Final Design Sketches

For our final design we decided to go with an app that helps tourists and leisure travelers find and locate things to do in Stockholm. It gives information about what is happening locally, if any accidents have happened etc. Moreover it gives notifications and informs about events near you and sorts activities based on your interests. As it is a tourist/leisure- targeted app, we thought it might be good to have an emergency (SOS) button that might help tourists that are confused and don't know the numbers to the emergency centers.

The app might also help people find friends and fellow travelers with similar interests, should the user choose to enable that setting.

LINK TO PROTOTYPE:
https://www.fluidui.com/editor/live/preview/p_gwZEcD7z7s2BGR7FP2Znz7iPIEnFf7Mx.1464035845955

                                                      Pictures of the general interface:

Picture of the SOS button:

Third Design Idea- AudioTour and fourth idea

Third design idea- AudioTour

Our third design idea was an app that would give custom made audio tour of any city, and any places, that is dependent on your interest. The starting interface would look a little something like this:

The idea is to present a friendly and fun interface (these are very basic sketches) and have an easy interface. The idea itself is enough to be a standalone app and therefore we try to filter out any unnecessary interface options. Further the user would be presented with a customization-interface where they customize the app from their own interest.

 

The user would thus choose the destination he would want to travel and the app would set out a path for the user with planned activities/sights to see or do along the way. The idea is to let someone explore a local city by customizing it by their own interests by just using their phones and a pair of headphones.

When we came up with this idea we did an analysis of the app's strengths, weaknesses, benefits, and the needs of target group. 

Reflections

Our general thinking was to use word association to come up with a concrete design. We came up with the words application, boat and audio before coming up with this app and below is a picture of our thoughts


Moreover we used the feedback we received from the interviews we conducted.   A common theme was that people enjoyed nature, something relaxing and easy. Also they were interested to see what Stockholm looked like. Also, using our personas and scenarios as a framework  we thought of a young man accustomed to technology, and that he might prefer a tour from his app rather than an actual tour guide since the app could be downloaded in an instant and not scheduled.

Connecting even more to litterature the design is minimalistic. Realistically, if this version was implemented, we would have had a more rounded design as rounded corners are easier on the eyes, appear less bright, make information easier to process etc.

Besides being minimalistic, our usability goals are an app that is:
* Efficient to use
* Effective to use
* Safe to use
* Having good utility
* Easy to learn
* Easy to remember

This is in direct correlation to Normans Seven Stages of execution which basically states that the app should be intuitive and that all the above criteria should be fulfilled in order to allow the user to have a good experience.

Fourth idea- TrainWithMe

This idea we came up with whilst using word association and brainstorming yet again. It was a quick idea that we did not really put that much thought into but it kind of just happened. Each person from the group chosen a word from the categories Action, Social, and Setting.  This is of course a low fidelity prototype.

Picture displaying our word association:

Another picture displaying interfaces on the app:

The basic idea of the app is to find workout partners, or trainers in the vicinity. This was inspried by our persona Max who would maybe like to train and at the same time meet a new friend whilst spending the summer in stockholm.

Again, our reasoning is for the app to be minimalistic , color coded with a theme of warm colors perhaps like red and white (not like in the picture). 

Reading Seminar 2- Group Discussion

Reading seminar group discussion notes

We were interested in how we could apply the theory supplied to our project. We were thinking of having an application with a simple interface. Our methods of evaluation are yet to be determined but we were thinking of applying a heuristic approach and possibly using the walkthrough-approach. Fitts' Law is something we could consider doing, but it could be to complex and/or not applicable, so we'll see about that. 

In general we discussed the different methods of application, and we determined a user-based evaluation to be too resource-consuming for a school project. Regarding inspection methods, that is something we could consider doing, but as to how and when, that can only be determined when the design is complete. 

So in conclusion, our framework will consist of inspection methods, possible walkthrough, and most importantly using a heuristic approach.

QUESTIONS

In which industries is heuristic testing not a viable option, if there are any?

The deal with this question was to see if there were any products that were hard to test before launch, and we thought that the possible products that are affected by this are mostly hardware products such as cars, or something that takes a lot time to test. But certainly most products can't be tested to 100%, but most software products are easier to test due to the computer doing a lot of the work.

How can we assemble a feasible evaluation framework that will highlight and give us a richer understanding of the problems and flaws in our prototype?

This is something we discussed in our group discussion, so see above for answer.

What are benefits of focus groups?

