Final Dissertation 12.04

Bringing an enhanced visitor experience to the UK through the development of an improved tourist information system
Dissertation/Thesis/Project
By
Robby Parker M00266208
April 2012 This thesis is submitted in part of fulfilment of the requirements for the
Robby Parker - M00266208
BSc IT & Multimedia at Middlesex University, 2012.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to give particular thanks to VisitEngland who have shown specific interest in the project and will be allowing me to present my findings to after completion. I would also like to thank Carl Reynolds for his support and direction and Serengul Smith for supervising the project.
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................................................3 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................................6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................................8 Report Structure.....................................................................................................................................9 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................10 Aims....................................................................................................................................................10 Objectives............................................................................................................................................10 Deliverables.........................................................................................................................................10 Scope ..................................................................................................................................................11 PROBLEM STATEMENT........................................................................................................................12 Rationale for this thesis.......................................................................................................................12 Perceived Benefits ..............................................................................................................................13 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................................................15 Scope and Limitation ..........................................................................................................................15 Structure of Review.............................................................................................................................15 Review.................................................................................................................................................15 RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES...........................................................................................................23 4.1 Data Gathering Techniques...........................................................................................................23 FINDINGS...................................................................................................................................................26 5.2 Interpretation of Results................................................................................................................27 REQUIREMENT SPECIFICATION.......................................................................................................35 Methodology Chosen...........................................................................................................................35 DESIGN SPECIFICATION.......................................................................................................................36 Storyboard...........................................................................................................................................36 Prototype..............................................................................................................................................36 EVALUATION............................................................................................................................................37 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................42
RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................................45 For an organisation to take this on this project and take it to the next level and fully develop the tourism information system, certain aspects will need to be researched and developed further........45 A plan put in place as to how information would firstly be collated, and then kept up to date on the system. ........................................................................................................................................................45 In depth research into the costs for developing the system..................................................................45 How the system could be deployed across all technologies so tourists could access the information where ever they are.....................................................................................................................................45 Research into the running costs of the system.......................................................................................45 Seek funding from the government and sell this project as a key tool for tourism............................45 Advertising campaign put together to make all tourists aware of this tool .......................................45 A promotional plan that tourists can benefit from if they leave review on the system and businesses on the system................................................................................................................................................45 BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................................................46 GLOSSARY.................................................................................................................................................50 APPENDIX A..............................................................................................................................................51 Analysed Research..............................................................................................................................51 APPENDIX B..............................................................................................................................................52 Story Board..........................................................................................................................................52 APPENDIX C..............................................................................................................................................53 Signed testing documents....................................................................................................................53 APPENDIX D..............................................................................................................................................54 Email Communication with Supervisor..............................................................................................54 APPENDIX E..............................................................................................................................................60 System check.......................................................................................................................................60 APPENDIX F...............................................................................................................................................61 Documents from expert testing, user testing and cognitive walkthrough...........................................61
APPENDIX G..............................................................................................................................................62 Screenshots of system..........................................................................................................................62
ABSTRACT
This project aims to look into the need for a tourism information system for London, enabling an enhanced visitor experience to the capital. The project will identify the existing methods tourists use to research hotels, restaurants and attractions when in, and prior to visiting London, and the gap in the market for such a system. The hypothesis for the project is that it will be identified that tourists find a need for a single tourist system that is available through a variety of technological forms. In depth research was carried out with tourists in London via interviews, as to how they currently find out information on the capital, the sources they use, how effective they feel they are and how they access such information when in London. It also progresses to consider what they feel a new system would require, and how and where they would want to access it. Following in depth research to identify the requirements, a prototype of a system was developed and then tested and with potential users, and experts. Further to amends being implemented, an evaluation of the system was carried out in order to develop recommendations for taking the development of such a system forward. The key recommendations were that there was a strong need identified for such a system, but if implanted it would need to be done over a variety of forms of technology and there were a number of considerations that need to be taken 6
into account.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Mdx Term Middlesex
Report Structure 1. 2. 3. Introduction Introduces aim, objectives and deliverables of thesis Problem Statement Provides the rationale behind the project Literature Review Review of existing material and to identify research methods and strategies that may be applied. 4. Research Methodology Explains how the research was carried out and data collection 5. 6. Findings Discusses the data collected Requirement Specification Describes the various system
development models and the requirements gathered. 7. 8. Design Specification . Evaluation Explanation of evaluation techniques used, results and findings. 9. 10. Conclusion Bibliography Source of information, whitepapers, journals, articles and internet web pages used to construct this thesis.
