203CR PORTFOLIO 2 NAME: Arunas Bedzinskas...Portfolio 2 User – Centered Design of a Pervasive Interface Introduction User-centered design (UCD) is an approach to design that grounds

203CR PORTFOLIO 2

NAME: Arunas Bedzinskas

STUDENT ID: 3790007

COURSE: BSc Computing

BLOG URL: http://arunasbedzinskas.wordpress.com/203cr-usability/

http://arunasbedzinskas.wordpress.com/203cr-usability/

Portfolio 2

User – Centered Design of a Pervasive Interface

Introduction

User-centered design (UCD) is an approach to design that grounds the

process in information about the people who will use the product (Usability

Professionals’ Association, 2009). User – Centered Design concentrates on users

through planning, designing and producing the product. In this report I am writing

about the usability test carried out with a user – centered design of a pervasive

interface of house heating system.

Problem space

There are lots of different types of home heating systems. Some of them are

modern like using boilers of hot water, others are heated with electricity and some

people even heat their houses using wood or peat. I would like to talk about

heating with electricity or from boilers. They usually have screens to control the

heating, full of different buttons and gauges. Personally, I find them really hard to

understand (picture below). In the picture you can see a controller with up and

down, select, set and reset buttons. When I tried to use the device, arrows made

temperature go up or down, I did not understood why do I need select button and

set button did not respond to my press. Other people find them hard as well,

according to anita9 ―There is a thermostat downstairs and each room has a wall

vent with an individual fan control. When you turn on the fan the room warms up -

but even if you don't turn it on, a little bit of warmth comes out as long as the

thermostat is on. So do we save any heating energy by keeping some of the fans

off? Or are they just blowing heat that's being produced anyway? What is behind

the vents in the rooms?‖ (GardenWeb, 2011). Of course, technicians can help you

with that and solve the problem you have in few seconds. But I think people do not

really want to call a technician every time they feel like it is too warm or too cold,

or maybe they want to save some money by turning it off for a while. Doing it by

yourself is usually complicated because the control interface on the boiler is really

hard to understand. Although, users can just turn off the controller straight on the

radiator, but that just disables the heat coming into your radiator, the boiler still

keeps working. That’s why I decided to design some pervasive interface prototypes

of heating systems that every person could use.

Methodology

According to W3C (Web Accessibility Initiative) ―In UCD, all development

proceeds with the user as the center of focus. Rubin depicts the User-Centered

Design Process as follows: The users are in the center of a double circle. The inner

ring contains: Context; Objectives; Environment and Goals. The outer ring

contains: Task Detail; Task Content; Task Organization and Task Flow‖ (W3C,

2008). Goals of my research are to find out whether users would use this

technology and if it is simple enough to use it for a regular person. For that I

produced two prototypes of my interface – low – fi and mid - fi.

Prototypes

First prototype (low – fidelity) is for users getting introduced with the idea of

prototype, show some basic interactions and abilities of the interface. Moreover, it

is ―… fast way to mock up an interface — no coding required, finds a wide variety of

Figure 1 – Example of heating control in my house.

problems in an interface, including many of the serious ones, allows an interface to

be refined based on user feedback before implementation begins‖ (Paper

Prototyping, 2003). That is why I implemented it as a paper prototype.

Second prototype (mid –fidelity) is for fixing mistakes of the first prototype, getting

users to enjoy using this prototype, identifying further improvements.

Usability Methods

There was more than one concept that I had to think about when I was

running usability tests of my prototypes. I had to choose between measuring

Qualitative or Quantitative data. Although, ―Each of these approaches has strengths

and weaknesses, and each can benefit from our combining them with one another‖

(UX matters, 2013). So I decided to measure both, because it would provide results

from wider perspective in order to understand if prototypes are really easy to

understand and satisfying user needs. With quantitative data I was recording right /

wrong user paths and ask for help. This was crucial, because this device is

supposed to be easy to use. I had lots of qualitative data recorded though, because

I wanted to sense if the users are happy with results (satisfaction), prototype

learnability, which parts are confusing or not obvious.

