Transcription of interview and State of the Art Analysis
Interview
Transcription of my interview with a woman who is in her
mid-twenties from Milan, Italy, on the way back from Djurgården towards Slussen. She
was sitting next to her friend, who is in the exact same situation as her,
although I did not have time to interview them both, since they had to get off.
In the transcription D stands for Denny (my name) and A stands for the anonymous interview subject.
D: Hello my name is Denny and I’m a student at the Royal School
of Technology and I would like to ask you some questions about your traveling
habits, may I?
A: Yes, I don’t see why not.
D: Alright, if any of these questions get to intrusive, just
say the word. My intention is only too gather as much information as possible,
anonymously of course!
A:Sounds good.
D: So, is there any reason why you are here today on a Saturday
afternoon, on this ferry, and in Stockholm? Where are you going and why did you
choose this ferry specifically?
A: I’m actually an exchange student at Stockholm School of
Economics,in Italy i study at Bocconi University and I’ve only been in Stockholm since January, so my friend and I wanted to
take another tour and see a lot of the city. So we are just exploring.
D: Oh, that sounds really great! What are your impressions of Stockholm so far?
A: It is really great, and very beautiful. We have seen the
town a lot of times with our exchange group but we very much enjoyed this boat.
So we decided to go here again, and we have just come back from this museum and
are going to take ‘fika’! Is that how u say it right?
D: Yes it is! That sounds really great, so why specifically did
you choose the boat?
A: We can see a lot of the city in a short time, and it is very
beautiful!
D: I see! Very smart, how did you find out about the ferry and
was it hard to find any information on when it was going?
D: And the information, do you feel you can find enough
information on where to go?
A: I did not look for much as I said, but there was some
information on some website I can’t remember and there is some English
information at the station. In the city, there is a lot of information in
English which is very good!
D: Okay just before I let you go, was there any reason as to
why you chose the ferry instead of going by subway?
A: It was just very easy, which it is with the subway as well,
but we see a lot with the boat, so that’s why!
D: Thank you and have a nice day!
State of the art analysis of Stockholm Public Transportation Planning Applications
Table of Contents:
1. Introduction
2. Walkthrough and interface comparison
3. Existing Solutions
4. Analysis & Discussion
5. Summary
Introduction
In the following State of the Art analysis (SofA) a comparison will be made between two public transportation applications in the android market. I would claim that an interesting part of traveling is how
one chooses to plan the trips they travel. The apps calculate the best suited traveling routes from one
location to another. The two apps I will be comparing are 'Res i Sthlm' and 'STHLM Traveling'.
Walkthrough and interface comparison
Starting off on the home screens, below is a direct comparison, with a sample user (me in this case):
 |
| Home screen of STHLM Traveling |
 |
| Home screen of Res i Sthlm |
What we can see from the home screen is a very similar interface, possibly a copy of each other. Res i Sthlm was created first and one can assume,drawing from theory from Gulan's 4th lecture, that STHLM Traveling was created in a fashion that imitates the original Res i Sthlm. Since cognitively speaking, our perception is the key for usage. What I mean is that by imitating the original app, STHLM traveling creates a feeling of familiarity and recognition. What it actually might do, is trick the user into thinking it's the same app, and the user might just not care which of these two apps is chosen.
Moving on, one can see the home screen is very simplistic, since their main target group often is in a hurry, or just do not want to spend time learning an interface for such a simple app. They both have recent trips, search bars, and favourites available on the home screen. Important to note is also that they both are in English whereas one of the app names is in English and the other in Swedish, indicating that one might target a local target group, i.e inhabitants of Stockholm, and the other tourists. According to Easton (1987), one can identify three groups of users: primary, secondary, and tertiary. Where the first group are the most frequent users, group two occasional users, and tertiary users which might be users affected by the introduction of the product (i.e a friend traveling with you might not use the app but you do it for the both of you).
Below is my take on the primary, secondary and tertiary users of the group:
STHLM Traveling: Primary: Tourists, Secondary: Locals, Tertiary: Tourists friends/companions.