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
This thesis is based on an in depth study into the development of a tourist information system for London. The thesis provides in depth user research and a findings report which proves why there is a need for such a system, and the requirements should such a system be developed. The research expands to then look at the prototype that has been developed and uses different methods of testing the system in order to evaluate its effectiveness with users. Aims The aim of this thesis is to explore the need for a centralised tourism information system to aid the millions of tourists who visit London each year and facilitate their visitor experience within the capital. Objectives To highlight how tourists go about finding information on hotels, restaurants and attractions when in, and prior to coming to London To demonstrate user ability among the masses of age groups, nationalities and tourists technological capabilities showing why such a basic and user friendly system is required To identify the system requirements for a tourism information system To demonstrate how a system could be deployed across different technologies using the same format and be used as a key tool that tourists visiting London would be aware of aiding them whilst travelling around London. To have fully tested wireframes using different testing methods To highlight how such a system could be beneficial to tourism in the UK benefitting tourism providers To evaluate the effectiveness of a prototype and identify recommendations for the development of such a system To show the troubles tourists go to find information as theyre not aware of where to get assistance. Deliverables There are many sources of information out there catered towards tourists in London such as TV and radio adverts, tourism websites, agencies, tour guides and mobile applications. Whilst these sources allow tourists to find the information they need, it is felt that there are a number of different sources that tourists need to use to gather such information and that pre-planning is essential. The study aims to explore whether there is a way to enhance the resources that already exist, not reinvent the wheel, but identify whether the information access to tourists could be delivered in a more user friendly manner. 10
The deliverables for the project are as follows: Literature review Initial research into the need, demands and requirements for tourist information Audience analysis In depth research with tourists through interviews and questionnaires Evaluation of research to create requirements report & initial wireframe concepts Focus groups to conduct cognitive walkthrough & heurist evaluation Revised wireframe concepts & static content pages User trial testing Findings report Final presentation Scope The project aims to address the question of Is there a demand from tourists to have easier access to tourism information within London and what would such a software development consist of? The project will perform a literature review and in depth research with tourists in London the results of which will identify what is needed from such a system, enabling wireframes to be developed. The wireframes will be used to evaluate the initial concepts, evaluation methods including a Cognitive Walkthrough and a Heuristic Evaluation will identify any usability issues before the wireframe concepts are finalised and will enable the static pages to be designed in a user friendly way. If an organisation decides on taking this project to the next stage, further user research would have to be undertaken on a larger scale than has been carried out in this project. However, the results in this project are focused on main nationalities that visit London so an organisation could use every step in this project as a base plan. The system that has been developed focuses on London, however, this could be used for any city or country should an organisation outside of London or the UK be interested in this. Visit England have shown a great deal of interest, this will be highlighted further on in the project. The project will go as far as developing wireframes and identifying requirements after research and not the actual build of the software but basic recommendations in order for the system to be taken to market.
11
Chapter 2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Rationale for this thesis Following on from a project that was explored in Human Computer Interaction in the 2nd year and how this project could tie into Multimedia, this project proposes to further develop an idea of a tourist information system that will aid in visitor experience and the UK tourism economy with tourists being able to plan their holidays/things to see and access more of the tourism offer in the UK. According to Swarbrooke and Horner (1999) with London being an extremely popular tourist destination and as tourists who visit spend more money in London than any other city in the United Kingdom, having more direct readily information available for tourists can only prove beneficial to the UK tourism economy. Swarbrooke and Horner (1999) identified that tourist behavior and the predictions about the tourism industry, the behavior of tourists, how many holidays are taken each year, what technology will be developed to benefit the tourists etc and twelve years on, the predictions were right and the tourism market and technology that coincides with it grew and grew. Having such information available will only further enhance tourists experience in London and many companies invest in the content of such software rather than paying for other sources of advertising. There are currently some forms of technology on the market to aid tourists in London such as a downloaded applications for the android and iphone from companies such as Trip Adviser and London Pass as well as the many tourism websites as well as other streams of information that tourists can use. Currently there are no tourism systems that offer ease of access and required level of information. Although there are many interactive systems on the market such as the Oyster machine that operate in underground stations in London, there are no systems such as this relating to tourism that have been developed. The below shows the response from VisitEngland as to the need for research into this area: Hi Robby, I have been forwarded your email by my colleague Sarah Long. My role at VisitEngland is Visitor Information Manager and I am the lead here on our Modernising Visitor Information Action Plan. The plan looks at all aspects of visitor information, virtual and physical. We have recently launched our Enjoy England iPhone App with an Android version to follow soon but are also investigating all platforms in which we can deliver high quality visitor information where there are gaps in the market. The tourism landscape has changed very dramatically recently and we need to ensure that we keep our visitors, overseas and domestic, engaged. 12
I would be more than happy to hear more about your project and can be contacted via the details below. Many thanks and look forward to hearing from you. Regards Tracey After further discussions with Visit England on Monday 31 st October, it was agreed that whilst they are exploring other technology routes, researching this area may be beneficial to their work in assisting tourists in London. It was suggested that the study be shared with them so they could use the results and decide how to progress. Perceived Benefits Research in to the development of such a system could be beneficial to current tourism organisations such as VisitEngland. After proposing an offer to work with one of these organisations to carry out a study into such a resource, an idea has been put forward to research the information tourists require. The study will seek to explore what programme or sources of information could enhance visitors experience within London. The outcome of the initial research will identify the type and range of information tourists are looking for in London. It will also aim to understand what other sources of information tourists use, and where there are any potential gaps in the market. The research will also explore the usability requirements of such a resource. Discussions with VisitEngland have involved considerations around if they could link such a system with the 2012 Olympic Games and whether such a system could really aid in visitors experience and time in London. Visit England have a need to further develop information access for tourists and that they are exploring a number of different options and that theyre fully supportive of the research into this area. Further research will be done into what alternate forms of programmes and user interfaces can be used and the benefits of using these other programs and interfaces in comparison to mobile applications. If the research proves a need, and proposed wireframes & content receive positive feedback from tourists, further conversations would be had with Visit England as to how research and initial prototyped wireframes could be taken forward to develop a system.