Measuring Data

Data was measured in two ways. Users after tests were provided with a

questionnaire and I recorded data in data sheet as well. Questionnaires were used

to detect satisfaction of the users, opinion about the prototype and suggestions for

improvement of the device.

In the data sheets that I had, I collected information such as detecting ease of use,

user comments, parts where user was confused, frustrated, happy or behaved in

any other way.

Figure 2 – Blank Questionnaire

Both questionnaire and data collection sheets that were filled up by users are based

in appendixes section.

Conceptual Frameworks

There are various conceptual frameworks that designers can think that they

are important or not. But even for people who do not have any specific physical or

mental characteristics that affect computer use, it has been found that adopting

universal design principles can reduce fatigue, increase speed, decrease errors, and

decrease learning time for all users. In many ways, universal design addresses the

larger issues of usability by making things easier for everyone (Usability First,

2013). I think some of them are very important for a pervasive interface. One of

key principles is flexibility or in other words – solution path redundancy. As I came

up with some heating devices problems – they are tricky to use, usually you do not

Figure 3 – Blank Data Capture Sheet

know what to press to do something you need or if you press something wrong –

how to go back. That is why I tried to make as much different ways to complete the

tasks for the users and in this way make the prototype as much flexible as possible.

Another principle that is very important to me is being simple and intuitive. Even

though I tried to make device as flexible as possible, it is always better to get

everything right from the first time. So I simplified the navigations and functions as

much as possible to ensure this is much easier way to set up heating in the house.

Users

To test my prototypes, obviously I needed potential users. Users that participated

in this test were male Coventry university students and staff. I decided that it is

enough for me to test each prototype with five users, because, according to Jeff

Sauro, ―The five user number comes from the number of users you would need to

detect approximately 85% of the problems in an interface, given that the

probability a user would encounter a problem is about 31%‖ (Measuring Usability,

2010). One of important things of the test is detecting problems of an interface and

trying to fix them in the second prototype, so five users should be enough.

Usability Test Procedure

Tests were carried out in Coventry University. Participated users were provided with

consent form, test information sheet. After the test was finished a questionnaire

was provided for getting feedback about the prototype. Moreover, a prototype was

provided for conducting the test. Myself I had a data capture sheet, to record

particular information about test procedure and contestants. During first test with

paper prototype I was also showing screens and interactions when users ―presses‖

buttons and links in the prototype. During second test I did not had to show

screens and interactions, because Mid – Fidelity prototype was done using Microsoft

Power Point software. After second tests users were provided some extra time just

to try out prototype by themselves, just to further understand the idea and have

fun with this interface. Consent forms, data capture sheets and questionnaires are

provided in the appendices section of this document.

Usability Test Tasks

First, I thought this user – centered design will be for controlling house heating.

However, later on I decided to improve functionality to air conditioning and water

temperature control as well. In this case, I had to make two tasks of the test,

because one test would test only little functionalities of this device and I would not

have enough data to make this pervasive interface as much easily usable as

possible. Even though, both prototypes had same tasks during the tests in order to

check if the improvements of the first prototype have increased usability of

pervasive interface. Both tasks began in the main screen (after first task user has

to start from the main screen again). First task was to set a kitchen heating to

twenty three degrees Celsius for next two hours. This will help me to find out if

users find simple to set regular heating for short amount of time. Second task was

to set living room air conditioning to eighteen degrees Celsius for every week day

from four pm to ten pm. The reason of this task is to find out, if it is simple enough

for users to complete harder tasks, identify possible issues.

UCD Process

Initial User Study

As I lived in my parent’s house I did not have to worry about house heating.

