Needs Assessment - Usability Testing

JLL Aero Usability Testing
Pod 2 – Understanding Client Needs
December 28, 2018
Charlie Weston

© 2017 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved. 2
Testing Objectives
• Determine if the product has a usability rating of 80%
• Determine if this product would
1. help the broker have a more meaningful conversation with the client
2. educate the client and have them start to about their needs and implications
3. provide the client with an interactive experience that
• will help differentiate JLL in the marketplace
• a broker would feel comfortable showing a client (with no upfront work required)
• the client will be able to take back with them to share with internal stakeholders
Prototype

Testing Sample Size (14)
Chicago Dallas
Research Research BrokerBroker Broker
Sales
Enablemen
t
Broker Broker
BrokerBroker
Business
Intelligence
Broker
Broker
Assistant
Broker
Assistant

4© 2017 Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. All rights reserved.
Usability Testing

Usability Metrics
• Users were asked to complete specific tasks within the prototype.
• For each tasks, points were assigned based on user performance.
100 - Task was completed with no errors
50 - Task was completed but errors occurred
0 - Task was not able to be completed
• By taking the average of these points across each task, we can
estimate a task success rate for this experience in Aero.
• Combined scores over 90% = passing. Under 75% = considered
critical.
• Questions that are likert scale based will not account in usability score

JLL Aero’s Mission
Make broker teams more efficient and
effective so they can achieve more with a tool
effective so they can achieve more
Usability Testing
Understanding the login page
We believe that the new interface will allow users easily create a new client needs assessment from
scratch. We also believe that the layout and form controls will allow the user to easily identify who the
assessment is being created for, along with how to edit the information on the page if needed. The user will
also understand how to advance to the next screen in the series.

#T1 - Company Association #T2 - Edit / Reset Company Name #T3 - How Do You Advance? #T4 - Advance to Next Screen
U1_Chicago / Research 100 50 100 100
U3_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 100
U6_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100
U7_Dallas / Broker 100 50 100 100
U8_Dallas / Broker 100 50 100 100
U9_Dallas / Broker 100 50 100 100
U10_Dallas / Broker 100 50 100 100
U11_Dallas / Biz Intelligence 100 100 100 100
U12_Dallas / BA 100 50 100 100
U13_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 100
U14_Dallas / Sales Enablement 100 50 100 100
Avg Score 100% 64.29% 100% 100%
Login Page Usability Score

Login Page - Analysis
Login Page Average Score – 91.1%
• Task #2 - - Edit / Reset Company Name – 64.29%
Users did not immediately understand that the reset icon above the form field would reset it. This
could be partially due to the fact that the user did not complete the flow through an actual dev
environment. Also readability seemed to be a contributing factor, meaning small design iterations
could fix.

Usability Error - Pull Quotes
Oh I guess I can go [ reset button ]
Missed that [ reset button ]

Usability Testing
Understanding the people page
We believe that the interface will allow users to plot growth over a variable period of time
and change year to year growth as seen fit by the clients’ needs.

People Page Usability Score
#T1 - Purpose #T2 – Get Started #T3 - Adjust Employees #T4 - What Happened #T5 - Summary Card #T6- Mobility Percentage
U1_Chicago / Research 100 50 100 100 100 50
U3_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U4_Chicago / Broker 100 50 100 100 100 100
U5_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U6_Dallas / Broker 100 50 100 100 100 100
U7_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 0
U8_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U9_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U10_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U11_Dallas / Biz Intelligence 100 100 100 100 100 100
U12_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 100 100 100
U13_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 100 100 100
U14_Dallas / Sales Enablement 0 100 100 100 100 100
Avg Score 92.86% 85.71% 100% 100% 100% 89.29%