13
14
Chapter 3 LITERATURE REVIEW

Scope and Limitation This review covers studies of current tourism information systems and different interfaces that are and have been available to the market place and will go as far as looking at tourists needs. There is a significant gap in recent research on tourism systems that are available in London. Structure of Review In October 2011 it was identified that London attracts more tourists than any other region in the UK, twenty percent of tourist expenditure is spent in London alone, quoted by the Office for National Statistics in 2008. Tourists spent 26.5 billion was in London in 2008, 16.3 billion of that was spent by overseas visitors. This literature review will look at the existing research into tourism information systems, accessibility and benefits to tourism experiences and aim to identify any best practice examples and to identify the research required into tourist motivations and needs. It will help to inform if there are more streams of advertising and communication through technology that relate to overseas tourists and help provide tourists with an enhanced visitor journey in London and potentially increase visitors spend in the capital. Review The review addresses several issues related to tourism information systems and user interfaces being incorporated into the tourism industry aiding tourists to better plan their time in London. Tourism information systems Travelers need information prior to travel and whilst they are traveling, whether its for business reasons or personal travel. Feedback of services offered is important as it provides likes and dislikes on tourism services and can be incorporated in the development of markets, products and services by travel and tourism suppliers. Inkpen (1998, p32,p33,p34) identified that IT would play a key role in the tourism sector going forward in creating promotions, advertisements and databases and information systems rather than the traditional methods of relaying information. When the English Tourist Board (ETB) looked into creating a system for tourism information to be stored, it was identiified that firstly it would need to collate all the information on the hotels, attractions etc in a region so that they would have the correct information the tourist requires including the services they offer, opening times, contact information and so on. Information on tourist destinations would need to be split into different categories when developing an IT system, separated into accommodation, attractions, events and activities. Tourist information systems have existed since the 1980s when consumers had 15
access to airline databases that were put online through CompuServe (Henerson, 1995). Automated ticket machines used to exist in airports enabling travelers to access their flight schedules, seat reservations and printing itineraries/boarding cards. Sheldon pointed out that tourists didnt just require information systems in airports, but they also needed information kiosks once they arrive at their destination to answer questions regarding the local area and tourist attractions. Sheldon also reported that tourists needed at least three ways to access information electronically: Firstly, a comprehensive database of the destinations facilities called a Destination Information System (DIS - something that could be created by government tourism offices aiding the tourists in their travel. Secondly, an information kiosk in public/tourists areas where tourists could find information on the local area and thirdly a TV based system that would be in hotels providing tourists with information about the local area. Sheldon identified different advantages and disadvantages of tourists having access to electronic travel distribution, the advantages and disadvantages below show why it is necessary for a tourist to have a dedicated tourism information system in London. Advantages Consumer Control over search On-line discounts Avoidance of travel agent fee Data overwhelm Can focus on value-added products Avoid payment of commissions Effective distribution tool Easy to update electronically Disadvantages Time needed to research Subscription and online costs No access to travel agent negotiated discounts Loss of commissions May lose relationships intermediary
Travel Agents Suppliers
information
If you take the advantages and disadvantages and put them together into one system, that would be a tourist information system that is run by a tourist organisation such as Visit England who deal with all tourism agencies, operators and with tourists. A system or piece of software that would be available for tourists without them having to search through vast sources online, using tour guides, travel agents and so on.