But since I moved to study to Coventry University, I started to live in rented house

sharing it with other people. And last December, my heater stopped working. My

roommates and I tried many things to make it work playing with handles and

pressures and other things that appeared on the boiler. Even though when we

called a technician, it occurred that we wouldn’t able to fix it even if we knew what

handle or button does what. And that is how I came up with creating new interface

for house heating. Moreover, I talked with my neighbors as well about this

situation, and they answered that a technician set everything for their house

heating and they try not to touch it because it is hard to understand what does

what. So I understood that I am not alone with this problem.

Requirements Gathering (Low – Fi Prototype)

In requirements gathering, user experience researchers gather information to

lay groundwork for additional research, inform design, direct development, and

provide test goals (TECED, 2012). The main purposes of my work were to create an

easily usable, modern interface of the house heating system. Users need their

heating system very simplified. They should be able to change temperature of their

house and get used to the interface without any big problems occurring in their

way. Also, the interface should be modern, because for younger people new

modern interfaces are easier to understand than the old ones. Moreover, it is easier

to fix problems occurring with the interface, if it is created using modern

technologies.

Interactive Paper Prototype

With prototyping, the key is to create an interface quickly. To test out a

completely new design creating a paper prototype is the fastest way to go (User

Interface Engineering, 2000). Idea that instantly came up to my head was the

simple modern prototype with touch screen device.

I decided to create interface with three sections – two small horizontal sections one

on the top and one on the bottom of screen where you could switch between rooms

and what you want to control (heating, water, air conditioner).

Figure 4 – Paper Prototype - the beginning or start

screen – this has lock unlock and other direction

buttons. Date and time is shown as well.

The middle section has all the content - amount of time, temperature to set up. I

also decided that a home screen is needed – to make device look better and

availability to lock and unlock it. After that, I came up that I also need a button or a

separate link if users want to set various times for heating and temperature during

the week period for saving purposes (for example if all people are not at home

during that time, temperature falls down to save money and comes up again in

around time when people come back to home).

Figure 5 – Paper Prototype - screen to set up regular heating in the

living room. Pressing the box with temperature will edit it; pressing

amount of time drop down box will let you choose from one of the

default values from a drop down menu. Run and stop buttons to

start and stop the selected heating. Set up varied heating button

leads user to new window to set up weekly heating.

For entering values of temperature I decided to add additional key pad and for

entering amount of time – drop down boxes.

Figure 6 – Paper Prototype - screen to set up weekly conditioning

and heating. Table: first row – week days to set up; second row –

heating/conditioning start time; third row – heating/conditioning end

time; fourth row – temperature of the room. Buttons: add another

timetable – brings up another timetable to add further times for

varied heating/conditioning; start – starts the selected program;

repeat all days – sets up all week days same values as the first

column of the table.

User Evaluation (Low – Fi Prototype)

The test of paper prototype with users showed me that the interface is not as

usable as I expected it to be. I noticed many things that I need to fix in order to

improve user satisfaction and usability of the prototype. Main problems:

1. Lock device button. Tests showed that all of the participants did not notice

the unlock button in the corner of the device.

2. Varied Conditioning. All users were struggling when they had to set

conditioning in weekly basis.

3. Navigation. Few users were unhappy about navigation in the interface (no

back button, etc.).

4. Help. One user told that it would be very good to have help somewhere in

the interface.

Problems of interface affected satisfaction result as well. Some people even seemed

disappointed with the certain parts of the interface. Even though overall result of

first task was ―happy‖, the second task satisfaction was worse than expected – two

out of five was ―neither‖ and one was ―disappointed‖.

Figure 7 – Paper Prototype - same heating screen just with the

numbers keypad on the bottom to modify the temperature value.

Requirement Gathering (Mid – Fi Prototype)

In order to make much better both satisfactory and effectiveness results, I

had to fix as much problems in the mid – fi prototype as possible. Lock device

button was changed to an open source lock icon which should be easier noticeable

(problem one).

Varied conditioning button was changed to weekly conditioning (problem two).

Navigation problems were solved by adding home and back buttons for certain

windows (problem three).

Figure 8 – PowerPoint Prototype -

Beginning or start screen. Locked device.

