Currently we are having a project of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) course in which we are developing a mobile app named "Announcer". This is a project slide presentation of our "Announcer" mobile app. Click on our blogspot here to know more: yujinnohikari.blogspot.com prototyping software credit to: justinmind.com

1. YUJIN NO HIKARI
(ANNOUNCER)
GROUP MEMBER
Wai Pai Lee
Tan Wei Long
Norhayati Bt Saad
Nurul Wahyuni Bt Wahid Rahayu

2. 1. Problem

3. User Problem?
• Social messaging function widely used for
unofficial announcement.
• Announcement is not rigid and kept.
• Calendar system can be used but needed to
be set manually.
• Information is not centralized.

4. Users?
•Students
•Lecturers
•Company workers
•Supervisors
•Normal users

5. User tasks?
Task 1 – ‘Create Group’
• Write group name
• Add members
Task 2 – ‘Set Event’
• Set event name
• Set date
• Set time
• Set reminder
• Save the event
Task 3 – ‘Search’
• Search for a group
• Join the group
Task 4 – ‘Set pirority’
• Drag and drop the events
to set its priority

6. Please wait after end of slides.
2. DEMONSTRATION

7. 3. Evaluation3. EVALUATION

8. Paper Prototyping
User Feedback
(LOW FIDELITY)User 1 (Group 7)
Task 1 – ‘Create Group’
• the apps is easy, but for the icon for creating group is not clearly
mention
• the process is not too difficult
Task 2 – ‘Search Group’
• the process is easy, just nice
Task 3 – ‘Set Priority’
• it really confusing
• the instruction is not clear
• I wouldn't use the task

9. User 2 (Group 9)
Task 1 – ‘Create Group’
• add event is easy as it is stated clearly
• the create button is quite confusing as it just show the symbol
'+'
• yes! I would really use the task as I always manage my schedule
using calendar
Task 2 – ‘Search Group’
• easy to join group
• metaphor for searching is really confusing
• SUGGESTION : use magnifying glass as search button
Task 3 – ‘Set Priority’
• I do not know how to set the priority
• SUGGESTION: add button arrow to indicate the drag box

10. User 3 (Group 8)
Task 1 – ‘Create Group’
• fast and simple
• confuse with add button
• SUGGESTION: replace '+' symbol with "CREATE GROUP" word so that
it will be clearer
Task 2 – ‘Search Group’
• misuse of icon
• SUGGESTION : replace icon with paper search icon
Task 3 – ‘Set Priority’
• drag-able is easy to rearrange the event
• its difficult as no edit button
• SUGGESTION: add edit button so that the user will not arrange the
event by mistake
• YES I would use the system in real life! because overall the
application is very interesting.

11. User Testing User
Feedback
(HIGH FIDELITY)User 1
• Easy-piecey-like-a-cheesy.
• I can always get the update
from lecturer.
User 2
• Cannot differentiate between
icons of set alarm and create
event but overall is good.

12. User 3
• It’s an attractive app
maybe because its first
time for me to use this
kind of application. It’s
also convenient as I can
organize my schedule so
that I won’t miss any.
Tehe~
User 4
• I found it attractive
because of its colour but
it is quite confusing as
for its flow.
User 5
• Simple and clean, quite
attractive. Not confusing,
understandable icon. Not
quite convenient, very
helpful and not very
challenging. It is an simple
application and
understandable.
User 6
• Clean and simple.

13. Measuring Goals
• Performance measurement
User 1 Constant, C (s)
Percentage
completed, P
(%)
Time spent by
user, T (s)
Performance
Score, S (%)
Task 1 30 100 38 78.95
Task 2 30 100 42 71.43
Task 3 20 100 25 80.00
Task 4 5 100 8 62.50

14. User 2 Constant, C (s)
Percentage
completed, P
(%)
Time spent by
user, T (s)
Performance
Score, S (%)
Task 1 30 100 41 73.17
Task 2 30 100 51 58.82
Task 3 20 100 25 80.00
Task 4 5 100 5 100.00
User 3 Constant, C (s)
Percentage
completed, P
(%)
Time spent by
user, T (s)
Performance
Score, S (%)
Task 1 30 100 34 88.24
Task 2 30 100 41 73.17
Task 3 20 100 20 100.00
Task 4 5 100 8 62.50