16
Inkpen (1998) highlighted two systems that had been developed in the 1990s; 1. The Canterbury system - developed to support tourist enquiries via a customer service centre; the staff at the customer service centre would provide tourists with information via phone and email and had a one minute response time due the high volume of enquiries. Unfortunately the Canterbury system was inefficient and staff at the customer service centre struggled to find the information comfortably within this timeframe due the database not being effective. The Canterbury system could have been made more effective if the money was invested in developing the database and a user interface directly for the tourist rather than a poor database that also relied on customer service centre staff 2. The Gulliver system in Ireland - this system proved effective in the first instance; the system enabled tourists to access information on this directly rather than having to go through a third party. The database developed proved to be effective and users were able to find information quickly. The system was rolled out nationally in 1992, however, as technology developed, the system became outdated and lots of problem started to occur. Poor end user performance became a problem when the system experienced heavy traffic due to lots of users searching for things. Telecommunication costs became extremely expensive as the Gulliver system used high speed data lines to provide tourists with information from its servers and the technology eventually became outdated. When the system was originally developed, it used a simple text based approach but as technology moved forward tourists expected more from the system, such as a graphical user interface, including videos and high quality images. Due to the system architecture, making such a change in the system would overwork the central computer. The original concept used in the Gulliver system proved to be effective for a short period of time, unlike the Canterbury system that was not even end user facing. There have been a lot of studies into the positives and negatives of tourism systems and to what the tourism industry requires going forward. A study was done into how a Semantic Search Engine for tourism this could be inbuilt to the internet so that tourists could find information without getting completely lost and without having to use a tourist information agency. If tourists are using a smart phone in London to find attractions, hotels, or anything else a tourist ordinary looks for, they usually face pages and pages of information and adverts. If the tourist is not on a travel package and instead plans their own sightseeing agenda, there is normally an abundance of overlapping information leaving them confused. If the tourist had some kind of software or a place to access information in a tourist district with either topic, or location specific options then that would allow the tourist to browse and explore things local to them with offers. This could be extremely beneficial in aiding the tourist as to what they want to find. 17
If there was software available to a tourist or a place where tourists could access the information in a user friendly way that doesnt leave them distressed or confused, such as a portal that was describe in Staab & Maedche, 2000, (Maedche et al., 2001). Knowledge portals provide views onto domain specific information on the internet, thus facilitating their users to find relevant, domainspecific information. The construction of intelligent access and the provisioning of information to knowledge portals, however, remain an adhoc task requiring extensive manual editing and maintenance by the knowledge portal providers. Although such a portal that was described by Staab & Maedche would require a lot of maintenance and updating to provide accurate information, it would enable the tourists to better find what they are looking for. This software could be used as a conceptual backbone in providing tourists with information and allowing them to access structured information. Staab & Maedche (2000) mentioned a portal that has been developed which enables users to access information through an application that allows access relevant information about different members, events, topics and publications (The KA2 Portal). This kind of system enables a user to access information only in this portal, which is beneficial finding the top 10 attractions, or finding the nearest exhibition or art gallery, rather than having to use the internet to find this information. A study that was done by Dr Dimitrios Buhalis, a Senior Lecturer in Tourism University of Westminster, highlighted how the tourism industry has been affected by information systems and how tourism destinations and enterprises need to adopt innovative methods and how they can use information systems to enhance competitiveness. Dr Dimitrios Buhalis, also looked at how IT development can influence the tourism industry. Dr Dimitrios Buhalis referred to a survey conducted by the Manufacturing Attitudes Survey which relates to how manufacturers regard IT systems so they can outperform their competitors. If the tourism industry, or providers in the tourism industry, also conducted a similar survey, as to whether better tourism information systems could enable them to outperform their competitors, the three rows highlighted below identified it could firstly improve their businesses competitive edge in compassion to businesses that dont use a better tourism information system, and that the information that is delivered to the tourist aids the tourist decision making process. Table 1: Impact of information technologies on businesses Significantly enhance competitive edge 79% Improves information 77% Better external communications 65% 18