Figure 9 – PowerPoint Prototype - screen

where you can set up regular kitchen

heating.

Figure 10 – PowerPoint Prototype - screens

which appear when the set up weekly air

conditioning button is pushed.

Help Icon was added to almost every page and a separate help page was created

for every one of them (problem four).

Interactive Digital Prototype

I decided to create my mid – fi prototype using Microsoft PowerPoint 2007.

Even though it is not a professional prototype creation tool, it is quite good to

create interactive and simple prototypes. I decided to use same design as I used for

paper prototype except I fixed the issues that occurred during the user test (you

can see them above). The font I chose was grey with some highlight of light grey

for pressed buttons and chosen pages.

User Evaluation (Mid – Fi Prototype)

The results of user tests were much better this time. Overall satisfaction

result of the mid – fi prototype was rated ―happy‖ from all users. Moreover, the

overall wrong path number during the tests decreased from one point eight in first

prototype first task to zero point six in second prototype and from one point eight

in first prototype second task to one point six in second prototype which is great

progress. Test showed that with some fixed mistakes in from first prototype made

the second prototype not only more effective, but much more satisfactory as well.

Requirements Gathering

Even though the results of the second interface tests were promising, there

are still some features that could be improved or changed. Few users were

confused about second task part, where they had to set times for weekly air

conditioning. They were not sure whether to write them according to twenty four

hour clock or twelve hour clock. This possibly happened because in the task sheet

the requirements for task completion were displayed using twelve hour clock and

device is using twenty four hour clock. So the task description may was misleading

and that lead to more wrong paths during second task. Although, people that live in

Great Britain are usually using twelve hour clock, so this might affected the test

results as well. Moreover, most users still made mistakes when they had to set up

weekly heating. More fixes might be needed with direction to weekly heating page.

Future Work

I think the most logical thing to do for the future would be developing the

interface up to the high – fidelity prototype. This could be done using some tools to

create an app for a touch screen device and test it with the users. Also, this

interface still has some things that need updating and fixing, so user satisfaction

and efficiency result with the device would be even higher. Essential fixes should

include updating weekly heating, so users would not get confused when they want

to set it up, possibility to decide whether to use twenty four hour or twelve hour

clock. Furthermore, a deeper user case study must be made to make sure people

need this type of technology and they would use it.

Total words: 3019

References

GardenWeb (2011) Don’t understand how my heating system works [online]

available from

<http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/hvac/msg1114503821697.html> [13

March, 2013]

Measuring Usability (2010) Why you only need to test with five users? [online]

available from <http://www.measuringusability.com/five-users.php> [03 March,

2013]

Paper Prototyping (2003) What is Paper Prototyping? [online] available from

<http://www.paperprototyping.com/what_prosandcons.html> [02 March, 2013]

TECED (2012) Requirements Gathering [online] available from

<http://teced.com/services/user-interface-design/requirements-gathering/> [07

March, 2013]

Usability First (2013) Principles of Accessible and Universal Design[online] available

from <http://www.usabilityfirst.com/about-usability/accessibility/principles-of-

accessible-and-universal-design/> [02 March, 2013]

Usability Professionals’ Association (2009) What is User – Centered Design? [online]

available from

<http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/usability_resources/about_usability/what_is

_ucd.html> [02 March, 2013]

User Interface Engineering (2000) Five Paper Prototyping Tips [online] available

from <http://www.uie.com/articles/prototyping_tips/> [07 March, 2013]

UX matters (2013) Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative and Qualitative

Research [online] available from

<http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2012/09/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-

quantitative-and-qualitative-research.php> [02 March, 2013]

