InDesign Team 1 Tianna Drew, Danie Merriman, Justin Shearer, Aerin Truskey March 26, 2012

Figure 1: (left to right) Negative and positive framing of information (i.e. losses and gains frames), one of which will be presented to each study participant.

Introduction The purpose of this usability test plan is to assess, for the sake of a later, larger study, the effectiveness of positively and negatively framed infographics (above) in informing and persuading landowners in the Rocky Mountain region. Both infographics focus on possible wildfire mitigation efforts by homeowners and land management agencies, but each frames these efforts differently: the positively framed infographic describes fire mitigation efforts in terms of what subjects stand to gain (also called a gains frame), and the other, negatively framed one does so in terms of what they might lose (losses frame). Using the results of individual surveys, interviews, and a focus group, we will gauge participants knowledge of and views on wildfire management, both before and after administering a particular infographic treatment (either the gains or losses frame). Our results will inform the aforementioned future study of these infographics effectiveness in teaching and persuading users, based on the individual influences of

InDesign Team 1 Tianna Drew, Danie Merriman, Justin Shearer, Aerin Truskey March 26, 2012

visual design and written content. The following components are included in this usability test plan: Description of participants and our contact with them Test metrics, including how we plan to measure participant responses Test logistics, in how exactly we expect to conduct our test The purpose and importance of this pilot study to future usability tests Purpose/Importance Purpose The purpose of this pilot study is to trial a usability test that measures the effectiveness of the two infographics that conveying the importance of proper action to lower destructiveness and increase public awareness of forest fires. Results The results of the pilot study will be presented back to the technical writing class. The group will then discuss affordances and constraints both of the infographics themselves as well as how they were administered. Based on these results, changes will be made to improve both the visuals as well as the manner in which they are facilitated. This could involve any of the following: changing wording of infographics to increase clarity; altering visual layout of infographic to better understanding; adapt methods of interacting with participants to better collect desired information. Participants For this usability test we will be choosing our participants out of convenience, using existing social connections and circles (i.e. friends, clubs, and other people we already know). Each member of our team will arrange for five different people to participate in the study. With four team members, this will provide us with a total of 20 survey participants: eight surveys, eight interviews, and four focus group participants. In addition, we have split our efforts between the gains and losses frames; two team members will present all their subjects with the gain frame, while two will use the losses frame. This will produce 10 sets of results for each framing of the information. Figure 2: Team member interviewee responsibilities Justin Two Interviews X (positive frame) X Tianna X (negative frame) X Aerin X (negative frame) X Danie X (positive frame) X

Two Surveys

InDesign Team 1 Tianna Drew, Danie Merriman, Justin Shearer, Aerin Truskey March 26, 2012

One Focus Group Participant

As described above, our participants will not be selected at random, and this may create bias in our results (ex. students, for whatever reason, may be more or less likely to feel a certain way about wildfire mitigation efforts), but this is only a pilot study and we cannot hope to reach the grand scale of random sampling that we would need to correct for such bias. However, to at least qualify potential participant biases, subjects will complete a pretest (before we administer an infographic) that includes background questions including age, area of study, and experience with or knowledge of wildfires and management thereof. Finally, in the interest of maintaining participants privacy and their personal information, we will number our subjects alphabetically after data collection is complete and before any analysis begins. These numbers will be the only moniker we use to discuss the information they have provided for this study, and none of the data they have given us will be used as personal identification. Test Metrics The aim of our pilot study is to test each frames effectiveness in educating and persuading participants on matters of wildfire mitigation. Using a numerical scale from -3 to 3 (-3 being strong disagreement and 3 being strong agreement with a given statement), we will record our subjects views on a number of aspects of wildfire management. The aspects for which we will record participants opinions include aesthetics (ex. Management techniques...make the forest look better,), values (The primary role of forests is to produce jobs and income,), and knowledge of current research (I am not worried about the increase in fire frequency in the past 50 years,). We will record our subjects views twice: once with the pretest, before we administer an infographic, and a second time after administration. (A copy of the pre- and post-tests is attached at the end of this test plan.) More specifically, we will be asking participants what, if anything, about a given infographic was particularly effective or ineffective in conveying information, when the data collection protocol allows (i.e. during an interview or focus group). The fact that we cannot ask these same details from a survey-taking subject is a constraint of a survey protocol. Such targeted information will be particularly useful to future studies if a subject changed one of his or her test answers after infographic administration. Alternatively,

