defining the scope also help to identify all the stakeholders, which might help you to focus even better while defining the scope and prevent forgetting about trivial things, which are not so apparent, but are a must if the product should be usable. The third most important thing about use cases is that they allow you to start thinking about corner cases which might be important for the customer before development and therefore you can find out with the customer what would be the ideal solution instead of letting the coder decide on his/her own under pressure of deadline.
Just show them.
Example is not the best way of educating people, it is the only one.
Lead by example focusing on extensions and exceptions. In other words emphasize the failure scenarios because everyone knows how the system should work. The real value of written Use Cases is identifying what should happen when something goes wrong.
That noted, consider you may have to live without written use cases. And, for the environment you describe, a major win is any sort of requirements documentation. Screen comps and/or prototyping are often easier to introduce.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I am a first time intern at a large corporation and I created a GUI tool that lets my coworkers visualize the log file that their product produces. The tool, known as MRI, is nearing completion and I face a conflict.
One party, (Two ambitious Indian guys that live in California) want me to adapt MRI to a new format and to display much more detailed information. The current version of MRI is built around the idiosyncrasies of the 20 year old log file format. In my opinion it is a bad idea to attempt to grow a more powerful, more universal tool out of a less powerful and idiosyncratic one (Better to start from scratch; something I probably don't have time to do).
The other party is composed of several marketing types and my father. They are drooling over the shiny new GUI that I slapped on top of their crazy old log file, and every one of them wants some feature that would help them with their day to day work.
Whom should I please? I just want to code. Which path will lead to less dumb conflicts like this?
Sounds like you are getting your first taste of the world of a manager! I'm doing exactly the same thing 10 years later, with a much bigger budget and head count. So it never really ends.
I love the answer about doing some time estimates for each requested addition, and then sitting down all parties and working on a negotiation that gets the greatest degree of satisfication. I'm betting that since you are an intern, and many of the people you mention have seniority, that they will be able sort out amongst themselves who has the biggest stake and most power in the situation. But if not, don't hesitate to act as moderator -- after all, this is your project.
Other things to think about:
Types of stake holders:
Customers - the person who controls the budget is often the most powerful of stakeholders, after all, they control your ability to do the work by controlling your funding. For an internal tool, this is probably an internal stakeholder, but it may be someone from a non-engineering group, if this tool is for a non-engineering purpose.
Users - in the long run, users often make or break a tool. They definitely determine the tool's longetivity. It's not unusual, though, for users to lack advocates. And in a big internal project, it's entirely possible that users are not the customers.
Technical Management - particularly when you are an intern and when you are working on an internal project, technical management is the group that's most important for you (as an individual) to please. They may have their own stake in the feature set, as they may be looking for a certain feature path for the product that fits a long term technological end game. Ideally, they should be on your side, and helping to figure out the best feature set.
In a big company, hopefully these roles are really well defined. Probably with an org chart. But not necessarily. And in a group that's used to working together, they may not make it really clear to a new comer exactly what the official roles are. As the guy doing the work, you're job should be to accurately and honestly tell them your best guess on what effort it will take to get the feature done. And to be open to ideas for making it cheaper/easier.
Negotiation:
The best negotiation advice I've ever gotten was "A good negotiation is one where everyone thinks they won". Sadly, the frequent outcome is that everyone feels equally screwed. The trick between every stakeholder leaving happy and every stakeholder feeling beaten down is to see the big picture and be innovative about getting everyone's needs met. In the end, no one really cares how you do it, if you can make their jobs easier, they will be happy. So finding features that serves everyone well can be the key to resolving the conflict.
Being able to do this well will really make a positive impact on your bosses. This is an extremely rare skill, and this type of finesse does get noticed.
Not having it does not mark you as a pariah, however, not many engineers enjoy negotiation. And it's never worth making every engineer be good at it. It's far better to find an engineering manager who is good at negotiating and to let them be the "speaker for the geeks", so the rest of the engineers can do their work in peace. :)
Sit the two parties down in the same room. Show them a list of the features each has asked for and how long you think each will take. Then explain that all of it is possible but all of it takes time, and ask them to come to agreement on what they would like when. Note down what is agreed and mail it to everyone afterwards so there is a record. Don't forget to pad your estimates to allow for testing and debugging time.