Web Accessibility Initiative (2008) Notes on User Centered Design Process [online]

available from <http://www.w3.org/WAI/redesign/ucd> [02 March, 2013]

http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/hvac/msg1114503821697.html

http://www.measuringusability.com/five-users.php

http://www.paperprototyping.com/what_prosandcons.html

http://teced.com/services/user-interface-design/requirements-gathering/

http://www.usabilityfirst.com/about-usability/accessibility/principles-of-accessible-and-universal-design/

http://www.usabilityfirst.com/about-usability/accessibility/principles-of-accessible-and-universal-design/

http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/usability_resources/about_usability/what_is_ucd.html

http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/usability_resources/about_usability/what_is_ucd.html

http://www.uie.com/articles/prototyping_tips/

http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2012/09/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-quantitative-and-qualitative-research.php

http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2012/09/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-quantitative-and-qualitative-research.php

http://www.w3.org/WAI/redesign/ucd

Appendices

Verifiable User Data – Consent forms

Questionnaires

Low – Fidelity

Mid – Fidelity

Verifiable User Data – Photography of User Participating in Test

The Low – Fidelity Interactive Paper Prototype

Same main screen as shown above. Extra button shows up only if the user

tries to press one of the three main buttons without unlocking the device.

Same heating screen just with a drop down menu to modify amount of time

value.

Same heating screen just with an extra pop up box which shows that the

heating phase is already started, it also shows how much time left till it ends

and what temperature is set.

Same heating screen just with the kitchen selected. Used for solution path

redundancy and wrong path availability.

Air conditioning screen with living room selected. Additional buttons – on –

off button, Fan speed – sets the fan speed so the room cools faster.

Same page as shown above, with additional changes that was used for task

two of the interface test.

Same page as shown above, with additional number keypad, that was used

to enter values for the timetable.

Same page as shown above. With additional message that same values are

applied to all days as the ones entered in the first column.

Same air conditioning page with additional box that shows the current

program that is set up.

Same air conditioning page just for the kitchen. Used for solution path

redundancy.

Screen to set up water temperature in the kitchen (tap). Temperature box to

set temperature and start button to start the program.

Screen where you can select water temperature for living room – null path,

not implemented.

Screen where you can add additional rooms for the device, not used for the

test.

Mid – Fidelity Prototype

NOTE: Only screens, which were used during tests are shown, because it consists

94 different screens.

Screen that shows up if user tries to use direction buttons if the device is not

unlocked.

Screen that appears when user unlocks the device.

Screen to select a temperature for a regular kitchen heating program.

Screen to select amount of time for the kitchen heating program.

Screen, that appears when the start button is pushed, shows the current kitchen

heating program.

Screen to set up regular air conditioning for living room.

Screen to set up temperature for regular kitchen air conditioning for living room.

Same screen as shown above has additional keypad in the bottom of the screen to

set up different values in the table. Appears when the table box is chosen.

Same screen as shown above except it has all filled boxes in the timetable. This can

be made by entering values in the MON column and pressing repeat all days button.

Screen that appears when the varied air conditioning program starts.

Screen to set up water temperature for kitchen. Used just for displaying

functionality of the prototype.

Same screen as shown above, additional box is displayed which shows that current

program of water program in the kitchen.

Null path; showed when user presses set up room link in the screens above.

Help screen. Most of the screens in the prototype have their unique help screen to

increase functionality and efficiency of the prototype.

Data Capture Forms

PERFECT PATH (Low - Fi)

Quantitative data:

Number of touch screen presses (path ½) 12 18

Number of wrong presses, wrong paths - -

Qualitative data:

Confusion -

Happiness -

Ask for help -

Verbal comments -

Satisfaction:

User looked

Very disappointed

Disappointed Did not show

with facial expression

Satisfied Very satisfied

x

Other: None

PERFECT PATH (Mid - Fi)

Quantitative data:


Number of wrong presses, wrong paths - -

Qualitative data:

Confusion -

Happiness -

Ask for help -

Verbal comments -

Satisfaction:

User looked

Very disappointed




x

Other: None

USER 1

Quantitative data:


Number of wrong presses, wrong paths 5 2

Qualitative data:

Confusion

Yes, Did not notice the room choices first, changed room

after the information completed in different room,

so had to repeat it in the correct room as well. Did not notice that device should be unlocked before doing actual

task.

