tuomas husu

Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science 1www.helsinki.fi/yliopisto

The Usability of KONE DCS: How (and why) the characteristics of the group affect

the use of the system

Tuomas Husu

29.6.2010

www.helsinki.fi/university 2Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science 29.6.2010

Research problem


What we did?

www.helsinki.fi/university 4Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

A. Group size• 2 persons• 4 persons

B. Degree of acquaintance• “Friends”• “Strangers”

C. Destination• Same• Different

29.6.2010

2 x 2 x 2 Factorial design


No. Combination Size Familiarity Destination1 A1 B1 C1 2 friends same

2 A1 B1 C2 2 friends different

3 A1 B2 C1 2 strangers same

4 A1 B2 C2 2 strangers different

5 A2 B1 C1 4 friends same

6 A2 B1 C2 4 friends different

7 A2 B2 C1 4 strangers same

8 A2 B2 C2 4 strangers different

29.6.2010

2 x 2 x 2 Factorial design:Variable combinations


Video 1


Measures and covariates

• Used left DOP• Problems: ID twice

• T to DOP 3 s• T at DOP 4 s

• Total time 20 s• Elevator B






• Used right DOP• Problems: no• T to DOP 2 s• T at DOP 7 s









• Did not use DOP• Total time 16 s

• Elevator B








• Did not use DOP• Total time 16 s

• Elevator B

• Used left DOP• Problems: no• T to DOP 5 s• T at DOP 3 s• Total time 15 s

• Elevator B



Participant

Destination

Used DOP

Which DOP

Succeeded

Optimal

Elevator car

Missed the car

Was in time

Traffic jam

T to DOP

T at DOP

Elevator wait

Total time

12 8 T R T T B F T F 2 7 1 22

5 8 T L F F B F T T 3 4 0 20

4 8 F B F T F 16

13 8 T L T T B F T F 5 3 0 15


• Before and after

29.6.2010

System usability scale (SUS)

… …


• Focus group interview afterwards• Impressions about the system• Objective of the system• DOP: functions and ease of use• Problems• Et cetera

29.6.2010

Interview


Elevator Quiz!


• On average: 22,4 seconds

29.6.2010

Results: Total time


Results: Total time

2 persons 4 persons18

19

20

21

22

23

24

20.344

23.391

Group size

Seco

nds


Friends Strangers21.4

21.6

21.8

22

22.2

22.4

22.6

22.8

23

21.896

22.854

Degree of acquaintance

Seco

nds

29.6.2010

Results: Total time


Same dest. Diff. dest20

20.5

21

21.5

22

22.5

23

23.5

24

21.198

23.552

Destination

Seco

nds

29.6.2010

Results: Total time


Interaction effect (total time)

29.6.2010

Results: Total time


5

10

15

20

25

30

Same destination

Tim

e (s

econ

ds)


5

10

15

20

25

30

Different destinationTi

me

(sec

onds

)

FriendsStrangers


• On average: 84% used panel

29.6.2010

Results: Did they use the panel?


2 persons 4 persons40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% 89.06%

81.25%

Group size

Shar

e (p

erce

nts)

29.6.2010



Friends Strangers40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

76.04%

91.67%


Shar

e (p

erce

nts)

29.6.2010



Same dest. Diff. dest.40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

71.88%

95.83%

Destination

Shar

e (p

erce

nts)

29.6.2010



Interaction effect (share of people who used DOP)

29.6.2010



50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Same destination

Shar

e (p

erce

nt)


50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Different destinationSh

are

(per

cent

)

FriendsStrangers


• On average: 2 persons per elevator

29.6.2010

Results: Persons per elevator



1

2

3

4

0,002

0,003

Group size

Pers

ons

per e

leva

tor

29.6.2010



Friends Strangers0

1

2

3

4

0,002

0,002


Pers

ons

per e

leva

tor

29.6.2010



Same dest. Diff. dest.0

1

2

3

4

0,003

0,001

Destination

Pers

ons

per e

leva

tor

29.6.2010



Interaction effect (persons per elevator car)