InDesign Team 1 Tianna Drew, Danie Merriman, Justin Shearer, Aerin Truskey March 26, 2012

we might ask a participant what elements of the infographic were too weak to convince him or her to change an answer. After data collection is complete we will be able to compare, using the above numerical values, how effective each infographic frame was in conveying information and garnering support for wildfire mitigation. For instance, if a subject changed his level of agreement with the statement Prescribed burns are too uncontrollable to be a forest management tool, from 1 (slightly agree) on his pretest to -1 (slightly disagree) on his post-test, we could surmise that the infographic was responsible for two points-worth of persuasion and education. Moreover, if one frame is similarly responsible for more persuasion/education points, on average, than the other, we might conclude that that frame is the more effective presentation of information. Finally, with the aforementioned specific suggestions from participants as to certain design elements effectiveness (or lack thereof), we will be able to attribute a given frames performance to particular characteristics. For example, if the negative frame changed subjects test answers on Question 4 by an average of two points, while the positive frame did so by three, we could analyze our subjects comments on each infographics treatment of the content that Question 4 concerned. That is, if Question 4 concerned participants awareness of current wildfire trends, and participants did not feel that the negative frame placed enough emphasis on these trends (while participants viewing the positive frame did not feel that way), then we might conclude that the positive frames emphasis on wildfire trends is more effective and more convincing. Test Logistics Testing Locations We will conduct our surveys/interviews/focus groups at our subjects convenience, but we will limit our venues to quiet (preferably empty) university classrooms and lounges for the sake of consistency. These locations are somewhat private, so that our participants will feel comfortable answering our inquiries honestly, but they are still public and accessible enough to allow our team members and study participants to meet easily and comfortably. Materials Our key materials are our documents: paper surveys, interview guides/outlines, and focus-group questions. Each group member is responsible for conducting two individual surveys and two individual interviews, along with bringing a participant to the focus group. In light of this limited need for supplies (aside from our donations of personal time), our expenses are few, and will consist mainly of printing costs. As for our tests, surveys, and focus group questions, the only difference between the

InDesign Team 1 Tianna Drew, Danie Merriman, Justin Shearer, Aerin Truskey March 26, 2012

pre- and post-tests will be the demographic/background information asked in the pretest. We will store data in the same form as we initially collected it from our subjects, on the paper surveys and interview forms. Since this is a one-time test only, this data will not be maintained or updated (just like any other statistical test or study). Finished data and results will appear in a document (white paper) to be presented back to our Technical Writing section, including graphic breakdowns & analyses of these results Timeline Ideally, the entire time from administration of the pre-test to treatment to completion of the post-test for each participant should not exceed 30 minutes. Concerning the timeline for the entire project, data collection should take no more than two weeks. Figure 3: Timeline for project completion
Week 1 Mar 18- Mar 24 1. Complete final draft of usability test plan 2. Begin individual interviews of participants 3. Complete focus group segment of study - Thursday March 22, 2012 @ 5:00 pm 1. Complete individual interviews as laid out in matrix 2. Convene and complete white paper - Sunday March 25, 2012 @ 5:00 pm - Tuesday March 27, 2012 @ 7:00 pm - Thursday March 29, 2012 @ 7:30 pm

Week 2

Mar 25- Mar 31

Figure 4: Individual usability plan writing responsibilities Justin Participants section Test Metrics section Test Logistics Section Purpose/Importance Section X X X X Tianna Aerin Danie