Spam detection software, running on the system "avery.infomotions.com", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see eric_morgan_at_infomotions.com for details. Content preview: Hi Kyle, I put together a real basic, no-frills bootstrap-based menu for 'quick and dirty' testing of new IA & menus a while back that may be useful for you: https://github.com/ubc-library/ia-test-mock [...] Content analysis details: (2.7 points, 1.1 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org [listed in lists.clir.org.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (schuyberg[at]gmail.com) 0.0 T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED 0.0 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 2.4 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source [209.85.214.52 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different 0.0 T_FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different
attached mail follows:
Hi Kyle, I put together a real basic, no-frills bootstrap-based menu for 'quick and dirty' testing of new IA & menus a while back that may be useful for you: https://github.com/ubc-library/ia-test-mock Some of the tools recommended here are definitely more comprehensive and polished (Treejack, Balsamiq, Optimal etc), but this works for when we just need to get a test done quickly and on the cheap. Cheers, - Schuyler -- *Schuyer W Lindberg* MLIS Programmer Analyst II, Interaction Designer UBCIT | Library Services The University of British Columbia | Vancouver Campus On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Nicholas Budak <budak_at_lclark.edu> wrote: > Hi Kyle, > > > > [OptimalWorkshop](https://www.optimalworkshop.com/) offers a suite of > awesome > tools for IA testing, particularly card sorting and tree sorting exercises. > I've used most of their products and ended up shelling out for the paid > features on one of them, although you can get a lot of mileage from the > free > tier if your sample size doesn't need to be very big. Probably the nicest > feature of the tree sorting app is the ability to dump to/import from an > .xls > file, which makes saving the results of the exercise really easy. > > > > Good luck with your redesign! I'm in the midst of leading one as well. > > > > * * * > > ** > ** > > **Nick Budak** > > Digital Projects Developer | Watzek Library > > Lewis & Clark College > > Portland, OR > > > On Sep 6 2016, at 12:08 pm, Kyle Breneman <tomeconqueror_at_GMAIL.COM> wrote: > > > Thanks very much for these helpful suggestions of strategies and tools! I > appreciate your input. > > > > > > Kyle > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Mumpower, Elizabeth Peele < > epeele_at_emory.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Kyle, > > > > > > Our UX/UI person has done some card-based IA testing using the > > methodology outlined here: <http://boxesandarrows.com/> > > card-based-classification-evaluation/ > > > > [http://boxesandarrows.com/files/banda/art_end.gif]<http: > > //boxesandarrows.com/card-based-classification-evaluation/> > > > > Card-Based Classification Evaluation « Boxes and Arrows< > > <http://boxesandarrows.com/card-based-classification-evaluation/>> > > boxesandarrows.com > > Mark the intersection of each scenario and the classification item > > selected by the participant. I usually use capital letters for first > > choices and ... > > > > If you have any questions about it, I can put you in touch with him. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Elizabeth Peele Mumpower > > Systems Librarian > > Emory University > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Code for Libraries <CODE4LIB_at_LISTS.CLIR.ORG> on behalf of Kyle > > Breneman <tomeconqueror_at_GMAIL.COM> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 9:48 AM > > To: CODE4LIB_at_LISTS.CLIR.ORG > > Subject: [CODE4LIB] Methods to test new site IA? > > > > Apologies for cross-listing... > > > > I need some advice on user testing methods. I've embarked on a project to > > redo our library website's information architecture. I've sketched out a > > new IA for the site which I want to test with users. Initially I thought > > that I would just build out the new IA on our development server, then do > > usability testing with users on the dev site. Now I'm realizing that will > > be a lot of work, and making any changes once its built will also take > > time. Is there a middle ground? Are there good ways to do some user > > testing with paper prototypes? I want to get feedback on whether my > > categories and labels are intuitive and meaningful. > > > > Kyle Breneman > > > > Integrated Digital Services Librarian > > > > University of Baltimore > > > > ________________________________ > > > > This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of > > the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged > > information. If the reader of this message is not the intended > > recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution > > or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly > > prohibited. > > > > If you have received this message in error, please contact > > the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the > > original message (including attachments). > > > >Received on Wed Sep 07 2016 - 15:20:19 EDT
