home mess systems- prototype 2 & evaluation
DESCRIPTION
The final presentation of our coursework. Includes Prototype II, Evaluation of the same and the conclusionTRANSCRIPT
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