Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
A1 annotation knowledge
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

A1 annotation knowledge

187
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
187
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • The key knowledge of the domain is based on literature review.
  • The annotation of e-menu types were used to discuss a suitable solution with restaurant manager.
  • The final decision was a simulated situation that if the restaurant owner would like to invest for an e-menu system.
  • Diagram is copied from my system analysis and design document
  • Transcript

    • 1. ANNOTATION OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE DOMAIN Created by Traitet Th.Subject: E-menu on iPad for Thai restaurant Created Date 31 July 2012Topic: Annotation Revised Date 7 Sep 2012 Revision No. 1.0Content: Annotation of knowledge of the domain Document Name A01-001
    • 2. 2 KEY KNOWLEDGE OF THE DOMAIN 1. Electronic menu (e-menu) for restaurants 2. Restaurant service process 3. Software usability and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) 4. Software development methodologies and prototyping technique 5. Mobile application development for e-menu on iOS or Android devices
    • 3. 1) E-menu for Restaurants 3
    • 4. 4 1) E-MENU FOR RESTAURANT Main Objectives of e-menu (Jenie 2011) • Display list of food and beverages including images • Process the restaurant services from ordering to payment Three general kinds of touch screen e-menu system (Conceptic no date) • Table side touch screen e-menu • E-menu for waiting area • Tablet e-menu Pictures are taken from Emenu USA (2011) and Conceptic (no date)
    • 5. 5 1) E-MENU FOR RESTAURANT1 Table-side touch screen e-menu Table-side touch screen e-menu • Equipment: Personal computer • Installation: Need to modify table Benefits • No falling problem Disadvantages • Difficult to install Difficult to install & • Need to prepare electrical plugs at all tables Need electrical plugs Pictures are taken from Emenu USA (2011) and Conceptic (no date)
    • 6. 6 1) E-MENU FOR RESTAURANT2 E-menu for waiting area E-menu for waiting area • Equipment: LCD TV with touch screen • Installation: Need to prepare area to install Benefits • Bigger images • Less cost because it requires only one touch screen LCD TV Disadvantages • Only one person can order at a time. Cannot order • Not suitable for this case study restaurant because customers can not order on their tables. at dining table • Need extra space to install. Pictures are taken from Emenu USA (2011) and Conceptic (no date)
    • 7. 7 1) E-MENU FOR RESTAURANT3 Tablet e-menu Tablet E-menu • Equipment: Tablet e.g. iPad • Installation: Don’t need to modify table Benefits • Slim and small size • Easy to install • Build-in wireless connection Disadvantages Small & • Falling problem • Smaller screen size than others Easy to use • Theft
    • 8. 8 1) E-MENU FOR RESTAURANTAfter discussion with the restaurant manager and staff, we found that the tablet e-menu was the mostsuitable because it was smaller and simpler to install. Order at No Compared Item Size Installation Summary table It is not suitable for this restaurant because 1 E-menu at waiting area No Big Difficult it is inconvenient for the customers. Table side touch screen e- It is difficult to install because of its size 2 Yes Medium Difficult menu and it needs power supply. It can order at the dinning table and 3 Tablet e-menu Yes Small Easy it is cheaper and easier to install. Final decision with restaurant manager: Tablet e-menu
    • 9. 2) RESTAURANT SERVICE PROCESS 9
    • 10. 10 2) RESTAURANT SERVICE PROCESS Analysis of a existing restaurant service process Issues of existing system 1. Need to wait for waiting staff before giving order and making payment. 2. Waiting staff must deliver order to kitchen and bar. E-menu system 1. Order is send directly from a table to bar and kitchen. Process of taking order & making payment can be improve by e-menu. Pictures are adopted from Crowston, Rubleske and Howison (2006)
    • 11. 11 2) RESTAURANT SERVICE PROCESS Problem: Personal contact between waiting staff and customers DescriptionService Request Diagram • E-menu may reduce the personal contact between customers and waiting staff (Studentwebstaff 2009). Solution • The system should have a “service request” feature to call waiting staff. • Request Waiter • Request Main Benefits Course • Customers can request services • Request Bill easier compared to the existing system. • Customers don’t want to look around to find a waiter. Solution: Customers can request a waiter from e-menu system. Benefits: Customers can easily request a waiter. Pictures are adopted from Crowston, Rubleske and Howison (2006)
    • 12. 12 2 ) R E S TA U R A N T S E RV I C E P R O C E S S As-it or current system 1. Ordering Issues 2 • A waiter must spend time to Service Request take and transfer an order to the kitchen and bar. • Customers are less inclined to 1 order more food during busyOrdering time. • Paper-based menus have insufficient information e.g. pictures and details of food. 2. Request Service Issues • A waiter has to observe customers when they want to request a main course. • The customers have to look around to request waiter and These issues can be solved by e-menu system bill.
