home mess systems- prototype 2 & evaluation

Home-Mess Syste

m*Final Presentation*

Prototype II & Evaluation II

Arundhati, Ihab, Ibrahim, Fareed, Zain

Introduction

Completing the design

process

Retracing the last 10 weeks Purpose of the project Steps taken to complete it

The end to another

beginning…

OBJ

ECTI

VES

Recap of all our previous phases.

Re-design of our first prototype

Evaluating users with newly designed

prototype

Consolidating all results

Formulating new design alternatives

for future prototypes

Conclusion of project & groupwork

Communication is defined as a process by which we assign and convey meaning in an attempt to create shared understanding

PRECAP

The first phase of design involves ascertaining the user requirements.

Gathering User data helps in establishing these requirements.

There were several methods used in gathering quality user generated data:

Participant observationQuestionnairesFocus Group Interviews

Focus on the user…

Data yielded results, who knew?

Asking the right types of questions guarantees informative answers.

Constructive and innovative solutions can be formed by simply observing the needs, wants and habits of the target group.

Using triangulation, we were able to transcend the limits of simply postulating theories, observing users and trying new methods.

Triangulation allowed us to accomplish more than the sum of its parts.

The first phase of design involves ascertaining the user requirements.

Gathering User data helps in establishing these requirements.

There were several methods used in gathering quality user generated data:

Participant observationQuestionnairesFocus Group Interviews

User Requiremen

ts

Questionnaires:

Questions were asked

regarding lifestyle,

occupation, number of

people and activities.

Participant observation:

Group members observed users overnight to pick up their habits, obstacles, needs and wants.

Focus Group Interviews:

A relaxed group interview

was conducted and a

discussion commenced

regarding communication

gaps, technology handicaps

and usability.

What have we learned…?

This is what they want…

Users wanted a system that could

do the following:

Enable smooth communication

between members.

Leave personal messages.

Is easy to use.

Can expedite menial tasks.

Creation of personas…

CRE

ATIN

G S

CEN

ARIO

S The next stage after acquiring the user

requirements was to create scenarios from

the personas.

These scenarios offered various challenges

that the HomeMess system needed to

overcome, augment and facilitate for the

benefit of the user.

Scenarios included family members leaving

messages for anything from picking up

groceries to allocating user tasks.

APPROACH IN PROTOTYPING

J. Nielsen distinguishes two levels of prototyping according to the level of interaction.

Vertical Prototype

Implementation of functionalities allows for a simulation of scenarios to occur, also allowing for the prototype to undergo user testing.

Horizontal Prototype

A surface interface of sorts that

allows one to get the feel of a

prototype.

Physical layout of things such as

screen and buttons help in

outlining possible future hurdles.

When all is said and done, test

again…

Creation and evaluation of a

prototype reveals many factors

overlooked before.

The prototype performed

admirably in some cases and poorly

in others.

Scenarios that should have been

easy to implement proved

confusing when used by a new

user. E.g:

Lack of help menus.

Lack of a satisfying system

response to tasks.

PR

OTO

TYPE

EVA

LUATIO

N

Heuristic Evaluation

Expert users evaluate the system based on Jacob Nielson’s Heuristics. These allow for design improvements to be suggested.

User Testing

User centric approach requiring that a user be observed in their own home, where the system is being employed.

Cognitive Walkthroughs

Collecting empirical data to measure a prototype’s usability by following a path a user could take.

What sorts of

tests, you may

ask…

RESU

LTS

OF

EVAL

UAT

ION

One walkthrough, a test and an evaluation

later…

Through rigorous testing, improvements

made held fast and the same problems

tented not to occur.

With newer tests came even newer

problems and changes were thus

implemented:

Difference in buttons from text to

icons. Adding new accessibility options.

Adding help functions and tutorials.

Improvement to privacy and system

response.

PROTOTYPE

EVALUATION II

Field Study:

Objective observation

giving qualitative

descriptions

User quotes, opinions

Analytical:

Practical heuristics giving a quantitative measure of a list of problems from expert reviews

Task-based analysis

User Testing:

Applied approach based in

experimentation giving

quantitative data.

Questionnaires

Evaluation Methods

RESULTS OF USABILITY TESTING

Task: Create a new private message

USER TIME (mins)

Task Termination

HOMEscreen

MESSAGEmain

COMPOSE SEND

A 1.8 Success 15 10 60 23

B 2.05 Success 10 05 90 18

C 1.30 Confused 10 20 60 -

D 1.28 Success 08 03 45 21

E 2.03 Success 13 15 73 15

F 1.01 Success 06 08 30 17

G 2.02 Accidental 11 04 82 -

MEAN 2.04

A B C D E F G0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

RESULTS OF ANALYTICAL EVALUATION

Expert: 1 2 3 4 5 Average

Gender M M M F M 1F, 4M

Age 22 26 21 19 21 21.8

Structured Tasks

Turn on/off accessibility

0 1 1 0 0 0.4

Create new message

0 0 0 1 0 0.2

Checking notification

1 1 1 3 2 1.6

Looking up help

1 1 0 1 2 1

Checking system status

1 0 0 0 1 0.4Summary of expert evaluation

USA

BILI

TY IS

SUES

RAN

KED

# Priority Issue Recommendation

1 High Understanding of notification display still unclear

Redesign the display or think of alternatives

2 Medium Accessibility button placement hard to find

Separate it from volume controls

3 Medium Adding a recipient for a message Add a listing

4 Low Font and colour theme of the system is against general standards of interface

Provide changeable views

The simplest measure is to count up the number of times a word was chosen by participants. In our studies, we find that we get a fair amount of consistency in the words chosen.

RESULTS OF FIELD STUDY

Using‘word cloud’

U

SER

QU

OTE

S &

SU

GG

ESTI

ON

STh

ink-

alou

d pr

otoc

ol

“The buttons are so colourful! It looks more like a game device”.

“The text size is huge. Is there a way I can change that in the settings?”

“How do I add the person I’m sending the message to?”

“ Oh that was direct! I thought it would take more time to find the option.”

Adding a customizable setting

Allowing font changes from settings

Creating a button for directory of contacts

RECOMMENDATIONFOR

VERSION 3.0

CONSOLIDATION OF RESULTS

Summary

Problem Analytical Usability Field Study

Redesigning the navigation bar √ - -

Customizing the theme/look √ √ √

Separating accessibility from volume control

√ - -

Create a directory of contacts for direct messages

√ √ -

Creating customizable options – such as choice of

colours, the size of font etc.

Provide a directory of contacts for direct messaging

Redesigning the ‘notification’ bar

Separate accessibility control from the volume bar

DesignRecommendations

CONCLUSION

Develop the design

brief

Investigate

Evaluate Plan

Create

Introduce the

elephant in the room

Know your user requirements

Why usedifferent evaluation methods

Testing it out

in the ‘real’

world

User testing

brings out

flaws in

design

More Thoughts…

ANY QUESTIONS