Alternatively, work out who the person directly responsible for managing you is, implement what they tell you (feeding back estimates of how long each thing will take) and tell anyone else who asks you to implement anything to go talk to that person to get it on your schedule; then doing the above management work becomes their problem.
Explain, if doing one of the above does not cause the matter does not resolve itself, that the Californians' features would require a refactor, and if you are going to do that you would rather hold off implementing any features for the other party until that is complete since doing the same work twice is wasteful.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
You and I want to be the expert on computer programming or website design, but sometimes a customer would rather try their hand at your specialty than concentrate on real estate sales, marketing, or being a former member of the Israeli army. Then we have a choice: either figure out how to tell the prickly customer their logo would NOT be better spinning in 3-d with a righteous lens flare, or perhaps suffer the small indignity of making link texts as verbose as possible in direct opposition to any style guide ever written.
Have you been able to convince your customers to focus on whatever it is they are trained to do so they will let you execute your technical skill to the best of your ability?
I always try to point my clients in the right direction with regard to design. Sometimes it's just not possible though; they want something that's dreadful design, but they're convinced it's essential to their system. If they're unconvinced after a modest pitch, I just do what they want. They are, after all, the ones paying me (usually) thousands of dollars to build to their spec.
Often the reason the client wants to get involved is they are concerned consciously or unconsciously you don't understand the details of their business or how they do it.
The best approach is to work with the client to learn their business. This involves zero assumptions and learning the "how they do it" of their business. From that, discover all the data they use, what states the data sits in at what point in their process.
Keep taking it back to them and eventually they will realize that not only do you understand their stuff, what they want, and what direction they want to go in, but that you might even know the implications or impacts better than them.
After this they will usually stay out of your hair. This can be hard though when working with micromanaging types, or engineers. By nature they want to know how everythign works which is great. The timing of when it's best to learn how it works is the tough part.
Often you can get stuck in more conversing about solving a problem than it would take to just fix it. Maybe you can tell us more about the client's personality.
The trick is to get them to make the right decisions, but think it's their idea. :-)
You can't have this conversation with them easily in the abstract, but you can drill down and guide them towards the side of righteousness on each individual decision. Eventually, after you've been through this a few times, they'll start to trust you.
If possible, it helps to wait a day. Tomorrow they may be less clear on exactly what they asked for. (Do they really have their heart set on a flaming logo, or was it just a whim?) Then, in your response, you: describe what you recommend, and why. Restate agreed-upon objectives, and show how the solution meets the objectives. And make it sound like it was their idea. ("The point you made yesterday about xxx is really excellent, and I think that suggests a yyy solution.")
At this point you have a choice. You can ideally pretend you never heard their silly suggestion. Or if you feel you have to, respond to it tactfully and explain costs. ("I'm a bit concerned about the animated logo idea, because it may not convey the brand image the way you requested. Of course if you want to go this route, we certainly can--in which case I'd suggest we get our graphic design consultant involved. Let me know if you want to explore this further and get a quote from the consultant for his services.")
I found that customers are always easier to convince by "optical evidence" than by theoretical arguments - so you could e.g. show them logos or the general style used on websites which won a price for their usability, or maybe even show them how some big competitor is doing it, and then point out the benefits based on what they see.
I've also once managed to get rid of a really terrible user interface suggestion by making screen mock-ups of how this feature would actually look and work - and I made sure to make thes mock-up as unappealing as possible ;-) When I presented them, the client quickly realized that there were better ways of achieving his goal.
Knowledge is power. When you know a client is doing something wrong, have the facts ready as to why and present them quickly and in plain english. You need to remind them why they hired you in the first place.
Bearing that in mind, sometimes clients insist on shooting themselves in the foot. Have backups ready, use version control, but most of all: don't antagonize them. Your reputation is worth a lot more than their 3d-logo-spinny site.