Took some time to find the varied heating button

Happiness Quite satisfied with results Seemed unhappy with the

varied heating path.

Ask for help - -

Verbal comments “Oh well” “Dont know”

Satisfaction:

User looked

Very disappointed




x

Other: Overall, user made mistakes, but was quite happy with the idea of device.

USER 2

Quantitative data:



Qualitative data:

Confusion

While entering details in the wrong room about the heating

realised that he is in the wrong room.

Took to think how to find the weekly air conditioning

settings, even though did not make any incorrect key

presses.

Happiness Looked quite happy about the prototype and tasks.

Ask for help - -

Verbal comments “Oh I see”

Satisfaction:

User looked

Very disappointed




x

Other: This user looked really satisfied with the device and the tasks he got and completed successfully.

USER 3

Quantitative data:



Qualitative data:

Confusion Did not notice that unlocking screen is needed.

Got confused with setting air conditioning for weekly basis. Started entering values in main screen until tried varied heating button.

Happiness Happy Frustrated while unsuccessful.

Ask for help - -

Verbal comments - “What should I do” “I’m going to fail”

Satisfaction:

User looked

Very disappointed




x

Other: User was confident what he was doing until the part with air conditioning, changes needed!

USER 4

Quantitative data:



Qualitative data:

Confusion Was not happy with the value entering, needs highlighting.

Took time to notice varied conditioning, started entering regular conditioning before noticing the varied one.

Happiness Looked very frustrated during all test.

Ask for help 1 1

Verbal comments “How do I know if I entered correct value”

“Am I supposed to enter information for every day or there is a quicker way”

Satisfaction:

User looked

Very disappointed




X

Other: Very critical user, lots of suggestions for improvement.

USER 5

Quantitative data:



Qualitative data:

Confusion Unlocking button Did not notice at first that you

can select a room for that.

Happiness Looked happy and satisfied during all this test.

Ask for help - -

Verbal comments “Great idea”, “I like this”

Satisfaction:

User looked

Very disappointed




x

Other: Took time to notice varied conditioning.

MID – FI

USER 1

Quantitative data:



Qualitative data:

Confusion Not satisfied with 24 hour clock

Happiness Happy, familiar with interface

Ask for help - -

Verbal comments “Oh, I remember that”

Satisfaction:

User looked

Very disappointed




x

Other: User looked satisfied with prototype capabilities.

USER 2

Quantitative data:



Qualitative data:

Confusion Get stuck when you have to choose weekly conditioning, seem

lost.

Happiness Did not show any with facial expression

Ask for help - -

Verbal comments None

Satisfaction:

User looked

Very disappointed




x

Other: User got into prototype faster than using the low – fi.

USER 3

Quantitative data:



Qualitative data:

Confusion Confused with air conditioning, struggled a while till tried

weekly conditioning button.

Happiness Happy, except was frustrated during the part with weekly air

conditioning mentioned above.

Ask for help - -

Verbal comments “Hope I won’t crash it”

Satisfaction:

User looked

Very disappointed




x

Other: Looked more self confident, but made a lot mistakes.

USER 4

Quantitative data:



Qualitative data:

Confusion -

Happiness -

Ask for help - Not realised that it should be

24 hour clock.

Verbal comments “It is good”

Satisfaction:

User looked

Very disappointed




x

Other: User seemed much more satisfied with second prototype comparing to the first one.

USER 5

Quantitative data:



Qualitative data:

Confusion Same mistake as in low – fi prototype – entered temperature in

regular air conditioning screen and after that chose weekly conditioning button.

Happiness Seemed satisfied with the device.

Ask for help - -

Verbal comments “It is good”

Satisfaction:

User looked

Very disappointed




x

Other: Might need fixes with the weekly conditioning button, because, despite the changes, users still

get confused.

Documents

203CR PORTFOLIO 2 NAME: Arunas Bedzinskas...Portfolio 2 User – Centered Design of a Pervasive Interface Introduction User-centered design (UCD) is an approach to design that grounds