Please can you publish the user research you've done on this? The user needs analysis would be really helpful in evaluating whether something is actually useful for end users.
-
-
Replying to @edent @RickByers and
On our general process for deciding to ship features? We tend to do UXR for specific features (not general processes), and (as you know) that tends to implicate PII unless meticulously scrubbed.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @edent and
the Origin Trials framework intends to publish what it can from the surveys we conduct, but require large enough sample sizes to be psudonemous. Not all trials reach that level.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @edent and
But again, those trials are specific to a particular proposed feature, rather than the overall process.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @edent and
I'd also like to note the counterfactual: traditional working groups do not solicit or require feedback outside the set of people who are members of a particular SDO. This process is casting the nest wider and requesting more input than traditional standards development ever did
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @edent and
So I hear you on research; we're working to move the entire platform to a more evidence-based approach, and it's worth asking how the detractors of these tools would prefer things be structured instead. Is the alternative conference-room "consensus" from a preordained clique?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @slightlylate @RickByers and
1. Have a cool idea 2. Speak to real users and see if it meets a user need 3. Publish the (vague) user research and start discussing with peers 4. Design and iterate based on feedback 5. Test with users. Pass/Fail based on beta testing 6. Publish test results 7. Etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @edent @slightlylate and
What <toast> demonstrates is a "clique" of Google employees having a cool idea. Discussing it amongst themselves. Publishing no user feedback or tests. Then dumping it on the community. Thats not a great way to build consensus. Have some empathy for your fellow standards folk.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @edent @RickByers and
<toast> is explicitly derived from what frameworks are already doing.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @edent and
And again, these proposals are malleable and we want others to collaborate. The defacto oppositional frame in this conversation is...unhelpful.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I expect toast (like kv-store) to go to OT, and the team genuinely wants to collaborate with anyone who is keen.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.