Manage computers expectations better 63% Improve decision making process 61% Source: (10) Conspectus, August 1996, p.42. Tourism has been influenced in re-engineering old information systems and putting newer systems in place due to the technological revolution. Tourism relies mostly on tourists getting the correct and most up to date information and unlike other industries, intangible tourism services cannot be displayed in any physical way, nor can any tourist purchasing anything from the tourism industry test or try it before purchasing. A tourist buying a ticket to an attraction in London will heavily rely on an accurate description of what the attraction is about. Information technology systems are now the backbone in tourism. As quoted by the World Tourism Organisation, "the key to success lies in the quick identification of consumer needs and in reaching potential clients with comprehensive, personalised and up-to-date information". A case study that was written by E. Duran, D. Z. Eker and M. Shresth of Ark Project Limited Company, Turkey identified that the internet has emerged as a very handy tool for tourists travelling in major cities around the world. Outlined in the study is a common problem that tourists come across wherever they are in the world - it is sometimes difficult to find out what else surrounds a hotel such a museums, restaurants, event locations and they refer to geographic information systems (GIS). GIS is incorporated in software used by some tourism operators online which enables to tourists to find out what is close to wherever they are, enabling them to decide if it is a good place to go or stay at. This has been proven to be effective, similar software could be inbuilt into software, enabling the tourists to find out what they want to do from their current location and what is of interest around them. Mobile applications for tourists have started to be developed worldwide, a study done by John Kent of Bournemouth University talked about ensuring success in any applications that are developed, whether theyre for the desktop or mobile. He identified that mobile applications still dont have the full capability of filtering through searched information for tourists like a desktop PC might do. Although mobile applications for tourism may be beneficial to tourists in major cities such as London, they still dont have the full capability PCs do when performing searches and they take time to navigate around applications, especially for users who are not familiar with smart phones. Technology and usability interfaces for tourism information systems A relevant research paper that was written on Where you stop is who you are: understanding peoples activities by places visited by Laura Spinsanti, Fabrizio Celli, Chiara Renso of EPFL, Lausanne, Switzeland and KDDlab, Pisa, Italy focused on semantic information about peoples movements when they travel. The research paper identified how mobile technologies are used to not only 19
trace peoples movements, but to help people find things relevant to what theyre looking for at their current location. In the research paper it mentioned how mobile technology can enrich peoples movements with semantic information about the places visited during her/his travel. The basic assumption is that people stop, during the movement, to reach a goal. In this context, the sequence of places visited by a person during her/his movement tells us a lot about the activity she/he is performing, so that we can infer, with a degree of approximation, which is the behaviour of the moving person during the analyzed movement. For example, a person visiting museums, restaurants, monuments and eventually ending the day in a hotel can be associated to a tourist activity. To do that, we first need to identify the places visited by people during their trips; secondly, we need to associate these places to an activity typically performed in those places; thirdly, we want to infer the (probably) overall behaviour associated to a trip by analyzing the specific activities carried on during peoples stops. If this kind of technology was put into applications, where the software is used on a mobile application, or on a pod, it would enable tourists to identify what attractions are around them and possibly what other tourists have looked at with the semantic technology using their current location. Using semantic technology would also access the behavior of the common tourist. Research suggests that adding in a recommender system into software would be beneficial for all users. Websites use similar technology in saving users cookies, Google is a good example, when browsing through websites online and then going back to Google later, it will save certain information in your cookies and recommend pages that might be of interest to you or pages you have looked at previously. Takayuki Akiyama, Kiyohiro Obara and Masaaki Tanizaki of Hitachi, Japans research department identified how recommendation methods add benefit to user experience. The research identified that if there is a recommender system inbuilt, this can enable users to have an easier selection of things that might be suitable for them, i.e. if a tourist was using the software that was being developed, and it recommended two places of interest, one restaurant and two attractions that were close by to them, this would save them time in scrolling through the different options on the screen. A study by Faith Askel and Aysenur Birturk of Metu University in Turkey identified that there are two major recommendation techniques that dominate the recommender system area, these are Content based and Collaborative filtering. When developing software, a technique that is used by Amazon.com Collaborative filtering identifies users taste, likes, and search patterns and would therefore help tourists using software to identify their likes quicker rather than having to scroll through lots of content that doesnt interest them. Collaborative filtering is also beneficial as it suggests things of interest, however, 20
one of negatives to collaborative filtering is that it may take time to suggest if there are no ratings. When developing software, consideration that has to be taken into the types of users who will be using it, and it has to be extremely user friendly as it will be aimed at all nationalities and age groups, as well as people who are not very familiar or experienced with technology. A study by Michael Holub Maria Bielikova of the Institute of Informatics and Software Engineering in Slovakia identified key points on Behaviour Based Adaptive Navigation Support. In this research paper they documented 4 different basic navigational patterns that can be used: Path a sequence in which nodes do not repeat. Ring a sequence that starts and ends in the same node. Loop a sequence that goes through already visited node. Spike a sequence that goes back through the same trail.
