Slides for our final presentation available here…
After testing our user prototype, we created graphical version of our UI. We tried to address all the problem that occurred during testing the paper one:
- Instead of two icons in top toolbar, we used one text button log in, also after user logs in, there are no icons for content manager, profile and logging out but again text
- The same change was done with confusing buttons edit and delete, now there is text button
- The add button in content manager was too small, therefore it was enlarged and is now the main graphical element on the page
- The log in screen was changed little bit
Here are the screenshots of all the element that were created as paper prototype, it is wort mentioning, that after the conversion to jpeg, colors suffer a little bit. Also the pictures used in filters are not very artistic, but I tried the best I could…
Our paper prototype was tested by 5 people. Each person came across different problems using our GUI and had different comments to the layout or design of the application.
Most important issues were the following:
- There are two icons in the top toolbar, one for registering, one for logging in. It was proposed to make only one icon. Also the graphical design of icons was confusing.
- In the content manager, the edit and delete buttons again had confusing graphical design
- The form for filling in the information should be divided or done differently
- Some subjects said, that too much space is wasted by the map. We have to note here that this was what other subjects said it is a good design.
- All the graphics as map/pictures should be on the left side and the text on right side
Here we present each testing person which issues mentioned, referenced to the list of issues.
This blog presents the paper prototype created for the user stories from previous assignment.
User story 1:
The owner logs in
Hovers over log-in button
Goes to content manager to add new place
Clicks on add new place
Fills in the information and clicks done, that redirects him to the page of the new added place
User story 2:
Use, who is not loged in searches for a places nearby him and gets some results
He clicks on the first one getting to the page of the place
He tries to rate it, but gets redirected to log-in page
He logs in and finds out his rating was already accepted
User story 3:
User logs in and searches for some places using filter only pubs
User goes to the top result
Clicks on the go button and logs out
The design session took place on the 9th of March and the whole session lasted for approximately one hour and 20 minutes. There were two participants which belong to the target group of users, one of them was male the other female, aged 20 and 26.
Scenario #1 – Finding friends
This scenario was discussed as a quite real one, that can happen from time to time. It is little bit over pushed and the person in scenario is really desperate, left home alone with no friends around. But even though such situation happen really rarely, this scenario could be plausible also when the person is not that desperate.
Conclusion was made, that word about this website could spread really quickly among young people, because students are usually those who use social media and like geeky things. The same thing is with checking in, although idea, that this check in process could be somehow automatized came up, which is really good point. Filling in someones profile might be boring, but again there could be possibility to gather some information from Facebook, if the users account would be connected. Discussion about writing reviews brought opinion, that usually very good or very bad experience makes people to write reviews, so there should not be problem with this and if the users are encouraged by getting some points, it will probably work.
Scenario #2 – Good place to eat
Participants also agreed, that this scenario is real and actually they experience it very often, because it is usually very hard to come up with some idea where to go for a dinner. Interesting idea was, that the system could randomly pick up one of the best rated restaurants and tell the user where to go, so he does not have to decide which one that he found using some filters to chose. If the user experience with this website would be good, the user would for sure remember it and use it next time. User from this scenario has regular job, so he usually rests in the evening with his computer and talks to friends and shares his or her experience, so there is also motivation to write reviews. This person also lives together with a partner, therefore they usually spend free time together. If one of them mentions some interesting website, that led to fact they had really beautiful and tasty dinner yesterday, it will for sure make also him/her very curious about the site.
Scenario #3 – Find best places
Looking for places to go to in a new city is something that most of the people do and are interested to research before they actually arrive there. The users agreed that some people prefer to organize everything before they visit the place, other people prefer to just get some ideas where they could go, depending on what they’ve heard from their friends or other kind of feedback. Innsbruck is more in the first category of more organized people. The site is a good idea for both categories of people as it is easy to quickly access information about different places and it also allows users to create lists with places for those who want to interact more with it.
A very good idea was that the lists of places should also be associated with a map with those places’ locations. It was also suggested that the check-ins and the history of checked-in places should contribute to the user’s ranking on the site and there should be several statistics about it which allow the user to see their progress.
Scenario #4 – Get your pub known on Pubbing.eu to keep clients happy and make your business better
The whole idea of managing your own page on Pubbing.eu is of course a good thing which would help your business. Some of the places will not get positive feedback though which might affect their image negatively, but Pubbing.eu is not responsible for the user-generated content. It is the same situation like – one of the interviewees exemplified without meaning anything offensive – why Kristen Stewart can’t blame Google for putting one of her images on the top of the Google search results when you search by “the least sexy woman in the world”. There is a post on a blog about that, which is not aggressive, as it is based on the results of some British website. What can be done about this, is for Pubbing.eu to carefully automatically check messages posted by users in order to not encourage aggressive comments.
One other very important aspect which was raised was the one about making sure that the owner of some place can get access to managing the page. Finally, it was concluded that because Pubbing.eu will first be locally it won’t be such a big issue.