Res i Sthlm: Primary: Locals, Secondary: Swedish speaking people (perhaps people from other parts of Sweden or Scandinavia) and tourists, Tertiary: None specific.
Moving on to the second important sections, the state of traffic, displayed down below( STHLM Traveling to the left and Res i Sthlm to the right) :
Moving on, one can see the home screen is very simplistic, since their main target group often is in a hurry, or just do not want to spend time learning an interface for such a simple app. They both have recent trips, search bars, and favourites available on the home screen. Important to note is also that they both are in English whereas one of the app names is in English and the other in Swedish, indicating that one might target a local target group, i.e inhabitants of Stockholm, and the other tourists. According to Easton (1987), one can identify three groups of users: primary, secondary, and tertiary. Where the first group are the most frequent users, group two occasional users, and tertiary users which might be users affected by the introduction of the product (i.e a friend traveling with you might not use the app but you do it for the both of you).
Below is my take on the primary, secondary and tertiary users of the group:
STHLM Traveling: Primary: Tourists, Secondary: Locals, Tertiary: Tourists friends/companions.
Res i Sthlm: Primary: Locals, Secondary: Swedish speaking people (perhaps people from other parts of Sweden or Scandinavia) and tourists, Tertiary: None specific.
Moving on to the second important sections, the state of traffic, displayed down below( STHLM Traveling to the left and Res i Sthlm to the right) :
Now both these sections look quite similar. This might again have to do with the concept of familiarity for the user. Although I do know that both apps take the information directly from SL's own website where they write in Swedish. The fact that the text is in Swedish is important to note, as it does not allow tourists to understand, I assume symbols are used to aid those in need, but to manually translate all texts might be too resource intense for the apps. The symbols will also aid users that know the language with navigating quicker.
The last specific section to analyse graphically is the settings section, again, down below follow pictures, to the left we have STHLM Traveling and to the right Res i Sthlm:
What we can see from these two 'Settings' interfaces is that one is very much better in terms of available content. STHLM Traveling has in this case taken what Res i Sthlm did before and improved the content by centralizing a lot of information under the 'Settings' interface instead of having it haphazardously spread throughout the app. Overall it is just a better interface in many ways, as compare to Res i Sthlm which has only one setting under 'Settings' which makes it seem unprofessional and also gives the impression of not catering to its target group. It shows a lacking flexibility and lacking user friendliness. It also shows that the users are expected to know english and use the app in a certain way, thus limiting its target group. However, one must note that this might be intentionally done, and not something the designers have overlooked.
Existing Solutions On The Market
Below is a video presentation of apps of similar nature to those we have compared, the apps showed are called MyTransit ( a NYC-subway app with similair functionality ass Sthlm traveling but more focused on showing the map and state of transit as it does not have a Trip Planner yet) and tokyosubway ( a Tokyo-subway app that only has a trip planner, but it is a very slick one).
In the video we walk through the apps and we can clearly see that similar technology as our chosen Swedish equivalents exists. The app MyTransit however, does not have a trip planner, which might be an indication of how modern the app is, but also an indication as to how our public transport is seemingly structured. In regards to the app tokyosubway we see a very good trip planner, but with no options for real customization, nor does it display information about the state of the traffic. There are many factors to consider in this example, how the infrastructure works, what the needs of locals are and so on. In conclusion, based on both MyTransit and tokyosubway we can see that the technology of our chosen apps is up-to-par, if not, better. However, there are improvements, such as a clickable map, a map etc, and so on to be made.
Analysis & Discussion
In this part of the SofA, I will try to weigh all factors presented, discuss them using some theory provided in the course, and present key-finding and conclusions.