Most software, websites, applications and other forms of technology normally have some kind of social media build into the program in one way or another, social networking is a great form of advertisement, a great way for consumers to leave comments which boost reputation on products and companies, and it is a way of a product or service being advertised and talked about if interesting. Universita Delgi Studi Di Torino in Italy did a research paper called The Wheel an innovative visual model for interacting with a social media web of things . This paper has strong research as to why social media should be built into programs. Social media is a way of also tying in recommender systems, as collaborative filtering is built around interest by users and also feedback. A quote that was made by Universita Delgi Studi Di Torino has relevance when adding in a social network feature to a business; A peculiarity of WantEat is that rather than having a social network of users that discuss and express opinions on things, we propose a social network of people and things, where the two categories intermingle. If Facebook or another social networking site was inbuilt to this software allowing users to click the like function that Facebook has, this will allows services or such things to be advertised and consumer feedback can be given via a social networking site, this enables more opinions to be gained. The existing tourism information that Visit England offer is via a strong website that offers a wide range of information for tourists who visit London, as well as a mobile application that can be downloaded for the iPhone and Android. Visit Englands website and mobile application have similar functionalities and can be used offline. However, the downloadable application that Visit England provide free of charge has only had a small number of downloads, and only gives information on attractions. Their website and social networking links have had a lot of views, but in comparison to the amount of tourists that visit London mean that tourists must not be as aware of this website or application as they could 21
be. Visit England are keen to explore a system that can be deployed across many different technologies and accessed by the masses of tourists who visit London every year. Having a system that the majority of tourists know about and that can be used and accessed by the majority of tourists which isnt dependent. Summary Current studies into tourism information systems and the technology interfaces identify that there is a great need for tourists to have access to such information that is presented in a manner that reduces the confusion and is accessible at the destination. There is also clear added business benefit to tourism business to ensure they are listed on systems that tourist use to find attractions, accommodation, restaurants and bars. In the development of such systems, consideration needs to be given to a number of things: The usability of such software, taking into account the extremely broad demographics of tourists and their abilities to use technology Such software has to be structured in such a way that it clearly provides tourists with relevant information at the right level of detail and in an efficient manner Keeping the information up to date is key to its success. A process for continual updates needs to be inbuilt from the outset The software need to be accessible in multiple points and at ease for tourists no matter where they are in the city Recommender systems and social media should be in-built in order that tourists can learn from each other as to the recommended sites/places Integrating semantic technology has benefits to tracking and location of tourists Constraints Whilst the literature review has clearly identified the benefits and pitfalls of current and previous systems developed for tourism information, there needs to be further identification directly from tourists in London and their needs, the systems they currently use and the extent of information they seek and how they want to access it.
22
Chapter 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES

The project was carried out using an iterative design process, and included the following:
4.1 Data Gathering Techniques For the initial in depth evaluation, conducted by interviewing tourists in London, tourists were approached in the major tourists districts and asked if they could take part in a study for a university project. Tourists were provided with a form which explained what would take place in the interview and how they may contact the researcher with questions or see how the development of the project progressed if they showed a great deal of interest. Data was also collected from Visit England. At the beginning of the project, different tourism organisations were looked at and contacted to see if they were interested in such a project. Telephone conversations and emails were conducted with a member of Visit England throughout the project, content of the emails can be seen in the appendix. on their technological skills is the key to providing a successful tourism tool.
4.2 Methods Chosen 4.2.1 Research methods: In order to research the project, there were a couple of research methods, including 1. Structured interviews which enabled in depth information to be collected from tourists. Qualitative interviews were formed which enabled the 23
interviewer to fully understand how the interviewees feel about the questions given and allow the interviewer to collect factual information. Using this technique, it allows the interviewer to get a full story of the interviewees experiences in London in this case, which means in depth information can be collected. 2. Semi structured - In depth conversations were had with Visit England throughout the project, the conversation followed a semi structured method as dialogue had with Visit England wasnt planned which meant conversation was flexible and different areas could be explored. Of course, the dialogue had with Visit England was solely focused on the project in hand and different areas were explored in how they had carried out research previously and the way they developed their products for tourists and the kind of technology they had used to date. Using this method enabled an open professional dialogue to be had and collect further data that supports this project. A technique that was considered but not taken forward was conducting questionnaires with the tourists. The reasons for not adopting this method were because questionnaires are mostly used to collect quantitative data rather than qualitative data and dont really allow the interviewer and interviewee to expand on the topic in question. In terms of the design approach, the project could of followed the waterfall methodology however, if this methodology had been followed, it wouldnt of allowed for corrections in the project process to be adjusted like with the iterative design concept used. Using the iterative design approach in this project, it enabled design problems to be discovered early on in the project, rather than getting to the end and realising how things should of been done different, the iterative design approach allowed steps to be taken back and design and other work readjusted before much of the word had been taken through to implementation.
4.3 Reasons for Chosen Techniques The above techniques have been chosen in order to ensure that in depth structured interviews took place with tourists without the need to then collect more information after analysing it and realising more information still needs to be collect to build a strong system specification for the system. The semi structured method was chosen as it allowed flexibility whilst liaising with a tourism organisation that currently has two different systems on the market and have a frequent line of communication that didnt require careful planning when information was needed within a short time frame.
