Development Methodology

5.5.1 Methodology Principles

Developing tools for taxonomists was conducted in a user centred approach, involving an early focus on developing user requirements and understanding, then iterative analysis, design, development and testing. These design principles have been articulated and demonstrated in studies for the design of effective computer systems for some time (e.g. [Gould 1985]).

After the problem domain had been investigated and analysed in the first development stage as described in chapters 2-3, the design and development of prototype solutions progressed through a number of iterative cycles. The second development stage, aimed at identifying a workable approach to the identified problem, involved the Use Cases and storyboards described in chapter 4. The remaining development stages involved the development of interactive tools. The interactive prototype tools were iteratively developed to explore, evaluate and refine the approach.

5.5.2 Evaluation of Interactive Tools

During each interactive development stage, RBGE taxonomists participated in the evaluation of prototypes. Evaluation concentrated on qualitative feedback as there was no comparable system with which to measure the effectiveness of the approach. The current paper-based system does not collect defined, structured data of the sort

envisioned and neither does any other taxonomic tool. While some parallels can be tentatively drawn with current practice in evaluating the specialisation process, too great an emphasis cannot be placed upon any such comparisons.

In the main test, during each phase, users were asked to perform sets of representative tasks during which they were encouraged to talk about their actions, observations and problems. This ‘think-aloud’ methodology [Lewis 1982] is designed to elicit qualitative feedback from a relatively small number of users. Interviews were utilised at the conclusion of the set tasks to follow-up issues. Since the user group was generally small, interviews were used rather than questionnaires since they could be more flexible, both in ability to explain difficult questions in depth, avoiding misunderstanding of questions and in the ability to ask follow-up questions on areas of interest that arise in the evaluation. In-depth understanding of any issues was considered more important than analysing the hard numbers that could be collected from questionnaires. The users were professional taxonomists who represented the real end- users of the system and as such were the ideal test subjects to select [Nielsen 1993]. As is common in professional and corporate environments the tests had to be kept relatively short (e.g. [Weiss-Lijn 2001]). On average 1 hour was given to each user in each test, which was long enough for representative tasks to be completed.

Observation of the individual users using the system to perform full actual tasks was used where possible to back-up the other evaluations. Additionally users were interviewed to gain insight into their experiences with the system. The results of these full tasks (specialised domain model files and specimen descriptions) were also analysed. These full task tests helped ensure that we were not overlooking issues due to the nature of tasks we set in the main tests. Small focussed tests were also utilised to gain feedback about specific features from a taxonomist working on the Prometheus II project.

Peer review by computer scientists on the Prometheus II project, was used to evaluate interim designs using informal heuristic evaluation techniques. These evaluators had both some experience of the domain and usability, which Nielsen [1992] showed significantly improved the number of usability problems they could find.

5.5.3 Interactive tool development phases

The third development phase involved testing the articulated approach for specialising the domain ontology for a project. At this stage, the full angiosperm ontology had not been developed. The description data from a proforma developed for the codnopsis group of plants was transformed for use as an ontology to test the functionality of the specialisation interface hierarchical description view. Initial informal feedback on prototypes was received from two RBGE taxonomists and from computer scientists on the Prometheus II project staff. A formal user test with three RBGE taxonomists was undertaken.

The fourth development phase utilised the angiosperm ontology and extended the interactive tool to include data entry interface. It also revised the specialisation interface. As the interface reached a degree of full functionality we were able to undertake three evaluations of users undertaking the task of specialising the ontology and entering specimen data for basic cases with few descriptive complications (Codnopsis and Begonia datasets – one user, Cyclocodon dataset – one user,

Umberlifferae dataset – two users). A full user test involving six RBGE taxonomists

was conducted.

The fifth development phase further revised the system and its associated interfaces. Some extra functionality was added. It aimed to test the effect of the whole system with users in depth by having full tasks completed and evaluated, with potentially more complicated and extensive data (Middleton’s Alyxia dataset – two users, Prunus

(Bhutan) dataset – one user, Ranuculus dataset – one user). It also aimed to test a wider

user population, to which end, a user test with thirteen representative taxonomists was completed. A short follow-up evaluation to this last test was made to answer some outstanding issues regarding the editing of some complex aspects of the domain model. A final prototype development was also tested in another domain, that of the TCS bio- informatics XML transfer schema [TDWG 2005] as discussed in chapter 8.

Fuller details of individual tests are given in relevant evaluation section. Test scenarios and interview guides are shown in Appendix D-E.

5.6 Conclusion

A system to capture high-quality descriptive data, relevant to individual projects of work, utilising two UIs for specialising data requirements and entering data has been introduced. The main models (task, domain and presentation) used by the system have also been introduced. These basic elements can be found to an extent in various model- based user interface development environments, however these do not provide for end- users to determine project data requirements, as the interfaces are designed for use by IT experts rather than general end-users. Nor where data entry interfaces are automatically generated from data requirements, do they specifically address supporting the needs of high quality data entry. The described system uses an imported ontology to represent domain knowledge, defining terms and relationships to attempt to improve clarity, comparability and give appropriate guidance to users.

The following two chapters examine the two main user tasks, specialising data requirements and data entry, in detail. They will examine the interfaces and models that support them, along with results of the evaluation process.

Chapter 6