1 design a user interface and prepare a brief design document jeremy cannella edit 773 – wanda...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Design a User Interface and Prepare a Brief Design Document
Jeremy CannellaEDIT 773 – Wanda Mally
May 2, 2005
Informal Communication Performance Support
Application: smalTALK™
2
Needs Analysis
• ConHugeCo (CHC) employees engage in significant informal communication in the course of business activities
• Often, CHC employees lack the skills and knowledge to effectively perform their informal communications requirements
• Informal communications requirements often take place outside CHC offices or in non-traditional workplaces:– Golf courses– Tradeshows– Conferences
3
User Analysis
• Gender– The ConHugeCo workforce is 57% male, 43% female.
The application will be designed so as to incorporate non-gender specific or gender-inclusive language and graphics.
• Age– The average target employee age is 48. User ages
range from 26 to 83, with the majority of users between 32 and 61 years of age.
• Work Experience– A majority of ConHugeCo employees have been with
the company for less than four years. Work experience varies according to job description.
4
User Analysis
• Education– ConHugeCo's workforce is highly educated. Employees with
post-secondary or further education account for 73% of ConHugeCo's employees.
• Ethnicity/Nationality– Some 4% of CHC employees are foreign nationals. In
consideration of this diverse workforce, language, images, and examples used in the application will be reviewed to ensure that they are ethnically neutral, are universally understood, and non-offensive.
• Users with Assistive Needs– Of the target employee user group, 23 individuals have an
assistive need requirement, including sight, hearing ,and motor function impairments. The application will leverage the built-in accessibility features of the hardware and software platform.
5
Task Analysis
Task before smalTALK™ Task after smalTALK ™
6
Solution: smalTALK
• PDA-based application that provides informal communication performance support.
• Functionality:– Topical news items– Interesting facts– Conversation starters– Humorous asides– Organization/VIP backgrounders– Browsable/searchable
7
Design Considerations
• User characteristics• Platform screen size: 240 pixels wide, 320 pixels
high• Operating system input controls• Hardware interface and controls• Quick access to content• Discreet operation• “Thumbable”• Accessibility requirements
8
Interface Design
1. Main Menu
2. Select TalkingPoint
3. View Talking Point
Click thumbnail to view, click again to hide
Main MenuDesigned for quick access to content via direct digit manipulation (i.e. “thumbable), in addition to the stylus. Can also be navigated using the PDA hardware buttons.
Select Talking PointPresents a list of talking points for user selection. Both browsing and searching lead to this screen.
View Talking PointConversational content items appear here. Users can quickly return to either of the previous screens if another selection is desired.
9
Partial Heuristic Analysis
What am I supposed to do now?
Chunk info.
Reversible Actions.
One click access to help, menus, exit.
Logical order.
Clear button symbols or labels.
Consistent cues.
Buttons easily findable.
Help and instructions easily accessible.
Where Am I? Where can I go?
Color must not be the sole conveyer of information.
Multiple navigation modes.
Icons always paired with text labels, easily distinguished, simple in design, borderless,
and not color dependent.
Make things visible.
Place knowledge in the world.
User's conceptual model matches system model
Non-serifed standard text.
Kruse & Keil Pearrow Nielsen Norman
10
Evaluations
• Formative Evaluation: Usability Testing– Heuristic Evaluation/Expert Review– Observed Usability Test
• Task List• Conditions (start states)• Standards (measures of success)
– Accessibility Testing• Summative Evaluation
– Kirkpatrick Level 1: Reaction• Questionnaire (“smile sheets”)
– Kirkpatrick Level 3: Behavior• Observe usage of program
– Kirkpatrick Level 4: Organizational Results• Compare test group vs. control group