29.6.2010



1

2

3

4

Same destination

Pers

ons

per e

leva

tor c

ar


1

2

3

4

Different destinationPe

rson

s pe

r ele

vato

r car

FriendsStrangers


On average: 74% succeeded by first attempt

29.6.2010

Results: DOP success rate



50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

68.42%

78.85%

Group size

Succ

ess

rate

(per

cent

s)

29.6.2010



Friends Strangers40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

80.82%

72.73%


Succ

ess

rate

(per

cent

s)

29.6.2010



Same dest. Diff. dest.40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%81.16%

72.83%

Destination

Succ

ess

rate

(per

cent

s)

29.6.2010



Interaction effect (DOP call success rate)

29.6.2010



50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Same destination

Succ

ess

rate


50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Different destinationSu

cces

s ra

te

FriendsStrangers


Changes in success rate during the test

29.6.2010

Results: DOP learnability

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031320%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Time (sessions)


Results

A B C D0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Using left DOP

Elevator

Shar

e (%

)

A B C D0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Using right DOP

ElevatorSh

are

(%)


No. Question Avg Before After Change1 I think that I would like to use this system frequently 4,4 4,4 4,4 ± 0%

2 I found the system unnecessarily complex 1,5 1,5 1,5 ± 0%

3 I thought the system was easy to use 4,2 4,3 4,2 − 2%

4 I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system

1,5 1,6 1,4 − 10%

5 I found the various functions in this system were well integrated 3,9 4,1 3,6 − 12%

6 I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system 1,9 1,9 1,9 + 2%

7 I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly

4,2 4,1 4,3 + 4%

8 I found the system very cumbersome to use 1,7 1,6 1,8 + 10%

9 I felt very confident using the system 4,1 4,1 4,1 ± 0%

10 I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system

1,3 1,3 1,4 + 7%

29.6.2010

Results: SUS


• Premises, views and elevator interiors were awesome• Elevators moved fast and smoothly• The more people in the hall, the more difficult it was• Elevator hall was too narrow• DOP was difficult to use (buttons etc)• It was difficult to distinguish elevators• No clue what ★ and − buttons were (DOP)

29.6.2010

Results: Interviews


• Things become complicated if something goes wrong with DOP call• DOP time is ~4 seconds if everything is ok, but easily 10-30 seconds when problems occur• (Quite often something goes wrong)• Other people gets away with elevators while others are struggling with DOP’s

29.6.2010

Conclusion


• They used DOP more loyally than we expected (over 80%)…

29.6.2010

Conclusions: What else?


Video 2


• They used DOP more loyally than we expected (over 80%)• DOPs were surprisingly difficult to use…

• 77% succeeded at once• 62% succeeded at once without errors

29.6.2010



Video 3


• They used DOP more loyally than we expected (over 80%)• DOPs were surprisingly difficult to use


• Elevators were not easily distinguishable…

29.6.2010



Video 4




• Elevators were not easily distinguishable• Because of narrow corridor and placement of DOP’s the movement was not smooth…

29.6.2010



Video 5




• Elevators were not easily distinguishable• Because of narrow corridor and placement of DOP’s the movement was not smooth

29.6.2010



Design implications


Design implications:“Premises and people flow”



My destination is 15th floor!

D

Ok! Where is elevator D? Oh,

there!


Design implications:“DOP’s elevator indication”


Design implications:“DOP’s special functions”


Design implications


• Delay (authentication)• Button sensitivity• Visual feedback (buttons)• Response time• Timeout delay

29.6.2010

Design implications:“DOP’s technical polishing”


Discussion

tuomas husu

Documents

dop elevator

dop total time

system dop

s total time

left dop problems

right dop problems

s elevator bwww

time traffic jam t