#T7 - Additional
Indicators
#T8 - Likert Relevance #T9 - Close Modal #T10 - Adjust Lease Year #T11 - Adjust Employees #T12 - Adjust Sliders
U3_Chicago / Broker 0 7 100 100 100 100
U4_Chicago / Broker 50 5 100 100 100 100
U5_Chicago / Broker 0 5 100 100 100 100
U6_Dallas / Broker 50 10 100 100 100 100
U7_Dallas / Broker 100 8 100 100 100 100
U8_Dallas / Broker 100 7 100 100 100 100
U9_Dallas / Broker 50 7 100 100 100 100
U10_Dallas / Broker 0 4 100 100 100 100
U12_Dallas / BA 50 5 100 100 100 100
U13_Dallas / BA 50 10 100 100 100 100
Avg Score 57.14% 6.14 100% 100% 100% 100%

#T13 - Reset Sliders #T14 - Back to Previous #T15 - What’s Next? #T16 - Advance
U6_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100
U7_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100
U8_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100
U9_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100
U10_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100
U12_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 100
U13_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 100
U14_Dallas / Sales Enablement 100 100 100 100
Avg Score 89.29% 100% 100% 100%

People Page - Analysis
People Page Average Score – 94.29% Likert Relevance Score –
6.14
• Task #7 - - Additional Indicators – 64.29%
Based on screen size and location and the page, users were unable to understand or quickly find.
Recommendation would be to pull this component out of the body copy of the page and place
somewhere within the column modules. Also additional design call outs could make this more
prominent.
• Task #8 - - Likert Relevance of Additional Indicators – 6.14
Additional Indicators are seen as a useful addition to the conversation at growth but are not
without fault. The indicators provided at best seen as polarizing and not specific enough. There’s also
a request for them to be applied to specific years within the growth estimations.

Usability Error - Pull Quotes
[ Additional Indicators ] are good but it’s not specific enough
So what’s the implication of [ Additional Indicators ]
Oh, I didn’t see that [ Additional Indicators ]
Why is [ climate change ] included in this?
How do I take notes or have a follow up about [ Additional Indicators ]?
[ Additional Indicators ] are not right, or detailed enough
[ Additional Indicators ] feels right, but maybe a separate conversation
How do [ Additional Indicators ] affect the growth year to year?

Usability Testing
Understanding the space page
We believe that the new interface will allow users to easily select an office type. They will also be able to
understand and alter the database output they receive based on their selection.

Space Page Usability Score
#T1 - Purpose #T2 – Selecting Choices #T3 – Select Type #T4 – What Happened? #T5 – Middle Column #T6- Right Column
U3_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U4_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U5_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U6_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U7_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U8_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U9_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U10_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 50 100 100
U12_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 100 100 100
U13_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 100 100 100
Avg Score 100% 100% 100% 96.43% 100% 96.43%

Space Page Usability Score
#T7 – Change Type #T8 – Expand / Collapse #T9 –Navigate Back #T10 –Advance
U6_Dallas / Broker 100 50 50 100
U7_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100
U8_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100
U9_Dallas / Broker 100 100 50 100
U10_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100
U12_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 100
U13_Dallas / BA 100 0 100 100
U14_Dallas / Sales
Enablement 100 100 100 100
Avg Score 100% 75% 92.86% 100%

Space Page - Analysis
Space Page Average Score – 76.72%
• Task #8 - - Expand / Collapse – 75%
While this is a critical error, it was more of an issue with readability suggesting minor design
changes are needed to properly address.
At no point did the functionality seem useful or needed during the process, suggesting an
alternative work around may be possible.

Usability Error – Pull Quotes
Oh I missed [ Expand / Collapse ]
I’m not sure how you would [ Expand the selection ]
I don’t know the purpose of [ Expand / Collapse ]

Usability Testing
Understanding the amenities page
We believe that the new interface will be able to select and organize amenities as they
see fit – and that provided amenities will match the users’ needs.

