Park.A.Lot just presented the final version of the proto and evaluations on tuesday. It was really work till the end.
As we did not present user testing last week, we decided to combine user testing and UX evaluation together~ via think aloud protocol (tasks scenarios given) and questionaire (based on likert scale) on emotions and pleasures.
We started work on the 2nd version very much after the presentation on phase 3c. As our intention is to come out with the 2nd version asap, and conduct the 2 evaluations, and then do some final coding and tweaking based on the evaluations.
We came out with the main purpose and objectives for our studies.
Main purpose
To evaluate whether our Hifi prototype is able to provide both functionality and user experience
Sub Objectives
Does the UI affect their surfing habits?
Are they able to complete the tasks efficiently?
Are they able to adapt after a while?
...
User evaluation + UX evaluation
The overall plan is to ask 6 testers to go through our user testing. Thru the testings, they are better exposed to the appearance/visceral feel and asethetics of the website. More importantly, the interaction between the system and the testers.
We felt that this is a better way, as compared to simply asking people to test our site aimlessly, and simply based on asethetics. The latter can be achieved with static images or graphics. Our ultimate goal is to test functionality + UX combined.
Evaluators
There's a total of 6 evaluators (3 advance 3 novice). 1 advance and 1 novice is grouped into 1. Therefore, there's 3 groups of 2 evaluators each (1 advance, 1 novice).
Part 1: User testing
There is a total of 3 tasks. Each group will be required to perform 1 task.
Task 1 (for grp 1)
- To book a lCP ot at plaza singapura the night before movie
- Bought movie tickets (Plaza Sing)
- Scenario:
- Lots will be available for booking at Plaza Sing
Task 2 (for grp 2)
- To book a lot at plaza singapura, 2 hours before show time
- Bought movie tickets (Plaza Singapura)
- Scenario:
- Lots fully booked at Plaza Singapura
- Look for alternative car parks
Task 3 (for grp 3)
- To go to a mall, that has ample lots, for lunch
- Scenario:
- To evaluate normal viewing of car park information
Results
In short, NO MAJOR HICCUPS! tat was quite a pleasant surprise for us. There were some minor issues though. Such as for grp 2, the novice wasnt sure of any nearby carparks near Plaza Singapura and struggled to think of 1. We then hinted that there's the "nearby carparks around XXXXX" function. It was then smooth after that.
Part 2: UX evaluation
There's 2 fold to our UX evaluation. Mainly, measuring Emotions (circumplex of emotions) and Pleasures (likert scale questionaire based on the 4 pleasures framework that we studied in the earlier assignment)
a) Emotions
Evalutors are to rate (scale of 1 to 5, from strongly disagree to strongly agree) on 12 main adjectives (6 good 6 bad, mixed together)
6 positives
- Inspiration
- Desire
- Pleasant surprise
- Fascination
- Amusement
- Satisfaction
6 negatives
- Disgust
- Unpleasant surprise
- Disappointment
- Contempt
- Dis-satifisaction
- Boredom
b) Pleasures
Likert scale questionaire on 15 questions, categorized into physiological, psychological, sociological and ideological
1 e.g. for each:
Physiological
I enjoy navigating the website
Psychological
I feel a sense of achievement on being able to book a lot online
Sociological
I will feel proud when my peers know that I use this novelty service
Ideological
I feel like I have the control of time management
c) Results
Emotions: Inspiration scored the highest, of a perfect score 5! followed by fascination (4.67) and satisfaction (4.33). The lowest were boredom and disgust (1 - strongly disagree)
Pleasures: We scored highest on Psychological and ideological, which we were really happy with.
However, i must admit, a more indepth study, with more evaluators, are needed to really, and truly, determine whether our site is both functional and provides UX.
Demo of proto
We ended the presentation with a short presentation of our demo. Not exactly complete, or not exactly bugfree, but it was a good representation of what we set out to achieve. We were happy with the output and response that we gathered after the presentation. We'll improve on it slightly to complete the high fidelity prototype and give the module a nice closing. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment