• Save
Improving video rating performance – focusing on user & interface
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Improving video rating performance – focusing on user & interface






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Improving video rating performance – focusing on user & interface Improving video rating performance – focusing on user & interface Presentation Transcript

  • Improving video rating performance – focusing on User & Interface Geoffrey Yu, ARRB Group Ltd Interaction Design Association (IxDA) Brisbane 21 st June 2011
  • Welcome and who are we?
    • Geoffrey Yu – Consultant , Safe Systems, QLD/NT branch
    • ARRB Group Limited
    • Note: Formerly known as Australian Road Research Board
    • Not Assassination Records Review Board (see Wikipedia.org )
    Function provide research, consulting and information services to the road and transport industry Expertise road safety , asset management, pavement /structural analysis, car parking, data collection, etc. Clients government/ road authorities (local, state, federal, overseas), int’l aid agencies (World Bank), transport (logistics, mining), etc.
  • Overview
    • Context – project domain
    • Task – project work
    • User – what is video rating
    • Interface: Excel – overview of original system
    • Interface: Raven – overview of new system
    • Findings – learnings from new system
    • Ideas? – future thoughts!
  • Context: road safety
    • Global issues
    • About 1.3 million people are killed on world's roads each year
    • Expected to increase to 1.9 million by 2020
    • 90% occur in developing countries
    • Source: www.decadeofaction.org , UN’s Decade of Action 2011-2020
    • Local issues
    • Last 10 years about 17,000 people killed on Australian roads
    • Additionally about 220,000 were hospitalised (serious injuries)
    • Average: 5 deaths and 60 serious injury cases everyday
    • Source: www.ausrap.org , Australian Road Assessment Program
  • Task – road assessment
    • Various methods of assessing road parameters :
      • Pre => use design plans, analyse historical data
      • In-situ => onsite inspections and observations
      • Post => data collection of site, process back in office
    • Modern data collection equipment allows for efficient and safer assessment of roadways (and is repeatable !)
    • Typical data collected:
      • Multi camera (4-5) setup with high resolution (>1080p)
      • Geotagged video (~10 cm accuracy)
    • Other equipment (optional/advanced):
      • Pavement laser scan (road profiling – rutting and roughness)
      • Environment laser scan (object detection using 3D point cloud)
  • Hawkeye 2000 Network Survey Vehicle
  • User – video rating
    • Use a video viewer to examine/observe road parameters:
      • Hawkeye Processing Toolkit (ARRB)
      • DVR Viewer (QDTMR)
      • AssetLoc (RTA NSW)
      • Or any geotagged video/images
    • Parameters are assessed according to project scope :
    Crack Trees Poles Asset Safety
  • Interface – Excel (Original)
  • Interface – Excel Input form Lookup tables
  • Design – Excel
    • Target user and expected usage:
      • Low computer-level skills
      • Limited resources (e.g. time) to conduct a risk assessment
      • Small number of sites or “hot spots” would be conducted
      • Utilised as a field tool (in-situ inspection) at each site
    • Market and project changes after initial development:
      • Road authorities saw benefits in assessing their major roadways
      • Risk assessments increased in popularity = increased demand
      • More assessments = more data input = more data processing
      • New expectations to integrating (e.g. GIS) and presenting results
  • Primary issues – Excel
    • Usability
      • data input errors (input raw calculation values using lookups!)
      • i.e. high utilisation of user memory
      • lack of task scope (what roads to rate, completion status)
      • i.e. poor communication of system status and task
      • Result => User overwhelmed! => Quality & Quantity reduced
    • Data management
      • Multiple raters = multiple spreadsheets (manual sync of data!)
      • i.e. high levels of data manipulation and handling
      • Data must be manually validated (e.g. typos not auto checked!)
      • i.e. data can easily be corrupted (e.g. 1.8 and 18, difference?)
      • Result => Data is double-handled! => Efficiency reduced
  • Scope for improvement – Raven
    • A more efficient and reliable solution was needed due to the increased market demand for risk assessments
    • Business case was put forward, with internal project approved
    • Total of 4 months (part-time load) for delivery given
      • Initial design – 1 month
      • Coding and development – 2 month
      • Beta testing – 1 month
    • Solution was to tackle the primary issues , trying to solve the most problems with minimal effort / least cost (80:20 rule?)
    • Designed for in-office tool assessing roads at 100 m intervals
  • Design – Raven System process……Brainstorm issues/solutions……System architecture Etc……
  • System – Raven Video Server Rater Rater Results
  • Interface – Raven
    • Main screen
  • Interface – Raven
    • Rating form – midblocks
  • Key features – Raven
    • Usability
      • Familiar standard, business (neutral) looking interface
      • User task-oriented layout of UI elements
      • Inclusion of status bar and completion status
      • Number of perceived rating forms reduced (5 to 2 types)
      • Input options are explicit and predefined (no lookup tables!)
    • Data management
      • Data validation is implicit by providing predefined options
      • Centralisation of multiple rating sources
      • Duplicated rating work is reduced (1 rater per road section)
      • Rating task is verified against a (predefined) rating list (scope)
  • Effects of using Raven over Excel
    • User performance
      • Reduced typos and other user input issues => increase quality
      • Reduced feeling of being overwhelmed (i.e. memory and layout)
      • More confident in performing (repetitive) task (system trust)
      • More confident in task delivery => increase task visibility
      • Increased user satisfaction (don’t want to use Excel anymore!)
    • Project performance
      • Increased rating output 2x (consistently better than Excel)
      • Reduced data issues (i.e. user errors, duplication and corruption)
      • Project manager has better control and awareness of task
      • Reduced overheads/resource waste => increases profit margin!
  • Learnings & future enhancements
    • Currently Raven has been used to assess the majority of QLD state and local (regional significance) roads => ~100,000 km !!
    • Small changes focusing on user task and process issues can positively affect user performance and project outcomes
    • Raven was a prototype / proof of concept
      • can rating performance be improved (primary issues)?
    • Raven has minor bugs => minimal affect on usability and project outcomes (for now!!)
    • Other features/improvements that were not implemented:
      • Mass data editor (table/spreadsheet to fix data issues)
      • Highlight (colour) rating issues (increase user communication)
      • Help / reference system (rating guide / issues)
      • Reporting engine (risk charts, risk maps, etc.)
  • Other ideas?
    • Integration of other data
      • GIS (Shapefiles, Google maps, etc.)
      • Traffic data (crash, volume, etc.)
    • Template rating form => flexible for other assessments
    • Highlight image regions for assessment (rating assistance)
    • Automatic video/image detection (machine vision)
  • Road ends here? Thank you and safe driving!