IA

S
IE
N
A
G

R N TEPH
E
I
,S
A
D
E
D
SS
A
O
NSON
I
E
FJACK
R
e TY RIS,
I A HAR
O
L
B I LIVI
O
B
,O
E
K SAAMAG
UTANIA G

W
PO

ER

D
JA
J
SA

AB
,R

Note: We are students the the University of Toronto

and this assessment was undertaken as coursework
for INF1005 and has no affiliation with Kobo Inc.

INTRODUCTION
Our team assessed the usability of
Kobo Inc.s current baseline eReader
model, the Kobo Touch.
The goal of the testing was to
establish the functionality and
usability of the device by eliciting
feedback from potential users via the
completion of tasks created by the
researchers.

METHODOLOGY

Collected qualitative & quantitative data via:

think aloud process and analyst data
time spent on tasks
background and post-test questionnaires

Test Process
Each test took ~30 minutes
Facility - small classroom with minimal distractions
Tools used - we provided participants with a Kobo Touch eReader
# of participants - 3 separate user tests (+ 1 pilot user - data not used)

Team Member Roles

Test administrator - manager
Moderator - direct point of contact
Note Taker - recorded verbal communication
Analyst - recorded body language and facial expressions

METHODOLOGY

The Test Process

Brief introduction to the test and team members
Completion of questionnaire and consent form
Tasks themselves
Debriefing and Post-test questionnaire/Reaction sheet

Tasks
We wanted to test typical use of the product and user satisfaction
Required Tasks
First Impressions
Navigating the eReader
Accessing Content
Configuring the eReader
Optional Task
Exploring the Extras

FINDINGS: PRODUCT REACTION

ANALYSIS
Data Relating to Two Different but Common Experiences:

Primary Functions
Tasks performed with relative expediency
Fluid/stress-free
No trouble with interface
Supplementary/Entertainment Functions
Doubling of time to complete tasks
Noted frustration among users
Consistent cognitive burden with the same features

ANALYSIS:
SUS SAMPLE
& RESULTS
Our team utilized the
System Usability Scale
(SUS), an industry
standard, to gauge
participants reactions to
the device after tasks had
been completed.

POSITIVE FINDINGS
Okay. Its actually pretty responsive. I wasnt expecting that. Its not
bad. Better than the one I first used. I think it was a Sony.
Its beautiful ; looks nice, lightweight, small
Reading stats are cool, I like that. Tells you reading hours, pages. That
s neat.
Functions are great -- I like sudoku!

FINDINGS- USABILITY ISSUES

1) Navigation- No back button?!
Oh, how do I go back?
Okay, so now I have to go back. This is the WORST part.
2) Extra Features - Games, Drawing
I would suggest they would get rid of all the junk...stick to what it
is supposed to do
...Can I save the game though. Im not able to save the game

FINDINGS- USABILITY ISSUES

3) Kobo uses term Shortlist to identify favourite items.
Heart icon is misleading
It says add to shortlist. Is that favourites?
I would have used favourites. Even wishlist.
4) Slow loading. No indicator of time lapse/time remaining.
Its a little twitchy, lagging, not free flowing ; definitely not
effortless

FINDINGS- USABILITY ISSUES

5) Use of Shelves feature to retrieve
reading history
Shelves Oh I never wouldve guessed that!

KEY FINDINGS
Many criteria for successful usability were violated to varying capacities
BUT

Convenience
Portability
Basic reading functions

CONCLUSION
Recommendations for Non-functional issues
1. Improve performance: loading time
2. Multiple modes of input: tapping vs. swiping
Recommendations for Functional issues
1. Refine overall navigation: mechanism to go Back
2. Incorporate user language and familiar labels/symbols:
shortlist, shelves
3. Improve the extra features: games, browser
4. Enhance network connectivity: username and password
credentials for wireless networks such as UofT
5. Include offline help for the device

REFLECTIONS

Streamlining the tasks to be more focused on the main reading function maybe
we should have tested separately

Conducting a Heuristic Evaluation of the product first would have helped improve
our knowledge of the product before creating the the pilot test (and could have
solved some early issues we faced with the test design)

Comparison of the techniques: Heuristic evaluation vs. Usability Test - Optimal

results can be obtained with a combination of both methods
(or if this is too similar to Olivias point)
Importance of using standardized approaches for the usability testing heuristics, data collection and reporting