    • 13. 13 2 ) R E S TA U R A N T S E RV I C E P R O C E S S New Service Process by e-menu system 1. Ordering 2 - Order is transferred to bar and Service Request kitchen automatically. - Customers find it easy to order more food and beverages. - Customers can check their 1 order status.Ordering - Customers can select menu with full details and pictures. 2. Service request - Customers can request service on e-menu - Waiters have more time to provide service. E-menu can enhance ordering and requesting services
    • 14. 3) SOFTWARE USABILITY & HCI HCI: Human-Computer Interaction 14
    • 15. 15 SOFTWARE USABILITY & HCI HCI: Human-Computer Interaction Improving Software Quality by HCI design • Quality of software should support • Users can use software without specialised business needs. IT knowledge • HCI is an important factor to measure • Easy to use & without long instruction a quality of software (Gulati and (Edexcel 2010) Dubey 2012 , Majid 2011) • Touch screen interfaces can enhance usability because it is easy to use. • Developing e-menu system should concern HCI design.
    • 16. 16 SOFTWARE USABILITY & HCI How to measure HCI Design? Good HCI Design & Example of applyingNo Description Usability the concept for e-menu1 Visibility Know result of each operation Screen is updated after placing order Customers can always return to a previous2 Feedback Easy to return to a previous screen screen of e-menu. Easy to recognize when use software Make user-friendly and non-complex user3 Memorability again interfaces4 Learnability Easy to accomplish basic tasks Reduce unnecesaary steps as much as possible5 Efficiency Quick to learn and perform tasks Make it be simple and easy to use6 Satisfaction Pleasant to use software Put nice images and suitable colours (Norman and Nielsen 2011; Nielsen 1993) Above criteria should always be concerned when developing an e-menu application. However, only usability is insufficient. Developers must be aware of SW development methodology.
    • 17. 4) SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENTMETHODOLOGIES AND PROTOTYING TECHNIQUE 17
    • 18. 4 ) S O F T WAR E D E V E L O P M E N T 18 METHODOLOGIES AN D P R O TO T Y P I N G T E C H N I Q U E Comparison table among Waterfall, Agile and RAD with prototyping approach RAD withNo Compared Item Waterfall Agile Description Prototyping Waterfall approach clearly separates development1 Traditional approach Yes No No processes, and doesnt return to a previous stage. (Khan et al. 2011) Iterative process can improve a quality of application Uses iterative process2 No Yes Yes and increase customer satisfaction (Hoffer, George and Valacich 2008). Agile and RAD use a iterative process, which is Software is likely fit with business3 No Yes Yes flexible when a requirement is changed (Kendal needs. 2011). RAD is an experimental method, which may result in4 Experimental approach No No Yes insufficiently understand the overall business requirements (Khan et al. 2011). Iterative process able to increase the overall cost and Able to increase the overall cost5 No Yes Yes time. For example, after requirements are changed, a and implementation time project will need more time to develop (Cobb 2011). A large project needs a lot of developers and much time to implement. It is difficult to observe at a6 Appropriate for a large project Yes Yes No customer site and make a prototype at a short time (Meso and Jain 2011) The software development methodology is considered in the “Justification of the approach” section
    • 19. 4 ) S O F T WAR E D E V E L O P M E N T 19 METHODOLOGIES AN D P R O TO T Y P I N G T E C H N I Q U E Mapping RAD Modeling with e-menu development Capture Requirements What?Observation – Discussion – Interview (Observation at the restaurant) • Develop a final prototypes of e-menu application Where? 2.5 months for prototype Quick Analysis and Design Iterate (UML and other design • At a Thai casual dinning restaurant process documents) development How? Develop Prototype • Observation at a restaurant to gather requirements (1st by .Net & 2nd by .NET & • Discussion with manager to summarise needs Xcode) • Develop the first prototype by .NET & Web services • Develop the final prototype on iPad (Objective-c language on Customer Evaluation of Prototype xCode software) Throughout (Get feedback from observation, • Observation, discussion and interviews development discussion and interviews)  Observation to understand as-it system. process  Discussion to gather requirements  Interviews the restaurant manager, waiting staff and Develop Final Product chefs RAD Prototype Model (Sommerville 2004) Reason using .Net to develop the first prototype • Saving time: Researcher is more familiar with .NET • Testing web services: Website developed by .NET can test web services before integrating with xCode (iPad)Key concepts of RAD methodology When?• Gather requirements & evaluate prototype by observation, • Developing and observing between July and August 2012 discussion and interview. • Presenting the first and final prototypes in July and August 2012, respectively.• Working closely with users throughout the developing process.