Very carefully.
You've got several conflicting issues here: you want to keep the relationship (and the revenue), you want to do good work, and you don't want to end up with your name on a turkey.
Start by asking lots of questions about the business aspect: what do you want it to do, who do you want to reach, what impression do you want to give. Sometimes that will let you turn the discussion to more useful topics.
If that doesn't work, sometimes it helps to mock up the customer's idea and your idea, and compare them; if yours is clearly superior, they may see it.
If not, sometimes you have to remember that contracting/consulting is a form of prostitution; you do what the customer wants, whether it's your favorite thing or not.
The other thing to remember is a lesson I got from another consultant years ago: some customers aren't worth the trouble. he recommended that once you have enough business to live, you make a practice of firing your least liked 10 percent of the customers. Over time you develop a customer base that you can work with, and give the turkeys to someone else.
The problem with customers is that they are the customer. They have hired you to do a project to their specifications. What they seem to have missed in your example is that they have hired you because of your experience. You need to remind them of that fact in a gentle way. Perhaps a story such as "At one client, we used a logo like that and they expereinced a drop in traffic. Once we switched to a flat icon the traffic returned." Doesn't have to be true, per se, but you need to sell it.
All you can do it explain to your customer that they hired you for your expertise in design, but at the end of the day, the customer is always right.
If you find you don't enjoy working for customers like that, simply state at the beginning of a new project that you require complete creative control. If they still want rotating logos, then you'll have to put up with it for that project but at least you can decline any offers from the same customer in the future.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Probably an easy one:
Are there any rules of thumb or pointers that could help recognise political requirements?
Let’s say one of stakeholders (your boss, a head of another department or an actual user) asks for a feature or particular characteristic of software being developed by yourself or your team. Is there a litmus test to determine whether requirement is political?
This question is really simple and is not about how to deal with political requirements or whether they are bad or good for software. How do you tell that whatever you have been asked to do is to pursue someone’s tacit or actually openly stated political agenda?
Will it really help you to know? I mean - if you're already embroiled in political games you'll know anyway. If you're not it isn't something you'll be able to use.
If you're going to have to implement the feature anyway I'd say just get on with it. Finding out that it's part of some management game will only demotivate you.
That said - if you're working on the sort of application that's so themware that you can't tell whether it's a real user feature or a political lever of some sort then it's probably a safe assumption that everything is political.
I would say that you should assume that all requirements are political.
If you are in a situation where more than one person is responsible for determining the set of features you implement, then every feature is effectively a negotiation between those people. That negotiation makes those features political.
However, even if there is only person deciding what features ship, there is still a pretty strong chance that those decisions are political. In any organization of reasonable size (say more than ten people), you are going to have politics. The politics in that situation will differ than the "design by committee situation". They will focus on currying the favor of the person who decides which features ship, rather than on "if you support my feature, I'll support yours" that exists in the committee scenario. That process, however, is still political.
I'm not trying to say that it's not possible to have a development environment free of politics. It is. However, I would say that to pull of it off that you need:
A small, tightly knit team
A boss that focuses on creating an environment that fosters creativity, and delegating creative ownership, rather than focusing on control over the creative process.
Smart, highly talented and creative people that share a strong sense of purpose and aesthetic values.
Missing any one of those things, you are doomed to a repetitive deluge of office politics.
The best idea is to find out what all the features are to be used for, i.e. find out not only how a feature is to be implemented, but also learn why it should be done. It really helps to know the background of the desired solution. It might even allow you to suggest an alternate feature set that might better suit your customer (maybe even play your own political game).
As long as there is anything you do not understand, do not do the project. It will only cause problems at some point.
Obviously it's a tricky question and much depends on your definition of the 'political'.
I would start with the simple question:
* Are the authors/originators of the requirement really using the software in question?