Focus groups are something used by companies and institutions to evaluate products in a discussion-type setting, where often a designer is leading the discussion and the key is to obtain genuine input from users. The benefits are being able to lead the discussion, ask direct questions to participants, and it is a cheap way and qualitative method of measuring a products characteristics. If one doesn't have the time to conduct studies at a large scale, focus groups are a viable option.

Why is involving users seen as too expensive? If a product does not have users as its main focus how can it hope to succeed?

Involving users is often a hassle, partly due to secrecy, but also resource allocation. It can be expensive to involve to many users, and there is always a lot at stake. Imagine a top-secret product such as the new iPhone, it is hard to keep information as such concealed and thus a lot is at stake if involving users. Also in general, if you are to produce a lot of copies of a device, and pay participants at a large scale, it will simply cost a lot. As for the second part of the question, users are a key priority but sometimes a lot is at stake, and one important thing to note is to think that designers can also be users, and there are alternative methods of evaluation.

Reading Seminar 2- Denny Lekic

Notes for reading seminar two

The first chapter we read, chapter 13 explains key concepts about evaluation and why it is done. It goes on to motivate that evaluation is a major key due to the fact that user experience is the most important factor in term of market value. Next, we have different types of evaluation which basically is in what environment the evaluations take place. On a website it is easy to record data, and as such, companies have a Natural Setting involving users. There are other types of setting such as a controlled one etc. but the natural setting avoids interference with the evaluation process and often means the company is data logging, observing and using focus groups.

Chapter 14 then goes on to explain usability testing is something that a lot of computer programmers should be somewhat familiar with. It is a test where one measures heavily quantitatively. These are often things like: time to complete a task, typical errors, number of errors per unit of time and so on forth. The chapter also goes on to explain what remote testing systems are, that are cheaper and often more usable for profit-driven companies Moreover field studies are a way of letting the evaluation be involved in the world very practically and the aim of field studies is to discover how people interact with technology in the real world.

Chapter 15 introduces heuristic evaluation and what that means is that the evaluation is done on people other than future users(they can be but they don't  have to be) and rather than that they might be experts that know how the users will interact etc. A good example are game testers that strive to discover as many bugs as possible and this is used as a compliment to regular evaluation and not a substitute. There are factors that go into play in heuristic evaluation and they are many but a few are: user control and freedom, error prevention and visibility of system status.

Lastly the chapter discusses analytics and basically means logging user data to see how they react to what,where and when. This is usually done after the fact but there are some methods such as Fitts' Law that try to predict what will happen and it is a test that measures time taken to "click" your way through a webpage, and what is interesting about this is that this test somewhat evaluates how good and user-friendly the design is because it is affected by visibility of interface, size of buttons, how far apart things are etc.

Question for the seminar:

In which industries is heuristic testing not a viable option, if there are any?

Reading Seminar 2- Dawood Rehman

The aim of chapter 13 was to introduce the main key concepts and terms used in evaluation. The chapter emphasized the importance of evaluation and generalized different types of evaluations into three broad categories, controlled settings involving users, natural settings involving users and any settings not involving users. There are pros and cons of each category. For an example, lab-based studies are good at showing usability issues but they are poor at capturing the context of use while modelling and predicting approaches are cheap and quick to perform but can miss crucial information about unpredictable usability problems. I think that the best evaluation framework would be obtained from a combination of different evaluation methods that are derived a combination of the three broad categories presented. Our group should therefore assemble an evaluation framework that is feasible and consists of a combination of various methods that are derived from the three main categories for a richer understanding of problems that can arise.

Chapter 15 introduces various inspection methods, heuristic evaluation, walkthroughs, analytics and predictive models. These methods are unique in the sense that they do not require users to be present during the evaluation. I think that heuristic evaluation and walkthroughs will play a great role in the development of our prototype. We can use heuristic evaluation to evaluate whether user-interface elements conform to tried and tested principles. Using heuristic evaluation as an iterative process is really the key to getting a good high-level design. If we think that a particular part is very important and really needs to be evaluated properly we can use walkthroughs for that particular area since they are suitable for evaluating spall parts of a product. I think that analytics and predictive models will be somewhat hard to use because we don’t have an actual product which we can collect data about to improve the lagging areas and we don’t really have the time to create reliable and realistic predictive models unless we use already existing models such as Fitts’ Law.

Question: How can we assemble a feasible evaluation framework that will highlight and give us a richer understanding of the problems and flaws in our prototype?

Exercise 3 Reflections

Post-exercise 3 reflections

Today’s exercise was a success, in terms of personal development and understanding for us all. We began the lesson by brainstorming and just shooting out ideas with the help of pain points etc.-also known as collaborative iteration. The ideas came slowly at first but the rate of which they came accelerated. After we had pumped out ideas we started brainstorming on how we should do it, what types of ideas we should have and so on-the focus on this part of the process was to analyze our personas and categorize their needs. Following that we split the group into two parts to work on separate designs and later on we compared them.

