Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Last Responders Final Presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Last Responders Final Presentation

290
views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Design

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
290
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
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
  • Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you
  • Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you
  • Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you
  • Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you
  • Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you
  • Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
  • Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
  • Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
  • Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
  • Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
  • Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
  • Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
  • Simplified info into four categoriesImage + text = motivation
  • We should briefly go over the four methods above:Literature Review: Prior to developing our questions and user research methods it was important to find outwhat solutions, recommendations, data, and tools already exist. We needed to learn what constitutespreparedness and what types of planning and provisions are recommended by organizations such as FEMA. Wealso explored sociological issues surrounding motivation and reasons why people tend not to prepare. Findingsfrom this research helped us to develop the user research questions and methods but are not included in thisreport unless otherwise noted.Survey: Our primary method of obtaining quantitative data was a Catalyst-hosted survey, which allowed us toquickly gather data from 40 participants, mostly UW students. We believed it necessary to find out specificallywhat steps they have taken to prepare themselves, which technology they’re likely to use, and what commonfactors might motivate them to act further. Because much of this data is numerical, the survey format allowed usto gather and analyze quantitative data and look for tendencies among the participants’ answers. A spreadsheetwas generated to facilitate the process and view the various correlations.Interviews: To obtain more qualitative and in-depth data, we interviewed 6 people. Because the survey wascomprised primarily of closed questions, we chose to use more open-ended questions for the interviews. Wecompared participants’ answers from the interviews with those of the survey to see if there were any consistentor contrasting trends. Additionally we were able to look deeper into more personal causation for behaviorsincluding resistance to change or preparation, beliefs or disbeliefs in the likelihood of an earthquake, andpreconceptions of what a large-scale natural disaster might look like.Contextual Inquiry: Finally, we did contextual inquiries in people’s homes and classrooms. We gave participantsa scenario and some specific response questions and tasks to see if their words would match their actions. Audioand video was recorded to allow us to review and look for any surprising or unexpected responses. Participantswere asked to perform the actions that they deemed the highest priority immediately after a major earthquakeand learning of various infrastructure failures. Through the on-site observations, we were able to see how quicklyand thoroughly participants were able to do basic recovery tasks such as locating and retrieving their suppliesand get a better sense of their overall preparedness. We did not pursue other contexts such as the office,
  • We should briefly go over the four methods above:Literature Review: Prior to developing our questions and user research methods it was important to find outwhat solutions, recommendations, data, and tools already exist. We needed to learn what constitutespreparedness and what types of planning and provisions are recommended by organizations such as FEMA. Wealso explored sociological issues surrounding motivation and reasons why people tend not to prepare. Findingsfrom this research helped us to develop the user research questions and methods but are not included in thisreport unless otherwise noted.Survey: Our primary method of obtaining quantitative data was a Catalyst-hosted survey, which allowed us toquickly gather data from 40 participants, mostly UW students. We believed it necessary to find out specificallywhat steps they have taken to prepare themselves, which technology they’re likely to use, and what commonfactors might motivate them to act further. Because much of this data is numerical, the survey format allowed usto gather and analyze