Deco2300 Blog

In this user testing session, it was very interesting to see how people interacted with my prototype. I decided to conduct my testing with a different method. First I told the testers about my dark horse prototype. I then told them to show me how they would interact with the prototype without me giving them any instructions. The device would be tied onto a body part of their own choosing and then they would attempt to interact with it. After giving them some time to interact with it, I would then give them a method of interacting (tying device on leg and interacting with elbow) if they didn't already attempt it themselves. It was interesting to see that most testers opted to tie it onto their leg and interact with a flexible body part such as the wrist or elbow. The only restriction was no HANDS. However, another flaw was pointed out by a tester - the only reason they tied it onto their leg was because they were sitting down. If they were standing up, maybe the users would tie it

For the third and final prototype, I decided to go with a dark horse prototype. In prototype 2, I tested the functionality and usability of my concept by putting it onto a glove. However, using the glove required the user to have hands, so what if the user had no hands ? So for this prototype, I decided to find a method of interaction that didn't require the user to have hands. I came up with a larger housing for the buttons that was attached to a band/ribbon which can be tied onto the user. The user can then interact with the buttons without using their hands and instead using other body parts such as elbow, head, chin etc.

In the user testing session, I think that it was successful. The testers commented that it was relatively easy to use and didn't require much effort. However, there were some problems that arose such as differing size hands. I didn't consider that people would have different sized hands and palms and as a result, the buttons were harder to reach for other people. This will be taken into consideration for the future. Another thing was that it was a bit clunky as the buttons and the platform was big. Although there were several problems, in the end most testers found that it was relatively easy to use, which fulfilled my goal of testing user interaction and usability of the device (glove)

The final version of interactive prototype II was a glove with the buttons attached on it. To keep it simple, I decided to only put 5 buttons in total; power on, volume up, volume down, pause and play. At this point, I changed my goal from testing button functionality to testing usability and interaction. I wanted to know how easy it was to use my device and did it work for my target users - lazy people. The device worked by having the buttons in the palm of the hand and the user flexes and presses the buttons to use it.

McDonalds Fast food establishment Counter near front, seats to the side. Drive through on the outside. Customer can order via counter, self-ordering service or drive through. After ordering, go to counter and pay. Pick up food after waiting for it to be made. Customers need to wait longer for food if its busy Customers need to wait for seats if its busy or a second is closed for cleaning Wait staff have multiple duties such as cleaning, serving and making the food (very busy) External factors Other customers can increase wait time which can lead to a negative experience (long wait times) Internal factors Worker low motivation leading to 'half-assing' making the food. If its busy can take a long time for food to be complete. Can decrease wait time by allowing customer to order online then go pick up in person. It can reduce the wait time of customers and reduce the amount of people in store which may lead to a different experience. Less wait time = better Te

In the end, I decided that I wanted the user to have little to no effort in using it and so I tried to think of a way to minimize movement or time needed to use it. A few methods of interaction were tested such as using a the head to press buttons like tilting head in directions to "press" the buttons or using a device that strapped onto the wrist. I tested a few prototypes - the most stable one i found to work was putting the buttons on a little platform which is then attached to a rubber band so you can place it anywhere you want.

For interactive prototype 2, we needed to make it physical using the makeymakey. I first experimented putting buttons onto a headband to act as a headset but soon found that the buttons and makeymakey was too heavy and it wasn't feasible to have a headband hold it up. For this prototype, I decided to test the button functionalities - i wanted to see if the users understood how to use the device intuitively rather than it being confusing. As such i decided to label the buttons using commonly seen icons.

Idea: Can be a block tracker. When you are near someone else with a block, they both vibrate, notifying you that someone that has a block is nearby. Alarm - can play a single note, vibrate and have lights. perfect for alarm (vibrate if on silent, play note if not) light for night use?

For interactive prototype user testing, I think that it was a success. It helped reveal what I have done right as well as the flaws in my prototype. For example, all users found that it was relatively easy to use and that the interface did what they expected it to do (i.e volume up button increases volume). However, there was also feedback such as missing buttons and placement of buttons. This feedback will be implemented in the next prototype and tested again. Overall, I think that the user testing went well.