Successfully reported this slideshow.

Last Responders Final Presentation

494 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Design
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Last Responders Final Presentation

  1. 1. The Last Responders Earthquake Preparedness for UW Students Eric Chen | Mike Northcutt | Pratham Parikh | Ruben Rios | Shufan Wen
  2. 2. 1 Design Question
  3. 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. 4. 2 User Research: Methods & Findings
  5. 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. 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. 7. 2
  8. 8. 3 Personas
  9. 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. 10. 3 Development of Personas  We came up with three personas - Typical Tommy (Primary) Busy Barbara (Secondary) Prepared Peter (Secondary)
  11. 11. 3 Primary Persona  We came up with three personas - Typical Tommy (Primary) Busy Barbara (Secondary) Prepared Peter (Secondary)
  12. 12. 3 Secondary Persona  We came up with three personas - Typical Tommy (Primary) Busy Barbara (Secondary) Prepared Peter (Secondary)
  13. 13. 3 Secondary Persona  We came up with three personas - Typical Tommy (Primary) Busy Barbara (Secondary) Prepared Peter (Secondary)
  14. 14. 4 Ideation/Sketching
  15. 15. Ideation/Sketching
  16. 16. Ideation/Sketching
  17. 17. 5 Wireframes
  18. 18. Wireframes
  19. 19. 6 Prototype Iterations
  20. 20. 6 Paper Prototyping
  21. 21. 6 Paper Prototyping
  22. 22. 6 Axure Prototype: Homepage
  23. 23. 6 Axure Prototype: What to Do
  24. 24. 6 Axure Prototype: Customized Kits
  25. 25. 6 Axure Prototype: Recommended Kits
  26. 26. 7 Usability Testing
  27. 27. 7 Usability Testing  Conducted usability testing with 3 participants
  28. 28. Here is a video of our Usability testing  Conducted usability testing with 3 participants
  29. 29. 7 Axure Prototype: What to Do
  30. 30. 7 Axure Prototype: Customized Kits
  31. 31. 8 Demo
  32. 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. 33. 9 Reflections & Future
  34. 34. 9 Lessons Learned   Low-fidelity prototypes can be limited Users explored the site differently from our expectation
  35. 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. 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. 37. 10 Questions
  38. 38. 10 Thank You  Last Reponders are: - Eric, Mike, Pratham, Ruben, & Shu-Fan
  39. 39. Appendix
  40. 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. 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. 42. Appendix (Gallery)
  43. 43. Appendix (Gallery)
  44. 44. Appendix (Link to Prototype) http://share.axure.com/CACQWL (no password)

×