One of the designs was a dating/befriending-app that let you filter on whether or not you wanted to meet local people through the app, the catch is you both had to be on water. A silly idea nonetheless, but not without merit, we felt it encapsulated some of the problems that our travelers might have on the ferry for instance, i.e it revealed a problem space we had missed. Moreover, it has uses outside of its target group as well.

The other app was more of an information-based app where the idea was to design an app that categorized your interests and based on that info gave suggestions on what to do in the local area. This would for instance help one of our personas Max Ripersburg in finding local pubs and bars.

All in all we worked conceptually from our personas, and that led to concrete design. Cycling through different ideas helped us refine our thought and improved the product development. Our paper prototypes took shape but were very rough outlines of what could come to be, sketches so to say, however, they were a great way to anchor some of our ideas onto something. The first idea was partly a mockup, but it is also interesting to see what might happen with such an idea.

Some of our ideas and process follow below, with text:

Part 1, Using collaborative iteration we created more than a few ideas

Part 2, Discussing these ideas as a group

Part 3, The different sketches for ideas

Generally speaking, we believe the theory has been a vital part of our design process so far and it has helped us steer in the right path. In our design process we used Bodker's four roles for using scenarios(p.409 in the book). As we mentioned the previous week we only use the three first roles!
1. A basis for the overall design.
This is something we clearly have done as our applications and ideas are based around our personas and scenarios around the area that we conducted our interviews and choose as our target voyage.
2. For technical implementation.
This is something we are curently working on, we have seen the roots of this above, but the technical implementation is not yet fully ready to be called a prototype.
3. As a means of cooperation within design teams.
It has indeed helped us with focusing and steering us into the right direction!

Reading Seminar 2- Mehrdad Bahador

Chapter 13 was about how to analyze data given by user and how to summarize it. Also the most fundamental fact was the question how to access the data from the user. Interviews or questionnaires?
Into these two aspect we have the interviews which are deemed to be most important and effective way. Semi-structured, non structured and structured are the different ways to conduct an interview. In my opinion the semi-structured way is the best due to the fact that it gives the interviewer and the person being interviewed the best of both worlds. Group interviews are also an interesting aspect where you can gather various people from your selected target group. The advantages could be that you have a more time efficient interview. Also maybe the interviewees can meet each other and discuss their ideas more effectively giving you a better data.

In chapter 15 the very vital fact that you as a designer are limited. Limited in the sense of your choices and implications. However these limitations involves a lot of exciting opportunities to develop and prosper. Thus it is vital to embrace these limitations. Also the design space is more liberal when designing a completely new product compared to refining an old product.

Question: The benefits of group interviews in contrast to other forms of interview techniques?

Reading Seminar 2- Ramtin Javanmardi

Seminar 2

Chapter 13 was mainly about how evaluation is done throughout the design process. Some of the main points that the book was trying to get across was that evaluation and design are not two discrete units but rather that they are closely integrated. Some methods for evaluation of different product where also given like controlled settings involving users and so forth. The most interesting idea or concept was, in my opinion of course, usability testing. The reason for this is that this method gives the designer or developer a higher degree of control over what gets tested something that can be very useful if the project is limited on time and/or money. One major drawback of usability testing as I see it is that some design flaws can go unnoticed since the testing is just done on a specific area and hence limits the participants greatly which results in a test that is not “deep” enough.

Personally I think that our group could definitely make use of usability testing since we do have some areas we are not totally sure about in our design and after that it would greatly aid us in the design process if we could get some evaluations of the entire product, although the prototype is not quite ready for that as of the writing of this text.

Chapter 15 focused on heuristic evaluation and Analytics. Basically this chapter wanted to point out that the ones doing the evaluation does not have to future users, but rather they could also be some experts in the field that thoroughly tested any product or critique a design. The analytics part was about how one can use statistics to improve existing designs by, for example checking what users look for the most and how many “clicks” it takes them to find it and so on.

The most interesting concept that was completely novel to me was this Fitts’ Law, something that I recon our design has to use! Using Fitts’ Law will allow us to be somewhat confident with our design in the aspects regarding user friendliness to some degree. What is great is that we can do this without having to use time and effort to evaluate where to put for example buttons and how much spacing to have etc.

Question:

Why is involving users seen as too expensive? If a product does not have users as its main focus how can it hope to succeed?