I performed the think aloud with a 11 year old boy who is very interested in cars and mobile games. His interests, age and knowledge is similair to our primary persona and I think he's a fitting test user. He has experience with quiz apps such as "Quizkampen", but he has never used a QR code. His english knowledge seemed to be sufficient.
I explained the context of the app, how it will be used and what happens if you press different buttons. But I wanted him to mostly explore by himself and so I set up a scenario (a museum visit) to immerse in him in the experience.
The first thing he did was to click on help, he didn't understand everything but he told me he got the gist of it. Then he decided to take the quiz but after answering the first question, it took a few seconds for him to realise there were more questions if you scrolled. When he had answered all the questions he wondered what he was supposed to do next, so I had to tell him that there was no "game over" screen or score board implemented yet.
So he moved onto the QR scanning, he didn't know what QR was but he realised that the code was clickable when he moused over it. I explained how QR worked and it would be implemented later on.
After that, he clicked on the treasure hunt and realized he had to use the scan function to complete it, he clicked on the QR scan and was dissapointed when he got the rockets exhibit again.
So he ignored it and decided to explore the settings. He noticed that the language change didn't do anything and I told him that it wasn't fully implemented yet. Then he clicked on the "clear exhibits" button and I told him about the checklist function, which shows all the exhibits you've scanned on the "home screen", and that he had just cleared all his history.
Because of that, he wannted to take a look at the home screen but he was confused by the lack of a home button and frustrated when I told him he had to press the "back" button until he made it to the home screen.
Overall, he seemed to be able to understand the app and how to use it. I think it would be nice to have an independant QR scan that is assigned to the treasure hunt, this will make it more specific and focused. Navigation seemed to be a little clumsy, with the major flaw being the lack of a home button.
Something unrelated to the think-aloud evaluation that I noticed, was that the quiz automatically corrected every following answer as "correct" if the previous one was correct.
Visar inlägg med etikett Robin Bråtfors. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett Robin Bråtfors. Visa alla inlägg
måndag 9 mars 2015
onsdag 25 februari 2015
Notes for seminar 2
As I was reading chapter 11, I wondered which of the four evaluation paradigms (quick and dirty, usability testing, field studies and predictive evaluation) would suit our project best.
Considering our resources, ethos and cumulative experience, I feel that usability testing is a no-go. I don't believe we could maintain the control that the author emphasizes. Setting up and maintaining "laboratory-like conditions" is probably beyond our reach and these "casual visitors" wouldn't respect/trust us, mere first year students at KTH, enough to let us strictly control them.
Our scenarios and personas would come in handy if we would like to use predictive evaluation. The question is if we trust our own analysis and knowledge of the users. Users are generally not involved in the process and if we base our product after false assumptions, the end user might be sorely dissapointed.
Quick and dirty and field studies appear to have alot in common, the major difference seems to be that quick and dirty lives up to its name, it's a much more fast and sloppy evaluation. I feel that we still need to learn more about our potential users. A lot of information can be gained by not only talking to the them, but also by observing how they use products and behave (something we haven't done). I think we should use one (or both?) of these two evaluations, since they wouldn't drain our nonexistant resources while also allowing us to get more interaction and thereby experience with the users. These evaluation paradigms simply seem to fit us and our project more than the other two.
So the questions I want to discuss are:
Considering our resources, ethos and cumulative experience, I feel that usability testing is a no-go. I don't believe we could maintain the control that the author emphasizes. Setting up and maintaining "laboratory-like conditions" is probably beyond our reach and these "casual visitors" wouldn't respect/trust us, mere first year students at KTH, enough to let us strictly control them.
Our scenarios and personas would come in handy if we would like to use predictive evaluation. The question is if we trust our own analysis and knowledge of the users. Users are generally not involved in the process and if we base our product after false assumptions, the end user might be sorely dissapointed.
Quick and dirty and field studies appear to have alot in common, the major difference seems to be that quick and dirty lives up to its name, it's a much more fast and sloppy evaluation. I feel that we still need to learn more about our potential users. A lot of information can be gained by not only talking to the them, but also by observing how they use products and behave (something we haven't done). I think we should use one (or both?) of these two evaluations, since they wouldn't drain our nonexistant resources while also allowing us to get more interaction and thereby experience with the users. These evaluation paradigms simply seem to fit us and our project more than the other two.
So the questions I want to discuss are:
- Which evaluation paradigm do you think suits our project the best?