24
25
Chapter 5 FINDINGS
5.1 Audience Analysis Who is the audience? What is the audience's knowledge of the subject? Demographics- What is their age etc.? It is important to define the audience that this research project is focused on in order to establish is there are any specific groups of people that the research should concentrate on. This will ensure the results gained and the prototype developed will be appropriately aimed at users of a tourism system. 5.1.2 Demographics of the audience The research project is focused on tourists to London. In 2010 the top 10 nationalities to London were: Country USA Germany France Irish Republic Spain Australia Netherlands Canada Italy Sweden Tourists 6,511 4,421 3,986 3,554 2,841 2,657 2,513 2,021 1,989 1,594
In 2010, the top 3 age most are as follows: Age 25-34 35-44 45-54
groups who visited England the most and also spent the Year - 2010 22% 23% 20% 26
Source: http://www.visitbritain.org/insightsandstatistics/inboundvisitorstatistics/trends/tren dsbymarket.aspx - 11/12/2011 It can be seen from these figures that there is a broad spectrum of nationalities and ages to London, and therefore the research should attempt to be as broad in its reach as possible in terms of the subjects chosen. With an even spread of age ranges of tourists to London, the research will ensure the chosen subjects for the user groups are also even in their age spread. As the level of technological ability needs to be taken into consideration it is thought that there are some links with this and age range which again heightens the importance of ensuring an the research covers all age ranges. The qualitative research (in-depth interviews) will aim to gain responses from 20 subjects. The subjects will be tourists in London and will be accessed via friends that are currently visiting and general tourists on the street. The 20 subjects will be split across age ranges to ensure they meet with the above mentioned percentages of tourists to London. The research aims to establish the needs of tourists and will inform the types of info, systems and accessibility that tourists most require. Whilst this research will provide the information on needs and expectations of tourists, there will need to be a large amount of user testing and evaluation of a prototype programme that further expands on the research and provides Visit England with a greater amount of insight into a potential tourism information system that can better support a tourism experience to London. 5.2 Interpretation of Results 5.2.1 Interview results In order to gain a deeper insight into the motivations and needs of tourists in London, and to further extend on the literature review, qualitative interviews were carried out with 75 tourists in London to gauge an understanding of how people go about finding tourist information when visiting London. Below is a detailed account of the results. Breakdown of respondents nationalities
27
The top ten nationalities that visit London that were identified in the audience analysis were interviewed as well as other nationalities. This data compliments initial research that was carried out in the audience analysis when the top ten nationalities that visit London were identified.
Breakdown of respondents ages
The three main ages groups that visit London that were identified in the 28
audience analysis were interviewed as well as people outside these ages groups. This data compliments initial research that was carried out in the audience analysis when the three ages groups that visit London were identified.
Breakdown of tourists proficiency in using up to date technology
This shows that the majority of tourists interviewed are proficient in the use of IT although as more are either proficient or not proficient than very proficient a system would need to be straightforward. How tourists found tourism information on attractions, hotels, restaurants, and other generic information whilst staying in London Over fifty percent of the tourists that were interviewed used Google and Google Maps to find information such as restaurants, top 10 attractions in London, parks and streets and the directions to these places. These tourists stated they were not aware of any dedicated websites, applications or other systems in general to assist them during their stay in London. Just under fifty percent of tourists that were interviewed used their smart phone to search for information whilst staying in London. The majority of these tourists explained that although they could access the information they searched for, it was hard searching through the reams of information using only a handheld device, plus the cost of doing so was significant due to roaming charges. A little over seventy five percent of tourists looked for information whilst they were in London via the internet either from their hotel, smart phone or using a wifi connection somewhere. Under twenty five percent of the tourists interviewed used or found dedicated tourism websites when searching the internet for information. Just over twenty five percent of the tourists interviewed used brochures and leaflets from their hotel lobby, airport and or other sources when searching for information on attractions and places of interest in London. Under twenty five percent of the tourists interviewed asked their 29
hotel/reception for information on attractions and directions to place whilst staying in London. Just under twelve percent of tourists used dedicated tourism brochures from their home country/and or brochures they picked up whilst in London to find must see places, eateries and promotional offers dedicated to tourists whilst staying in London. Over twenty five percent of tourists used generic search engines from their home country (with option of searching in their language rather than English) and or yahoo, msn and google etc to find information whilst staying in London. Once tourists had found information and the place they had planned to go, they had trouble getting there. The majority of tourists found out how to get there using www.tfl.gov.uk . Tourists expressed how useful this website was in finding their way to i.e. the London eye from their hotel in Baker Street. However, tourists explained that they had trouble either locating where they wanted to go once they had left the tube station/bus stop or as the majority of tourists had planned to go to 3 places of more in one day, this travel information was only useful for their first attraction they had planned to see. Outcome The results of the interviews showed that tourists are unaware of a single source of information on the key tourism sites within London. They are spending an excessive amount of time searching for information and using a number of different sources for the different types of places they wish to access. Whilst those that had undertaken their research before arriving in London had a good idea of the key places they wished to visit, they did still note that they lacked recommendation on nearby eateries, bars etc. Whilst there is an abundance of information available tourists, and a variety of sources, when without internet, or away from their hotel, tourists struggled to find information when out and about, and some struggled to find places they had planned to see. There also appears to be an inconsistent approach to where to find the information once in London relying on paper based media such as leaflets, guides etc isnt the most effective when there is a far greater media source that the use of IT can create. This information gives an indication to show that there is a potential for a centralised tourism system that could help tourists better plan their time in London. It identifies such a system should have a platform that gives tourists the information they can use on the move, whether its via a smart phone, email, text, printing information or another source. 5.2.2 Exploring a potential system Within the interviews, tourists were asked their views on the type of system that would be of use to them, and the key functions they felt it needed. Sixty percent of tourists advised that printing a schedule/plan, emailing a 30
