#richarduggelberg

[a2group]

Final presentation

Today we have been working on the final presentation coming up this Friday. We also made some minor changes in the prototype after evaluating think-aloud analysis.

Presentation

[a2group]

Feedback from group a3

While we received mostly positive feedback there were some points that needed further development, yeah. Those were:

The buttonless design felt a little bit to empty and unintuitive.

We decided to add "Info-buttons" instead of relying on areas of the picture being triggers for the information to appear.

A3 suggested that we put small flags on the idle screen to select language, however we decided to stay with the "parallel text design" used in the rest of the museum. (Two parallel texts in two different languages but both cover the same topic.

The objective of our buttonless design (originally our "extreme design") was to provoke the evaluator to propose only the most necessary buttons and features. We felt that we received this and that they did not focus on the more trivial details.

[a2group]

Evaluation of group a1's project

Today we have evaluated a1's product concerning an application with museum objects prior to a museum visit. We brought forth the following feedback:

Good

They had a clear design and layout.

The concept was good and we expect the users (teachers, guides and students) to use it more than one time (as long as the material requirements of having computers/tablets are met).

The functionality was well adapted and felt central in the product.

Could be improved:

We felt that the "mini-games " took the focus away from the main purpose of the product. We thought that it was an unnecessary addition to the product because there was no clear proof that it would make the target group more interested.

It was unclear how much guides and teachers were involved in the product. The guide's role in the entire thing was mostly missing due to not having made his/her interface.

The concept is not applicable to smartphones due to size constraints with the platform. A computer or tablet is a must for this to work.

[a2group]

Final Static Design Decision

After a group voting a decision has been taken. We will proceed with the buttonless design. We have also prepared a few Powerpoint slides for the presentation on Monday.

[a2group]

After out first design process we realised that the following things were good about our design: + Very intuitive +Language options + Very clear design + Familiar (iPad) + Detailed contents The following functions needed to be adjusted: - Might be a little too small - Wall of text / buttons To fix the problems with the size we decided to leave the iPad behind and aim for a larger touchscreen. To fix the clutter with the buttons we decided to move the zoom function from the bottom left corner to a vertical position effectively keeping all buttons within the same area. Also, we changed the shape of the clickable buttons to circles and the text button symbol from an "i" to a more illustrative symbol. To reduce the intrusiveness of the large amount text we decided to shorten the larger portions of the text to a more digestible size. We added a  "read more" button to read the full portion of that specific paragraph. Instead of the summaries in the bottom left corner of the text screen to some quick facts eg artist, year when it was painted etc. We also reduced the size of the borders and added a frame around the screen.

[a2group]

The design process for the conventional design was similar to our “extreme design” counterparts; each individual came up with their own design and some suggestions for functions, bearing the conventional idea in mind. We quickly realised we all had roughly the same idea for what the interface could look like, so through some iterative work we agreed on the design of some key functions like language selection and zoom/3D-viewing. The result was a simple, minimalistic design without too much clutter and options suitable for both our personas..

[a2group]

Reading Seminar 2

Prototyping, Design and Construction

Once a set of requirements are established the prototyping and design process can begin. This should include creating interactive versions of your prototype for the stakeholder/users where just pictures on paper are fine because all that is really required (in the early stages at least) is for the users to get an understanding of what you're trying to accomplish. The comments of the users is an of indicator of success.

Prototyping is not only important for the internal discussion amongst the developers but also when communicating your ideas to the stakeholders. Since users are not (usually) a part of the developers design process as far as discussing solutions internally and evaluating collected data. Thus showing off prototypes is an intuitive way to explain an demonstrate your ideas.

However there are factors that may skew the comments of the users. One primary factor is the fidelity of the protoype which in loose terms means the prototype's resemblance to the envisioned final product where a low-fidelity protoype may be drawings on paper and a high-fidelity prototype may be an iPad equipped with an early version of your software. If users are shown only high fidelity prototypes they may seem more accepting of your idea as the prototype appears to be final an their criticism might not change anything.

Evaluation Framework

The design process requires great measures of skill and creativity and thus it becomes easy to wander off the righteous path of meeting the users needs. This should be the prime focus of all stages of development since, in the end, you're designing whatever you're doing for the end users, the stakeholders and not (only) for yourselves. All ideas you have might not work for for a lot of people intended to use your product.

A good evaluation framework consists of the 4 main paradigms:

"Quick and dirty" evaluation As the name of the paradigm implies the quick and dirty evaluations focus on speed and not on quality. These are mainly used for developers to reassure them that they haven't deviated from the user's demands all that much. Examples of this could be asking simple questions about your design such as "Do you like this colour scheme".

Usability testing Testing the usability of a product means testing its effectiveness in the hands of the end user. Recording everything the test subject does/tries to do is vital as it will show what is difficult, counterituitive or simply an unecessary feature. 

Field studies The difference between field studies and usability testing and field studies is that in field studies the test subject is stduied in its natural setting. This is comparable to obseriving and animal's behavior in the wild instead of in a zoo. Sure in a zoo you can monitor every move of an animal but it might do things differently when exploring things on its own. The zoo represents a controlled test enviroment and the animal represents the user.

Predictive Evaluation This is simply to predict the experience of users by searching for information on similar situations and products and consulting experts on the subject or maybe renowned designers

[a2group]

Functions