Home Mess System III

734 views

Published on

The 3rd round of presentation - evaluating our design prototype and coming up with design solutions for the next phase

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
734
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Home Mess System III

  1. 1. Home-Mess System <br />Presentation III: Evaluation of Prototype IArundhati, Ihab, Ibrahim, Fareed, Zain<br />
  2. 2. <ul><li>Testing is the big unknown, often ignored world that intends to uncover design and construction flaws in a solution.
  3. 3. The earlier we start testing, the better the testing strategy, the better the test coverage, the sooner we can reveal the flaws and address them.
  4. 4. Uncovering a flaw when a solution is still in early construction phases is a reasonably cost effective and easy flaw to resolve</li></ul> “TESTING” THE MOMENT OF TRUTH<br />Introduction<br />Source- http://blogs.msdn.com/willy-peter_schaub<br />
  5. 5. Objectives<br /><ul><li>Discovering strengths and weaknesses in prototype design
  6. 6. Identification of barriers to successful penetration of the system functions
  7. 7. Evaluation of non-response (non-participation) elements in design
  8. 8. Exploitation of evaluations results and outcomes for improving system layout and architecture </li></ul>“Reaching a deeper understanding of the users' expectations and impressions of the system.”<br />
  9. 9. Our Approach <br />Step 1: Decide on testing strategy<br /><ul><li>Technical review of the solution
  10. 10. Involving both developers and users
  11. 11. Starting from the ‘inside’
  12. 12. Define the boundaries and scope</li></ul> Step 2: Prepare the ‘battle plan’<br /><ul><li>Define the types, objective, target users for testing
  13. 13. Define process of task scenariosfor testing</li></li></ul><li>Evaluation Methods<br />
  14. 14. User Testing<br />Cognitive Walkthrough<br />FIELD<br />THEORY<br />TRIANGULATION<br />EXPERT<br />Heuristic Evaluation<br />
  15. 15. Theory Based- Cognitive Walkthrough<br /> Measure the usability aspect by collecting empirical data of task breakdown and recognizing the sequence/path taken by the user. <br /> <br />Field Based- User Testing <br /> Observation of users in their home environment. A basic structure would be kept as a guideline. It’s a user centric approach <br /> <br />Expert Based- Heuristic Evaluation<br /> Identify usability problems based on established human factors principles. The method will provide recommendations for design improvements. <br /> <br />
  16. 16. Cognitive Walkthrough<br />
  17. 17. The stages in a cognitive walkthrough and the dependencies between stages<br />Preparation Phase<br />Execution Phase<br />
  18. 18. Task Based Walkthroughs- Approach<br />Users Identified:<br />what knowledge, skills, experience will they have?<br />Tasks Identified:<br />set of representative tasks<br />sequence of actions needed to achieve each task<br />
  19. 19. processing model of human cognition<br />
  20. 20. Predefined problem criteria<br />User articulates a goal & cannot succeed in attaining it within 2 minutes<br />User explicitly gives up<br />User articulates a goal and has to try three or more actions to find a solution<br />User produces a result different from the task given<br />User expresses surprise<br />User expresses some negative affect or says something is a problem<br />User makes a design suggestion<br />
  21. 21. KLM: Keystroke Level Model<br />K Press a key or button<br />P Point to a target on the display<br />H Home hands on input device<br />D Draw a line segment<br />M Mentally prepare for an action<br />R (system response time)<br />KLM Operators:<br />
  22. 22. User Testing <br />
  23. 23. Set task scenarios for user testing<br />Recruit prospective users<br />Record each session of testing<br />Observe and Analyse data<br />Follow up with a cooperative evaluation questionnaire<br />Think aloud protocol : Approach<br />
  24. 24. Task Scenario<br />“Create a new task”<br />To ascertain the path that the user would follow and their understanding of the system layout<br />“Leave a direct message”To test the user’s intuition when no clear path has been defined.<br />“Create a new event”<br />“Check for reminders”<br />
  25. 25. Users Tested <br />"Anything that can go wrong will go wrong” - Murphy’s Law<br />Measures of usability should cover: <br /> <br /><ul><li>Effectiveness ( the ability of users to complete tasks using the system, and the quality of the output of those tasks)
  26. 26. Efficiency ( the level of resource consumed in performing tasks)
  27. 27. Satisfaction (users’ subjective reactions to using the system)</li></li></ul><li>Scales Usefulness Ease Of Use <br />Very Easy<br />Easy<br />5<br />Somewhat Easy<br />4<br />Somewhat Difficult<br />3<br />Difficult<br />2<br />1<br />
  28. 28. Questionnaire<br />
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
  31. 31. User Quotes<br />“Good white space – links are obvious – clearly labeled – browsing divided very nicely – good subcategories.”<br />“What is ‘camera’ icon for? It was the first choice I noticed.”<br />“I think the designers have done well”<br />“I don’t know which button to click with the options present in more that one place on the main screen.”<br />
  32. 32. Heuristics Evaluation <br />
  33. 33. Severity Rating Scale<br />
  34. 34. Severity ratings<br />
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
  37. 37. Thematic Problems Identified<br />
  38. 38. Compiled Evaluation Analysis<br />
  39. 39. Implementing Changes<br />
  40. 40. Conclusion<br /><ul><li> Evaluation reveal s flaws in the system
  41. 41. Triangulated by methods:- Cognitive Walkthrough - User Testing - Heuristic Evaluation
  42. 42. Formulated data and analyzed the severity for each problem
  43. 43. Derived possible design and functionality solutions for next phase of prototype development</li></li></ul><li> Any Questions?<br />See You with our REDESIGNED prototype<br />

×