- Are there any differences between the last two evaluation paradigms that I've missed?
torsdag 12 februari 2015
State of the art analysis
Tekniska museet were great at utilizing interactivity to immerse visitors and give them a better experience. Some information plaques had touch screens, which allowed for greater amounts of information to be stored in a small space (thanks to menus, scrolling, etc.). These plaques also give the option to vote for your favourite item in the "100 innovations" exhibition, the least popular get replaced after some time. This gives a sense of contribution and participation while also providing the musuem with simple, yet effective feedback.
Touch screens were also used in other intuitive ways, one display allowed you to examine the human body at different "levels" (eg blood vessels, musculature, bone, etc.). The multi touch function made it possible to rotate the body and create crossection for more thorough examination.
Navigating through the menus and voting seemed to be confusing for kids (even quite old ones, i.e. 8 year olds), but background information about the exhibit is probably targeted towards an older and more patient user group anyway.
The museum also incorporated different motion sensor techniques to let the visitor control robotarms and interact with digital shadowcreatures on a bigscreen. Children seemed to find these activities quite fascinating since their actions were given a reaction from "inanimate" objects.
There's a beloved "play area" at the back of the musuem. Kids can experiment with different physics phenomena disguised as toys and games. It's educational and fun.
Touch screens were also used in other intuitive ways, one display allowed you to examine the human body at different "levels" (eg blood vessels, musculature, bone, etc.). The multi touch function made it possible to rotate the body and create crossection for more thorough examination.
Navigating through the menus and voting seemed to be confusing for kids (even quite old ones, i.e. 8 year olds), but background information about the exhibit is probably targeted towards an older and more patient user group anyway.
The museum also incorporated different motion sensor techniques to let the visitor control robotarms and interact with digital shadowcreatures on a bigscreen. Children seemed to find these activities quite fascinating since their actions were given a reaction from "inanimate" objects.
There's a beloved "play area" at the back of the musuem. Kids can experiment with different physics phenomena disguised as toys and games. It's educational and fun.
tisdag 10 februari 2015
Interviews by Arsalan and Robin
Interviewed a woman in her 30's/40's, mother of 2/3 children.
Q: What is your impression of the museum ?
A: We like it a lot, it's great for the kids. We had heard of it and thought it would be was cool.
Q: Was it your first time here and whose idea was it to come here ?
A: Yes and it was my 10 year old son's idea to visit here.
Q: Was it difficult to navigate your way through the museum ?
A: The kids don't really care about maps or navigation. They will rush to anything they find interesting. However we did have trouble trying to find the lockers.
Interviewed a father of one.
Q: Is it your first time here and what is your general impression of the museum?
A: Yes it's our first time here and we have had a very good experience.
Q: Whose idea was it to come here?
A: It was mostly my idea (the dad) to come here.
Q: What was the main reason for coming here?
A: The main attraction we were interested was the 4d cinema.
Q: What is your impression of the museum ?
A: We like it a lot, it's great for the kids. We had heard of it and thought it would be was cool.
Q: Was it your first time here and whose idea was it to come here ?
A: Yes and it was my 10 year old son's idea to visit here.
Q: Was it difficult to navigate your way through the museum ?
A: The kids don't really care about maps or navigation. They will rush to anything they find interesting. However we did have trouble trying to find the lockers.
Interviewed a father of one.
Q: Is it your first time here and what is your general impression of the museum?
A: Yes it's our first time here and we have had a very good experience.
Q: Whose idea was it to come here?
A: It was mostly my idea (the dad) to come here.
Q: What was the main reason for coming here?
A: The main attraction we were interested was the 4d cinema.
torsdag 5 februari 2015
Seminar 1 - Robin Bråtfors
Chapter 2
The author introduces conceptual models, which is pretty much a conceptual description of the purpose, behaviour and design of the proposed system. These models are dependant on the activities of the user, the four most common types of activites are:
- Instructing
- Conversing
- Manipulating and navigating
- Exploring and browsing
A good grasp of the average user seems to be of great importance in the designing of a conceptual model. Not only to find out what the system should do, but also how it should do it. This will give us a better grasp of what, why and how we are going to design a solution to an eventual problem of the interviewees
I think the four mentioned categories are an important aspect of the user and are really good to have in mind during when constructing a system. The user will be granted varying degrees of independence depending on the activity they perform. For example when reading a map of the musuem, how interactive should that map be? Should the user bew able to input their own keywords or should it just be a plain map? Can it be bad to allow the user more freedom in the interaction with the system or should interaction be more restricted?
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)