The requirement could come from your boss but it could be a translated valid requirement of the real user
Here are some I've seen:
It directly contradicts other requirements
It is clearly not feasible technically
It is "out in left field" ... it doesn't fit into the defined problem space
It contradicts common sense
BEWARE ... sometimes this results from your use-cases being wrong or incomplete. I've also purposely allowed some of these to proceed to development (e.g Eye-candy that sells the product but is useless or at least generally not used by the operators).
Use the SCRUM approach. Don't describe a feature as
"It should be doing this and that in the following way"
While the sentence above describes all you need to know to implement the feature, it does not justify the feature. My SCRUM book says features should be written down as a story. A story looks like this:
"As a <user-role>
I need a <functionality>
So that I get <business value>"
A feature that cannot be justified using such a story is an unjustified feature and thus there is no use to actually implement it.
E.g.
"As a visitor of a web portal I need a way to authenticate, so I can access my customer data, but nobody else can"
Now you don't only know that you need an authentication for your web portal, you also know who needs it (the visitors, basically everyone planing on using it more intensively) and you also know why it is needed, as it gives the user some value.
Other examples:
"As a passenger I need a list of all my booked journeys, so that I know when I'm going to travel where and won't lose the overview"
"As a book keeper, I'd like to have the sales tax being automatically printed to each bill based on customer data, so that I don't have to enter it manually each time I'm printing a bill"
If every feature needs to be written like that, you'll automatically see if a feature is for the customer, because it is really necessary, or just something your boss/company wants to have and also why they want to have it (what is the big picture behind it? Why are they doing it?).
The use of ambiguous words or phrases is often political.
However,
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
How do you test the usability of the user interfaces of your applications - be they web or desktop? Do you just throw it all together and then tweak it based on user experience once the application is live? Or do you pass it to a specific usability team for testing prior to release?
We are a small software house, but I am interested in the best practices of how to measure usability.
Any help appreciated.
I like Paul Buchheit's answer on this from startup school. The short version of what he said listen to your users. Listen does not mean obey your users. Take in the data filter out all the bad advice and iteratively clean up the site. Lather, rinse, repeat.
If you are a small shop you probably don't have a team of QA or Usability people or whatever to go through the site. Your users are going to be the ones that actually use the site though. Their feedback can be invaluable.
If something is too hard for one of your users to use or too complex to understand why they should use it, then it might be the same way for 1000 other users. Find a simpler way of accomplishing the same thing.
Once you have gathered all of this feedback and have a list of things to do, do the simplest ones first. That way you have forward moving usability progress.
What I like to do is give someone an install package, ask them to perform a number of tasks related to how the application works, and watch.
Hardest part is to keep your mouth shut.
Some of the best advice on usability testing is available on Jakob Nielsen's Website http://www.useit.com. He advocates what Will mentioned - ask users to perform various tasks on your website or web application and then sit back to see what they do.
Do not interrupt the users by asking questions or guiding them. Just observe them and document their flow. You can also get hardware and software to do eye-tracking and understand what captures the attention of the users.
However, usability should not start from the testing phase. You must have some general idea of what users generally like and do not like when you do development. There are many websites and books outlining generally accepted usability standards and principles.
Normally, we test the usability of new interfaces by asking a small selection of users to try out a beta version.
We give a small amount of instruction as to what the new features/screens are supposed to do and let them dive straight into it. It's very interesting to see where they are looking and clicking. We never demo the new features - we only talk about what it does.
If the UI changes are minimal then they go live and we gather feedback from real users. It's only when we are making big changes that we go through usability tests on beta.
When developing new screens it usually helps a hell of a lot to get a colleague sat in front of the UI and ask them what it does. Which areas do they click on? Where are they looking first? What sections are drawing their attention? etc.
I agree with Adam; using a very computer illiterate person is very helpful. However, what I've run into before with that is the program I want them to try out just isn't "up their alley" as far as something they would ever want to do.
A good way to start is with a paper prototype. Have specific tasks that you want your "user" to perform and have them do it. For more on paper prototyping, start here.
I frequently take any new interface I'm working on to one of our technical support people. They've heard every complaint about interfaces that you could ever imagine, so if anyone is going to think up potential problems, they will.