quantitative data and look for tendencies among the participants’ answers. A spreadsheetwas generated to facilitate the process and view the various correlations.Interviews: To obtain more qualitative and in-depth data, we interviewed 6 people. Because the survey wascomprised primarily of closed questions, we chose to use more open-ended questions for the interviews. Wecompared participants’ answers from the interviews with those of the survey to see if there were any consistentor contrasting trends. Additionally we were able to look deeper into more personal causation for behaviorsincluding resistance to change or preparation, beliefs or disbeliefs in the likelihood of an earthquake, andpreconceptions of what a large-scale natural disaster might look like.Contextual Inquiry: Finally, we did contextual inquiries in people’s homes and classrooms. We gave participantsa scenario and some specific response questions and tasks to see if their words would match their actions. Audioand video was recorded to allow us to review and look for any surprising or unexpected responses. Participantswere asked to perform the actions that they deemed the highest priority immediately after a major earthquakeand learning of various infrastructure failures. Through the on-site observations, we were able to see how quicklyand thoroughly participants were able to do basic recovery tasks such as locating and retrieving their suppliesand get a better sense of their overall preparedness. We did not pursue other contexts such as the office,
  • We should briefly go over the four methods above:Literature Review: Prior to developing our questions and user research methods it was important to find outwhat solutions, recommendations, data, and tools already exist. We needed to learn what constitutespreparedness and what types of planning and provisions are recommended by organizations such as FEMA. Wealso explored sociological issues surrounding motivation and reasons why people tend not to prepare. Findingsfrom this research helped us to develop the user research questions and methods but are not included in thisreport unless otherwise noted.Survey: Our primary method of obtaining quantitative data was a Catalyst-hosted survey, which allowed us toquickly gather data from 40 participants, mostly UW students. We believed it necessary to find out specificallywhat steps they have taken to prepare themselves, which technology they’re likely to use, and what commonfactors might motivate them to act further. Because much of this data is numerical, the survey format allowed usto gather and analyze quantitative data and look for tendencies among the participants’ answers. A spreadsheetwas generated to facilitate the process and view the various correlations.Interviews: To obtain more qualitative and in-depth data, we interviewed 6 people. Because the survey wascomprised primarily of closed questions, we chose to use more open-ended questions for the interviews. Wecompared participants’ answers from the interviews with those of the survey to see if there were any consistentor contrasting trends. Additionally we were able to look deeper into more personal causation for behaviorsincluding resistance to change or preparation, beliefs or disbeliefs in the likelihood of an earthquake, andpreconceptions of what a large-scale natural disaster might look like.Contextual Inquiry: Finally, we did contextual inquiries in people’s homes and classrooms. We gave participantsa scenario and some specific response questions and tasks to see if their words would match their actions. Audioand video was recorded to allow us to review and look for any surprising or unexpected responses. Participantswere asked to perform the actions that they deemed the highest priority immediately after a major earthquakeand learning of various infrastructure failures. Through the on-site observations, we were able to see how quicklyand thoroughly participants were able to do basic recovery tasks such as locating and retrieving their suppliesand get a better sense of their overall preparedness. We did not pursue other contexts such as the office,
  • Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you
  • Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you
  • Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake.Definition Criteria: Preparedness and MotivationKey Dimensions:§ Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan§ Has supplies/provisions vs. does not§ Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not§ Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so§ Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none§ Has kids or does not§ Married vs. singleRuled-Out Dimensions (insignificant):§ Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so:o From survey, 57.5% believe an earthquake is likely or very likely in the next 20 years. Numberincreases to 82.5% if you