To start off, comparing the two interfaces, they both have gone for a similar design, where speed, clarity, and simplicity are key components for this app to function with a stressed, confused, and impatient target group. This can be seen from the home-screen which immediately is ready to be used. Familiarity is a key concept for actual design decisions, where intentions are clear from the home-screen, and there is not much confusion. The user is likely to have used, or seen one of the two apps, or a similar function ( such as Eniro or Google Maps). Moreover, the apps do not present an overflow of information because simplicity and minimalism are theories widely accepted as they way to go as not to confuse the user. Drawing from Normans Seven Stages of Execution one can say that users define a goal, which in this case is to get somewhere. They then form an intention and the designers are well aware that there must be no confusion in this step, the user must immediately know what to press, and where to press. They then specify and execute their action only to perceive and interpret the state of world around them. Lastly, they evaluate the outcome (in this case, seeing if they arrive on time, if they took the same train as the app recommended etc.). Thus drawing both from chapter one in the book and Normans Seven Stages one must at all times avoid confusion, and inability for the user to form a goal or execute something. Thus the compositional thread, meaning how we make sense of an experience as it unfolds is very important in our case. Also, as previously mentioned the fact that users using these apps are more often out and about makes the spatio-temporal thread (the time and place of which the experience takes place) of their experience very important. Thus we can conclude that both apps have a very good design with few flaws that cause immediate confusion. This is not to say they don't have some poor design, since Res i Sthlm had poor design under the 'settings' tab, which might have frustrated the experienced and advanced user.
Moving on, when one looks at actual design decisions in detail. One can see a a similar color-theme of blue and white. Yet again, using the concept of familiarity design decisions might have been implemented as to first off, look like each other, and moreover, to have a coherency throughout the app and SL (which has a blue and white theme as well).
Furthermore, looking at similar technology, we can see that the state of the current technology of these apps is cutting-edge or somewhere along those lines. It should also be noted that the apps have existed for several years and that comparisons are only being made now. As it pertains to design decisions and graphical displays, all apps are very standard looking and that should come as no surprise seeing as the main function of the apps is to be ready-to-use from the get-go and to display necessary information very easily.
Moreover, we can see through language choice primarily, what audiences they target, and one can assume that their target groups are mainly tourists and locals.
Furthermore, looking at similar technology, we can see that the state of the current technology of these apps is cutting-edge or somewhere along those lines. It should also be noted that the apps have existed for several years and that comparisons are only being made now. As it pertains to design decisions and graphical displays, all apps are very standard looking and that should come as no surprise seeing as the main function of the apps is to be ready-to-use from the get-go and to display necessary information very easily.
Moreover, we can see through language choice primarily, what audiences they target, and one can assume that their target groups are mainly tourists and locals.
Moreover, we must reason about the following aspects pertaining to future solutions:
* Why bother? (when there are already existing solutions)
* How can we acheive the objective? (how do we obtain a solution)
* What are we trying to achieve? (that is different from existing solutions perhaps)
* Why bother? (when there are already existing solutions)
* How can we acheive the objective? (how do we obtain a solution)
* What are we trying to achieve? (that is different from existing solutions perhaps)
SL's approach can be directly linked to a behavioral theory of degrees of involvement where users are engaged in different products to varying degrees depending on connection with the product. Furthermore we must use the definition of 'needs' and put it in perspective, are the needs of SL's customers prominent, and how pressing are the matters. I for one, sense a lack of personal involvement and care about whether or not SL has an official app or not, even though it might show benefits. Moreover, a common flaw in our thinking is to stick with something that works, and that is most likely what has happened to SL, as well as an unwillingness to put money into improving a project that already exists.
Summary
All in all, the two apps show a a clear design focused on their respective target groups. They offer a solution to a problem, and make conscious design decisions to cater to their target groups. This we can deduce by using Easton's method of identifying target groups, and for their needs we can use Normans Seven Stages to identify how the user experience is. The apps are also heavily influenced by theories of simplicity, familiarity, and minimalism. Moreover, we can conclude that the technology is very good as compared to other alternatives. Lastly in regards to what the consequences of the technology are, one can see that they clearly have an effect SL in some matters, whether that effect is positive or negative, is a matter for future research.
UPDATE
Since my analysis was made, there have been changes made to the apps in question, and the funny thing is, the designers and SL seem to have listened to my advice. Below is a picture of Res i Sthlms new design of their 'Settings' tab:
The design is still not perfect but it has come a long way since I commented on it.
Moving on SL decided to release an update to their ticket-selling app. In the new update 3.0 they have included their own traveling planner, as I again suggested.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar