Design Assignment Part B
Download as PPT, PDF1 like378 views
The document summarizes the development process of a conflict resolution system called ConRes. It describes how the developers: 1) Created personas and scenarios to understand user needs. 2) Developed prototypes at different fidelity levels and evaluated them through usability testing and other methods. 3) Iteratively improved the designs based on evaluation findings until field testing showed the final high-fidelity prototype was ready for functional development.
![ConRes: A Conflict Resolution System Simon N. Reynolds @simonnreynolds [email_address] Matthew Ryan @mattieryan mattie.ryan @gmail.com](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/designassignmentpartb-091026035318-phpapp01/85/Design-Assignment-Part-B-1-320.jpg)
![Thank you Simon N. Reynolds @simonnreynolds [email_address] Matthew Ryan @mattieryan mattie.ryan @gmail.com](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/designassignmentpartb-091026035318-phpapp01/85/Design-Assignment-Part-B-21-320.jpg)
Design Assignment Part B
- 1. ConRes: A Conflict Resolution System Simon N. Reynolds @simonnreynolds [email_address] Matthew Ryan @mattieryan mattie.ryan @gmail.com
- 2. Refresh Mediation and prevention of workplace conflict Developed high level requirements Completed exploratory studies Produced user personas and scenarios of use Extrapolated detailed requirements of system for prototype designs
- 3. Design Requirements Utilised personas and scenarios of use Detailed enough to continue not require further analysis Storyboard developed to provide additional perspective on requirements
- 4. DECIDE Framework Analysis of Data Ethical Issues Goals Practical Issues ? Evaluation Methods Questions
- 5. Evaluation Process 270 Initial Design Final Design Revised Design Ad-hoc Evaluation Usability Testing Heuristic Analysis Field Testing IA Testing
- 6. Initial Design Re-visited and re-analysed user requirements Brainstormed information architecture Researched various designs Modeled on existing social networks Reduction in learning curve Simple, clean design
- 7. Evaluation Procedure Process-oriented design and brainstorm outlined tasks/elements Treejack IA evaluation Upload site map Specify tasks and expected answer Participants navigate and select an appropriate option
- 8. Evaluation Procedure Ad-hoc evaluation of low-level prototype candidates Team members explain and justify design Evaluated against usability principles Most suitable design to continue development
- 9. Findings Initial information architecture ineffective Terminology inappropriate Hierarchy illogical for use Tools helped to rectify Prototypes benefited from proven IA Simplified design and evaluation process
- 11. Revised Design Developed high-quality graphical designs within Photoshop Implemented all changes recommended within previous evaluations Better represented system interaction style Used to complete usability testing and heuristic evaluation
- 12. Task-driven system walkthrough Participant completes various tasks whilst evaluator observes User able to ask questions Evaluator to informally interview about system suitability Followed by structured questionnaire Evaluation Procedure
- 13. Evaluation Procedure Interaction logging Chalkmark evaluation tool Specify a task to be completed Uploaded prototype User selects next logical option to complete task Tool outlines user clicks and response times
- 14. Evaluation Procedure Nielsen’s Heuristics Ten principles which define an effective, usable system Analysis conducted by design team ConRes mid-fidelity prototypes generally met all principles Recommended to improve terminology consistency and visibility of system status Number Evaluators Success of Nielsen’s Heuristics
- 15. Findings Many evaluations identified similar problems These were all analysed and rectified within final high-fidelity prototypes Mid-fidelity designs found to comply with various usability principles
- 17. Final Design Implemented all recommendations of previous evaluations Developed HTML shell of system Outlines navigation Mirrors interaction style of final system Assists in visualisation of system and its role in the resolution of workplace conflict
- 18. Evaluation Procedure Field Testing Ensures all previous evaluations effective Occurs within normal environment of use Conducted using functionally incomplete prototype Simulated use of system
- 19. Findings Participants felt prototype had evolved appropriately for everyday needs Determined no further revision was required Recommended to proceed with functional development and testing
- 21. Thank you Simon N. Reynolds @simonnreynolds [email_address] Matthew Ryan @mattieryan mattie.ryan @gmail.com
Editor's Notes
- #3: To refresh the audience on the current situation with ConRes We have completed the following tasks already: High level reqs Exploratory studies Persona/scenario developent
- #5: Utilised the DECIDE framework to structure and pinpoint our evaluation process: - Determine goals: High level goals of the evaluation process (ie. ensure that users can navigate the system) - Explore the questions: The main tasks we would be asking participants to complete/questions we as evaluators would be asking - Evaluation methods: Promotes consideration of appropriate methods of evaluation, which will we explaining within the presentation - Identification of practical issues (ie. sourcing appropriate participants, equipment etc) - Consideration of ethical issues (ie. privacy and security of submissions) - How we intend to analyse and utilise the data collected
- #6: Broke the system design into three main iterations - planned so didn’t encounter issues which would break schedule - Information architecture testing - ensures that IA is appropriate before design commences - Ad-hoc, also known as ‘quick and dirty’ to ensure that low-fidelity prototypes are appropriate - Various forms of usability testing to ensure that the system meets user requirements and is appropriate for their use - Heuristic analysis - we used Nielsen’s Heuristics
- #8: Brainstormed information architecture using process-oriented modelling (focussed on the main activities performed by users to generate IA) Treejack is an IA evaluation toolset provided by a Optimal Workshop, a UI eval house in NZ
- #10: We can’t outline all results here, but here is a brief overview
- #14: - Allowed the group to pinpoint sections of the design users were having trouble with - Identified issues with the menu and title bar structure which would have otherwise been un-noticed until implementation - Also prompted fine-tuning of the terminology used within the system
- #16: Compliance with usability principles was considered from the Part A of this report, we factored that in