Amenity Page Usability Score
#T1 - Purpose #T2 – Selection #T3 – Amenity Count #T4 – Amenity Selection #T5 – Select Amenity #T6- What Happened?
U3_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 0 100 100
U4_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 0 100 100
U5_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U6_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 0 100 100
U7_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 0 100 100
U8_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U9_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U10_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100 100
U12_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 100 100 100
U13_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 50 100 100
Avg Score 100% 100% 100% 67.86% 100% 100%

Amenity Page Usability Score
#T7 – Select Amenity #T8 – Remove Amenity #T9 –Order Amenity #T10 –Select Amenity #T11 – Amenity Accuracy #T12 – Advance
U3_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 100 50 100
U4_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 100 50 100
U5_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 100 50 100
U6_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 50 100
U7_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 50 100
U8_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 50 100
U9_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 50 100
U10_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 50 100
U12_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 100 50 100
U13_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 100 50 100
U14_Dallas / Sales
Enablement 100 100 100 100 50 100
Avg Score 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100%

Amenity Page - Analysis
Amenity Page Average Score – 79.85%
• Task #4 - - Amenity Selection – 67.86%
While this is a critical error, it was more of an issue with readability suggesting minor design
changes are needed to properly address.
• Task #11 - - Amenity Accuracy – 50%
Across the board, the amenity feedback can be summarized with
- It’s not clear what each amenity means (outdoor space, dining options) as terms used are broad and non
- At the other end of the spectrum, some amenities are too clustered. Based on market, “Parking / Train Access”
“Dining Options” could be very segmented or jointly applied to a single amenity entity.
- Amenities should move towards being building related and location related.
- Some amenities are redundant / expected (eco space, security, wifi reception)

Usability Error – Pull Quotes
I guess I can select them all right?
Why is Eco on there?
Aren’t Security and Wifi standard?
I would break ______ up differently
What about _______

Usability Testing
Understanding the summary page
We believe that the new interface will allow the broker to have a meaningful conversation
about their client’s needs and the client will understand what their needs are.

Summary Page Usability Score
#T1 - Purpose #T2 – Edit Content #T3 – Explore Tools #T4 – Close Modal #T5 – Share
U1_Chicago / Research 100 50 100 100 100
U3_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 100 100
U4_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 100 100
U5_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 100 100
U6_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100
U7_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100
U8_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100
U9_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100
U10_Dallas / Broker 100 50 100 100 100
U11_Dallas / Biz Intelligence 100 100 100 100 100
U12_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 100 100
U13_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 100 100
U14_Dallas / Sales Enablement 100 100 100 100 100
Avg Score 100% 92.86% 96.43% 100% 100%

Summary Page - Analysis
Summary Page Average Score – 97.86%
• No critical errors

Product Validation

Validation
Will This Product…
1. help the broker have a more meaningful conversation with the client
2. educate the client and have them start to about their needs and implications
3. provide the client with an interactive experience that
• will help differentiate JLL in the marketplace
• a broker would feel comfortable showing a client (with no upfront work required)
• the client will be able to take back with them to share with internal stakeholders

Validation Page Usability Score
More Meaningful
Conversation
Educate The Client Market Differentiation Client-Ready / Usable Client Sharable
U3_Chicago / Broker 100 100 50 100 100
U4_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 100 100
U5_Chicago / Broker 100 100 100 100 100
U6_Dallas / Broker 50 100 100 100 100
U7_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100
U8_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100
U9_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 100
U10_Dallas / Broker 100 100 100 100 50
U11_Dallas / Biz Intelligence 50 100 100 100 100
U12_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 100 100
U13_Dallas / BA 100 100 100 100 100
U14_Dallas / Sales Enablement 100 100 100 100 100
Avg Score 92.86% 100% 96.43% 92.86% 96.43%

Validation Page - Analysis
Product Validation Average Score – 97.86%
• No critical errors

Design Implications

Results & Updates
Login People Space Amenities Summary Validation
91.1% 94.29% 76.72% 79.85% 97.86% 97.86%
Space
Design alterations are needed for the space page to either make the expand /
collapse sections more intuitive for user interactions.
Amenities
We need to review the amenities and present an option that is more inline with the
way that brokers and clients view them at a categorical level. Recommendation is
to review what Research has provided (next slide) and replace the current
amenities.

Implications - Amenities
Current Recommendation

Needs Assessment - Usability Testing

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Needs Assessment - Usability Testing

Similar to Needs Assessment - Usability Testing (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Needs Assessment - Usability Testing