  • Transcript

    • 1. The Last Responders Earthquake Preparedness for UW Students Eric Chen | Mike Northcutt | Pratham Parikh | Ruben Rios | Shufan Wen
    • 2. 1 Design Question
    • 3. 1 Design Question How can technology be used to better prepare UW students for a catastrophic earthquake? Originally too broad  Preparation defined as: 1. knowing what to do 2. having supplies 
    • 4. 2 User Research: Methods & Findings
    • 5. 2 Methods  Literature and web review -  Existing sites, data, tools? Survey - Primary data, 40 participants  Motivations, beliefs, preparedness, preferred solution(s)  Interviews -  Checking for consistency Contextual inquiry
    • 6. 2 Findings  Users needed: -  Supplies (generally not prepared) Education (generally didn’t know what to do) Motivation through facts Users wanted: - Website (preferred by majority) Simple & quick solutions Don’t make a website like this…
    • 7. 2
    • 8. 3 Personas
    • 9. 3 Personas Process  3 personas  - Typical Tommy (Primary)  Low motivation & low preparedness - Busy Barbara (Secondary)  Medium-high motivation & low preparedness - Prepared Peter (Secondary)  High motivation & high preparedness
    • 10. 3 Development of Personas  We came up with three personas - Typical Tommy (Primary) Busy Barbara (Secondary) Prepared Peter (Secondary)
    • 11. 3 Primary Persona  We came up with three personas - Typical Tommy (Primary) Busy Barbara (Secondary) Prepared Peter (Secondary)
    • 12. 3 Secondary Persona  We came up with three personas - Typical Tommy (Primary) Busy Barbara (Secondary) Prepared Peter (Secondary)
    • 13. 3 Secondary Persona  We came up with three personas - Typical Tommy (Primary) Busy Barbara (Secondary) Prepared Peter (Secondary)
    • 14. 4 Ideation/Sketching
    • 15. Ideation/Sketching
    • 16. Ideation/Sketching
    • 17. 5 Wireframes
    • 18. Wireframes
    • 19. 6 Prototype Iterations
    • 20. 6 Paper Prototyping
    • 21. 6 Paper Prototyping
    • 22. 6 Axure Prototype: Homepage
    • 23. 6 Axure Prototype: What to Do
    • 24. 6 Axure Prototype: Customized Kits
    • 25. 6 Axure Prototype: Recommended Kits
    • 26. 7 Usability Testing
    • 27. 7 Usability Testing  Conducted usability testing with 3 participants
    • 28. Here is a video of our Usability testing  Conducted usability testing with 3 participants
    • 29. 7 Axure Prototype: What to Do
    • 30. 7 Axure Prototype: Customized Kits
    • 31. 8 Demo
    • 32. 8 Final Prototype Features  Improved “facts” carousel Better customization tool Better navigation Deeper resources section Improved Graphics  Version 2.1.8     http://share.axure.com/CACQWL (no password)
    • 33. 9 Reflections & Future
    • 34. 9 Lessons Learned   Low-fidelity prototypes can be limited Users explored the site differently from our expectation
    • 35. 9 What We Would Do Differently? Better survey (pilot testing, better wording, better questions, etc.)  6-point Likert scale on survey responses  Larger study groups 
    • 36. 9 Future Features?      Single page design with parallax scrolling Additional customization of kits Integration with other tools (e.g. personal organizers & shopping lists) More location-specific “resources” content Additional motivational features (gamification?)
    • 37. 10 Questions
    • 38. 10 Thank You  Last Reponders are: - Eric, Mike, Pratham, Ruben, & Shu-Fan
    • 39. Appendix
    • 40. Appendix (Credits) Graphics, facts and various content, courtesy of the web  Home page “facts”, in order of appearance: - "Big earthquake coming sooner than we thought…”  - “The Cascadia subduction zone can produce very large earthquakes ("megathrust earthquakes"), magnitude 9.0 or greater…”  - The Oregonian. 2009-04-19 “A major earthquake can damage infrastructure…”   "wikipedia” “Some geologists are predicting 10% to 14%”  - The Oregonian. 2009-04-19 Just plain common sense! Home page images, in order of appearance: - Viaduct 3d Model Cascadia Subduction Zone fault diagram Earthquake, Alaska, 1964 Earthquake, Oakland, 1989 (also used for this PPT Title Slide graphic)
    • 41. Appendix (Persona Development) “Best Guess” dimensions:  Universe: UW students who are not fully prepared for an earthquake  Definition criteria: Preparedness and motivation  Key dimensions: -  Has a plan vs. doesn’t have a plan Has supplies/provisions vs. does not Knows what to do and how to prepare vs. does not Believes they’re prepared vs. doesn’t believe so Personal experience with earthquakes vs. none Has kids or does not Married vs. single Ruled-out dimensions (insignificant): - Believes an earthquake is likely vs. does not think so
    • 42. Appendix (Gallery)
    • 43. Appendix (Gallery)
    • 44. Appendix (Link to Prototype) http://share.axure.com/CACQWL (no password)