Also, and I'm not kidding about this, I often take the least computer literate person I know (you're mother is often a good choice...but they have to have used a computer before, otherwise it's going to by pointless) and let them loose on the interface with no instruction. If they can't figure out where things are intuitively, then your GUI likely needs work. Remember, Don't make them think! (yes, I know this is for web design, but it applies)
There are many ways to test the usability of a system. Please check any available literature you can find. I just want to insist that usability test is not so hard as you or anyone might think. In a famous paper called "A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems" in INTERACT'93 and CHI'93, J. Nielsen and T. K. Landauer showed that only five users are enough to find most problems in a small system.
If you have no way to read this paper, try this article in the author's website:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html
Z'been a while since this question was last active but here goes anyways.
From experience :
Always use Objectively measurable to decide if usability is better or not (time to accomplish carefully selected task, inactive time, KLM type metrics) here a key-mouse logger can be a precious ally
Never go too far ahead before consulting and measuring again with your client (do not encage yourself with the paper prototype and emerge with the finish product... that just never works)
read, read, read, try, evolve
Keep things simple and always remember the task at had (why the user needs the interface)
test, test and test again...
Always go to the bottom of the user requests. Although the check box the user request at this particular place may be the best thing to do, it almost always hides a more fundamental flaw
the system user (the one using it... as opposed to the one paying for it) is your best ally, keep him/her on your side
Never be afraid of refactoring your design and evolve your system. Also evolve your metrics and measurements also, however be careful in doing so not to break measurements continuity as it is the best token of objective progress in a VERY subjective world.
recommended reading (other than previously proposed):
Handbook of usability testing Jeff Rubin. A bit extreme but we toyed around an agile version of his approach and found that if we spent 30 minutes a week with users we would get a LOT of useful feedback while not getting swamped with too much info.
keep close watch to the Sneiderman and Nielsen of this world and other that may arrise
As usability inspection goes, there are several viable methods. They require a different amount of resources in regards to persons, analysis and equiptment.
The most common, and easiest to perform is called
Heuristic Evaluation
You basically walk through each screen to check if it conforms to the heuristics set by you, or your customer.
Check this article by Nielsen
Cognitive walkthrough
This method requires you to ask the user to complete steps in the application. You prepare steps for the user to complete. Issues that arrise during this walkthrough is taken into consideration when finishing the application.
Check this paper for details.
Think Aloud Analysis
I have used this method mostly in the early stages of prototyping. I let the user talk freely about the system while it is beeing used. Ask questions about use, design etc. You can get a really nice veiw of the general feeligns of the system, and what features are lacking.
Check this paper for details.
Interaction analysis
This is a more tricky one. I have only used the datagathering teqchniques proposed by this one. This technique takes into account context, activites, body language etc. Interaction analysis is commonly focused on research, not so much in commercial evaluations.
This link takes you to the article.
Keep in mind that these methods take practice to perfect. I would start with HE, continue to CW and THA. And only use Interaction Analysis if you have lots of resources and time.
There are a number of methods to test or evaluate usability of an application. Broken down into qualitative and quantitative methods and based on when you are planning to test.
Further it is categorized based on whether users are involved or experts do the testing.
To name a few methods,
Expert Reviews - user interface or usability experts rate the usability of an interface based on decided heuristics and principles
Formative usability testing - task flows are taken and users are provided with tasks to be completed. Qualitative feedback is collected based on what the users feel the pain points are during the testing. This form of testing is done during the design to provided feedback into the design of the application.
Summative Usability testing - task flows are taken and users are provided with tasks to be completed. The applications performance on efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction are measured based on users completion of tasks.
The importance difference is whether you engage the user or a expert to tell you the difference in usability. Further on when you do the evaluation - at the end of the project or during the design phases.
I'm a strong believer in what I call 3-martini usability testing. When designing a system, imagine that the person who will be using it has just had 3 martinis.
Before handing over the system to colleagues (other programmers, quality assurance, tech support) or usability testers, an informal test with a couple of friends and a bottle of vodka (outside of work, of course) can often prove instructive.