15. User 2 Constant, C (s)
Percentage
completed, P (%)
Time spent by
user, T (s)
Performance
Score, S (%)
Task 1 30 100 41 73.17
Task 2 30 100 51 58.82
Task 3 20 100 25 80.00
Task 4 5 100 5 100.00
User 3 Constant, C (s)
Percentage
completed, P (%)
Time spent by user, T
(s)
Performance Score, S
(%)
Task 1 30 100 34 88.24
Task 2 30 100 41 73.17
Task 3 20 100 20 100.00
Task 4 5 100 8 62.50
User 4 Constant, C (s)
Percentage
completed, P
(%)
Time spent by
user, T (s)
Performance
Score, S (%)
Task 1 30 100 87 34.48
Task 2 30 100 78 38.46
Task 3 20 100 69 28.99
Task 4 5 100 8 62.50
User 5 Constant, C (s)
Percentage
completed, P
(%)
Time spent by
user, T (s)
Performance
Score, S (%)
Task 1 30 100 75 40.00
Task 2 30 100 34 88.24
Task 3 20 100 38 52.63
Task 4 5 100 13 38.46

16. User 6 Constant, C (s)
Percentage
completed, P (%)
Time spent by user,
T (s)
Performance Score,
S (%)
Task 1 30 100 51 58.82
Task 2 30 100 56 53.57
Task 3 20 100 47 42.55
Task 4 5 100 20 25.00

17. •Subjective measurement
Mean Standard Deviation
Attractive 3.67 0.93
Confusing 1.50 0.50
Convenient 4.50 0.50
Annoying 1.33 0.75
Helpful 4.67 0.44
Challenging 1.83 0.90

18. Discussion
• The results are not as expected. There are different
types of users with different backgrounds.
• There are 3 positive and negative experiences
respectively.
• Our expectations for positive and negative
experiences are of mean >=4 and of mean <2
respectively. While for standard deviation, our
expectations for positive and negative experiences
are both of <0.5.
• The lower the standard deviation, the more stable
the data set, which means less variation.
DISCUSSION

19. Positive experiences
• The actual mean are mostly near to expected
mean (5). The lowest is 3.67 for attractive which
shows some of the users are not satisfied with the
design of the prototype.
• While for standard deviation, highest is 0.93
(attractive) while lower is 0.44 (Helpful). It shows
that there are variation in users’ opinions towards
the experiences. There are user who does not like
the design of the prototype. The lowest is of
helpful. This shows users are mostly satisfied with
the ‘helpful’ experience.

20. Negative experiences,
• The actual mean of the 3 negative experiences are
all less than 2. The highest is ‘challenging’ (1.83). It
shows that some users think it is challenging.
From our opinion, most probably users stuck at
the last task which is set priority. The last task
uses ‘drag and drop’ mechanism which it cannot
be implemented in Justinmind prototyper.
• For standard deviation, the lowest is ‘confusing’
(0.5) while the highest is ‘challenging’ (0.90). This
is due to the reason mentioned in mean above
which is users stuck at the last task.

21. Which task seems to be easiest and which is the
most difficult?
• Task 3 seems to be easier because most user
complete this task fast. This might be due to the
magnifying glass icon clearly conveys the message
of ‘search’. Although task 4 has the similar
performance score as task 3, however it is not
taken into consideration because it involves only
one step and not really implemented well due to
fault from prototyper.
• Task 2 seems to be the most difficult. This is
because most user spends time on understanding
the function and there are users confused
between the icons.

22. Conclusion on the usability of prototype
• The icons clearly conveys the message of the
functions. User can identify and understands the
function easier.
• It is effective to use because most users achieve
the goals of the tasks.
• Users are satisfy with the prototype as well as it is
comfortable to use and users easily accepted the
prototype.

23. Conclusion on the user experience
• Most users have good experience on the
prototype. However, some of the users are not
really satisfy on certain parts of the experiences
for example attraction. Besides, there is fault from
the prototyper which is ‘drag and drop’
mechanism for the last task. This had confused
certain users on completing the task.

24. How should we improve the prototype? Conclusion
• We may have alternatives for the set event icon
because there are users who could not differentiate in
between set alarm and set event icon.
• For priority set, which had been an issue to our
prototyper due to the ‘drag and drop’ mechanism
which cannot be implemented in the prototyper.
• In create group, the button for adding members
should be made clearer using icon instead of text
field.
• For set event, the ‘done’ button of the pop out of set
date should not be at the same position as the save
event button. As there are some users accidentally
click the done button twice and save the event
without even setting the name, time and reminder.

25. 4. Summarize

26. The BIG take away
• Evaluation ways, performance measurement.
• Indication of the goal measurement
Learnt
• Use of prototyper tool
• Process of user testing and evaluation
• Communication on guiding and coaching
Things should have be done differently
• Online prototyper should be used instead of
offline prototyper so that we can edit the content
and do user testing anywhere anytime.

27. THE 3ND