SIIA Usability Maiorana

457 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
457
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

SIIA Usability Maiorana

  1. 1. fast and fabulous: adsfadf Monday, April 13, 2009
  2. 2. tom maiorana • who i am • my experience • what i’ve done Monday, April 13, 2009
  3. 3. Early Contextual Research Concept Validation Usability Testing Monday, April 13, 2009
  4. 4. Early Contextual Research Concept Validation Usability Testing match match intuit intuit walmart canesta Monday, April 13, 2009
  5. 5. good fast cheap Monday, April 13, 2009
  6. 6. match.com Monday, April 13, 2009
  7. 7. contextual research Monday, April 13, 2009
  8. 8. Monday, April 13, 2009
  9. 9. Survey Results, Ordered Imagine that you are part of one of these couples. You love your partner and you are still together after 5 years. You are explaining how you met. Please rate these scenarios from 1-5, least preferable to most preferable. 1 4.40 We met through friends. 2 3.61 We dated in high school, lost touch, then met on-line. 3 3.45 We met at work. 4 3.34 I had just given up on love. Then I met her/him (at work). 5 3.33 We were in the post-o ce. 6 3.02 I’d always got in his/her line at the grocery store. 7 3.00 I had just given up on love. Then I met him/her (on-line). 8 2.96 Our parents knew each other. 9 2.89 We were friends, but were over being single. 10 2.81 We were pen pals. 11 2.75 We met on-line. 12 2.66 A matchmaker put us together. 13 2.66 We met in a bar. 14 2.61 He/she pulled me over. I still got the ticket. 15 2.47 I was stationed in his/her village. 16 2.40 His/her kid was in my class. I had to wait a year. 17 1.89 I like uniforms, so I went after him/her. 18 1.88 My church went to his/her country. 19 1.58 We were both married to other people at the time. Monday, April 13, 2009
  10. 10. what did we learn? Monday, April 13, 2009
  11. 11. building to test sharing Monday, April 13, 2009
  12. 12. concept validation Monday, April 13, 2009
  13. 13. Results of testing Monday, April 13, 2009
  14. 14. Monday, April 13, 2009
  15. 15. What worked What didn’t Consistently mentioned as one of users’ top three Many people were confused Most everyone liked the visual design Hard for people to describe themselves in three words “It drew me in.” “It’s a little bit like a job interview” “It could makes the profile more fun” “I like tennis, but I don’t know if I want that to describe me” “I like having all those words to choose from.” Even people that “got it” thought they needed to “game” the system. Monday, April 13, 2009
  16. 16. Monday, April 13, 2009
  17. 17. What worked What didn’t Up Front Filtering For some felt like a survey A different way to get at “deep information” Interspersing Serious and Non-serious criteria The simplicity “It feels like it gives you more control. You don’t need to go through all those pages.” Monday, April 13, 2009
  18. 18. Monday, April 13, 2009
  19. 19. What worked What didn’t Consistently mentioned as a favorite Most folks were skeptical about the accuracy of matches Everyone thought this was really sweet Much more anxiety about picking a movie than Almost everyone could relate to it anticipated Everyone knew how to use it Many participants said they would choose a movie they thought someone they liked would like Confusion about how this would work (how does it know if I’m a man or a woman? Apprehension, “where will this take me?” Monday, April 13, 2009
  20. 20. Monday, April 13, 2009
  21. 21. What worked What didn’t Consistently mentioned as a favorite The animation was a little slow The participants that loved this LOVED it Participants wanted to know how would actually work Several participants thought this opened a little room for fate in on-line dating This one had the strongest emotional response “It seems real, it seems like that could really happen” Several respondents saw Match as a key part of the story. Monday, April 13, 2009
  22. 22. Monday, April 13, 2009
  23. 23. What worked What didn’t Most often referred to as “fun” Despite very positive responses at the time, not often mentioned as a top favorite in follow-up Described as “simple, intuitive”, “a better way to emails. search” Not as popular in mentioning as would have Everyone understood how it worked. expected. Very humanized. “It feels like you are dealing with a person, even though it’s actually a server somewhere.” Monday, April 13, 2009
  24. 24. Global Findings High Anxiety Users were much more anxious about entering information than anticipated. Most participants wanted to know how information would be used. “I wouldn’t put that if I thought it’d feed me into a certain kind of person.” Show me the Dude Parade The search results are the money shot. All participants “checked out” the results, even if they knew it was fake. Game On! Most of the participants had an awareness of being in the system. They often seemed “on” when responding to questions. If a search mechanism wasn’t obvious, they wanted to know how it worked in order to know how to work it. Monday, April 13, 2009
  25. 25. walmart Monday, April 13, 2009
  26. 26. Monday, April 13, 2009
  27. 27. Monday, April 13, 2009
  28. 28. Monday, April 13, 2009

×