    • 20. 4) MOBILE APPLICATIONDEVELOPMENT FOR E-MENU ON iOS AND ANDROID DEVICES 20
    • 21. 4 ) M O B I L E AP P L I C AT I O N D E V E L O P M E N T F O R 21 E - M E N U O N I O S AN D AN D R O I D D E V I C E S Comparison table between Apple’s iOS and Google Andriod Objective • To chose an effective way to develop a No Platform Apples iOS Googles Android prototype of e-menu system. 1 Owner Apple Google System analysis 2 Tablet devices iPad Samsung, HTC, HP, and etc. • It is better if e-menu system can support both iOS and Andriod devices because 3 Sizes of tablet screens 1 Several sizes based on devices both of them are famous platforms. 4 Operating system (OS) iOS Android based on Linux OS Conditions 5 Programming language Objective-C Mainly in Java • Only two months for developing a Object Oriented prototype. 6 Yes Yes Programming (OOP) • They use different tools and languages. Apple Xcode and Google App Inventor, IBM Eclipse 7 Preferred developing tool Interface builder and Netbean Solutions • Develop web services on .NET 8 Open source platform No Yes • Provide web services to both Apple and 9 Annual fee for development $99 per year One time registration fee $25 Andriod devices Software approval before Spend 3-4 weeks for app approval • However, the prototype is developed on 10 No need iPad (Apple device) for this case study publishing by Apple first. (Ray 2012; Wei-Meng Lee 2012; Goadrich 2011) ReasonsProblem: How to develop e-menu to support both Apple and Android devices • Restaurant owner, staff and the learner? are more familiar with iPad than Andriod devices. • iPad has only one size of screen, which isSolutions: Use Web services (platform independent) to provide easier to develop. • Using Web services because they are functionalities to iOS and Andriod platforms. platform independent.
    • 22. 4 ) M O B I L E AP P L I C AT I O N D E V E L O P M E N T F O R 22 E - M E N U O N I O S AN D AN D R O I D D E V I C E SUse web services to support both iPad and Andriod devices Key concept - Development based on Model- View-Controller (MVC) model Web Services Separate layers to three layers; - Data Model Layer - Controller Layer Platform independent by web services - Model Layer Decision for this case study - ASP.Net: It can develop web services more easily because the learner is familiar with this platform. - SQL Server: It is compatible with .Net because their owners are the same (Microsoft). - iPad or iOS platform: The restaurant manager and staff are more familiar with iPad than Adopted from Microsoft ASP.NET Team (2009).
    • 23. REFERENCES 23
    • 24. 24 REFERENCES CONCEPTIC (no date). iPad eMenu for restaurant. [online]. Last accessed 9 August 2012 at: http://www.emenu-international.com/iPad- menu-for-restaurants. CROWSTON, Kevin, RUBLESKE, Joseph and HOWISON, James (2006). Coordination Theory: A Ten-Year Retrospective. [online]. Last accessed 8 August at: http://crowston.syr.edu/system/files/CT%20Review%20to%20distribute.pdf. EDEXCEL (2010). Human Computer Interaction. [online]. Last accessed 7 August at: http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocuments/BTEC%20Nationals%20from%202010/Unit-23-Human-Computer-Interaction.pdf. EMENU USA (2011). eMenu Pictures. [online]. Last accessed 9 August at: http://www.emenuny.com/pictures.html. GANTTHEAD (2010). Rapid Application Development process. [online]. Last accessed 9 August at: http://www.gantthead.com/content/processes/11306.cfm. GULATI, Anubha and DUBEY, Sanjay Kumar (2012). Critical Analysis on Usability Evaluation Techniques. [online]. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST), 4(3), 990-997. Article from IJEST last accessed 3 September 2012 at: http://www.ijest.info/docs/IJEST12-04-03- 118.pdf. JENIE, Renan Prasta, et al. (2011). Designing user interface e-menu based on Android platform. [online]. Last accessed 9 August at: http://ict.binus.edu/metamorph/file/research/Journal%20-%20Android%20Komodo%202.pdf. MAJID, Rogayah Abd, et al. (2011). Users’ frustration and HCI in the software development life cycle. [online]. International Journal of Information Processing and Management, 2 (1.5), 44-48. Article from Human and Sciences Research Center last accessed 8 August at: http://www.humanpub.org/ijipm/ppl/4_%20IJIPM%20Vol2%20No.1-4.pdf. MESO, Peter, JAIN, Radhika (2006). Agile Software Development: Adaptive Systems Principles and Best Practices. [online]. Information Systems Management, 23(3), 19-30. Article from Mendeley last accessed 9 August at: http://www.mendeley.com/research/Agile- software-development-adaptive-systems-principles-best-practices MICROSOFT ASP.NET TEAM (2009). ASP.NET MVC Overview. Last accessed 9 Aug 2012at: http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/older- versions/overview/asp-net-mvc-overview. NIELSEN, Jakob (1993). Usability Engineering. San Francisco, Morgan Kaufmann. NORMAN, Donald A. and NIELSEN, Jakob (2010). Gestural interfaces: A step backward in usability. Interactions, 17 (5), 46-49. STUDENTWEBSTAFF (2009). Use of E-Menus in the Restaurant Industry. [online]. Last accessed 9 August at: http://www.studentwebstuff.com/mis/showthread.php?t=8049