0
ALLEN COCHRAN                      A System Evaluation of                      Using an Automated Teller MachineTHE OHIO S...
OverviewTask OverviewUser GroupMethodCritical DefectsFunctional PositivesFunctional NegativesGeneral ConclusionsDesign Rec...
Task Overview                                                                       Automated Teller Machine              ...
User Group                                                                                        Non-Specific            ...
Method & Task Analyzed                   Smart Guy                                                                        ...
Critical Defects                                                                                                          ...
Functional PositivesWell... the system seems to workRegularity of task performedMinimal learning curve with systemRegardle...
but maybe I’m just being nice.
Functional NegativesPage titles are misleadingGraphics are confusingToo many haptic choicesDirections don’t afford easiest...
Functional NegativesPage titles are misleadingGraphics are confusingToo many haptic choicesDirections don’t afford easiest...
Functional NegativesPage titles are misleadingGraphics are confusingToo many haptic choicesDirections don’t afford easiest...
Functional NegativesPage titles are misleadingGraphics are confusingToo many haptic choicesDirections don’t afford easiest...
Functional NegativesPage titles are misleadingGraphics are confusingToo many haptic choicesDirections don’t afford easiest...
Functional NegativesPage titles are misleadingGraphics are confusingToo many haptic choicesDirections don’t afford easiest...
General ConclusionsSystem is somewhat usableSignificant room for improvementGraphics are poor and relate badlyToo many cho...
Design RecommendationsLabel pages with appropriate titlesUse graphics or words, not both.If both graphics and words are us...
THANK YOU!                     Questions or Thoughts?  Presentation Overview   |   Task Overview   |   User Group   |   Me...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Eval presentation v04

207

Published on

Published in: Business, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
207
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Eval presentation v04"

  1. 1. ALLEN COCHRAN A System Evaluation of Using an Automated Teller MachineTHE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY ALLEN J COCHRANIntegrated Systems Engineering 770 OSU Graduate Student, DesignProfessor Phil Smith.131 allenjcochran@gmail.comAutumn 2010 www.allenjcochran.com
  2. 2. OverviewTask OverviewUser GroupMethodCritical DefectsFunctional PositivesFunctional NegativesGeneral ConclusionsDesign Recommendations Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 2
  3. 3. Task Overview Automated Teller Machine 1 2 Checking Withdrawing An Account Cash from Balance Checking Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 3
  4. 4. User Group Non-Specific Wide-rage of potential users Commonality of the task Interconnectivity of banking systems Estimated to be 14 years and older Used by a range of technologically savy people Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 4
  5. 5. Method & Task Analyzed Smart Guy Expert Review Critique of task oriented interaction with system System is specifically task oriented Users are on the go Pressure of time Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 5
  6. 6. Critical Defects ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM Trust ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 6
  7. 7. Functional PositivesWell... the system seems to workRegularity of task performedMinimal learning curve with systemRegardless of errors, if enough buttons are pushed,a positive result will be reached. Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 7
  8. 8. but maybe I’m just being nice.
  9. 9. Functional NegativesPage titles are misleadingGraphics are confusingToo many haptic choicesDirections don’t afford easiest solutionNo breadcrumb trailsLack of user awareness of locationConfusing taxonomy, i.e. “transaction” Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 9
  10. 10. Functional NegativesPage titles are misleadingGraphics are confusingToo many haptic choicesDirections don’t afford easiest solutionNo breadcrumb trailsLack of user awareness of locationConfusing taxonomy, i.e. “transaction” Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 10
  11. 11. Functional NegativesPage titles are misleadingGraphics are confusingToo many haptic choicesDirections don’t afford easiest solutionNo breadcrumb trailsLack of user awareness of locationConfusing taxonomy, i.e. “transaction” Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 11
  12. 12. Functional NegativesPage titles are misleadingGraphics are confusingToo many haptic choicesDirections don’t afford easiest solutionNo breadcrumb trailsLack of user awareness of locationConfusing taxonomy, i.e. “transaction” Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 12
  13. 13. Functional NegativesPage titles are misleadingGraphics are confusingToo many haptic choicesDirections don’t afford easiest solutionNo breadcrumb trailsLack of user awareness of locationConfusing taxonomy, i.e. “transaction” Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 13
  14. 14. Functional NegativesPage titles are misleadingGraphics are confusingToo many haptic choicesDirections don’t afford easiest solutionNo breadcrumb trailsLack of user awareness of locationConfusing taxonomy, i.e. “transaction” Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 14
  15. 15. General ConclusionsSystem is somewhat usableSignificant room for improvementGraphics are poor and relate badlyToo many choices of physical buttons related to too few on screen choicesOn screen reading is too much for regular time-on-task Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 15
  16. 16. Design RecommendationsLabel pages with appropriate titlesUse graphics or words, not both.If both graphics and words are used, combine as buttonsChange to a touch screen, rather than multiple button panels and a screenClarify actions so that one gesture affords an intuitive actionProvide location awareness to users, such as page transitions or a breadcrumb trailClean up taxonomical issuesCombine screens when possible. Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 16
  17. 17. THANK YOU! Questions or Thoughts? Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 17
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×