schedule/plan or texting them the information from the place they located it would be beneficial and it would enable them to create a plan of how to get to each place they had planned, not only using public transport but directions from and to the public transport. Some places tourists had planned to visit were at least a 10-12 minute walk from the public transport and advised this is quite a way to travel without any map/directions. Type of system Touch screen system 38% Website 44% Mobile application 48 % Systems that tourists are familiar with Oyster machine 82% of tourists familiar with this system in London Smart phone 68% of tourists familiar Computer 100% of tourists familiar Website/internet use 1005 of tourists familiar Banking systems (touch screen again) 34% of tourists familiar Airport information systems 28% of tourists familiar Detailed responses from the majority of tourists were given when asked what kind of usability problems they face when using technology. Under 10% of tourists said they were familiar with all systems and did not have usability problems. As there is such a wide range of technology available on the market, usability is a common problem people face everyday, whether its using a website or a computer or smart phone. One common system that tourists did say they didnt have usability problems with was the Oyster machine, only 14% of tourists had to ask for assistance when using this machine. The majority of tourists who were in London on an unplanned trip such as a package holiday or using a tour guide advised that if they had better been able to plan their time in advance or even at short notice, they would have been able to see that many more things. Outcome The results show that it would be difficult to have just one system, such as a mobile application, as it will not benefit the majority of tourists. As found in the literature review, it seems that a tourism system is needed that will work as a mobile application, website and also that has presence somewhere in central tourist locations with interactive screens. A key requirement for any system is its availability to tourists to gain information. Through the interviews it is clear that a tourist wants to access information wherever they are. Designing a system available across different technology platforms is key if such a system should meet the needs of the majority of tourists in London. Usability is key to any piece of technology that is developed, if a product or system is being developed for the mass market of all age ranges, capabilities 31
and nationalities, it is key that users dont struggle with usability. If the tourism system that is being designed is to be suitable for such a mass market and on different platforms such as a mobile application, website and a touch screen system available in central tourist districts, a similar layout if not the same layout will have to be available which will keep tourists familiar wherever it is used. 5.2.3 Expert Testing Evaluation The first round of expert testing was carried out with two staff of whom work in the Middlesex University IT department at Middlesex, both members of staff have experience in developing and testing different IT systems. Both expert testers were given an overview of project and what the system was meant to achieve. Both expert testers tested the system individually. They were given 5 different scenarios/tasks they had to complete on the wireframe system developed in Balsamiq and were then asked to complete each task noting down any problems. Both experts completed the tasks and then answered questions on a spreadsheet to determine any problems they faced. Each of the tasks given to the expert testers were designed to test each functionality in the wireframes developed. Experts answered 45 questions on usability of the wireframes under the below points. Features and Functionality Homepage/starting page Navigation Search Control and feedback Forms Errors Content and text Help Performance Experts were given 6 different options to rate the system: Very poor Poor Moderate Good Excellent N/A The rating created an overall score out of 100 (N/A didnt affect the rating when chosen) 32
The first set of expert testing was carried out by Michael Heeney. He gave extremely positive feedback on the system and advised the system delivers what it is meant to in a clear manner. He suggested improving navigation between menus as some of the buttons did not take him back to screen he had navigated from previously. Once he had answered questions on the above topics from the spreadsheet he gave the system a rating of 85/100. The second set of expert testing was carried out by Leo (lastname). He gave good feedback on the system but advised there needs to be changes made to navigation and possibly add in a few extra pages which will expand the overall concept of the system which will enable me to give a wider demonstration when presenting this system for a second set of expert testing with Visit England at the beginning of April. He advised that the system is good although its only the wireframes that have been created, and advised if this system could be deployed across all technologies such as websites, mobile phones, tablets, interactive systems etc and used by the majority of tourists, it would be beneficial. He rated the system 74/100 and advised the changes should be auctioned above prior to further expert testing. Outcome After conducting expert testing with two professionals from Middlesex University, it has been identified that navigation needs to be improved on the current system there needs to be more pages created that users can explore that will help the second round of expert testing that will be performed by experts at Visit England at the beginning of April. Scenarios given to experts Stuck?! Click on the help button Click on the help button to see if give you information that isnt clear when using the system Find a thai restaurant from the main menu screen You are in London and want to access information on Thai restaurants in the area, youve been directed to Londons Tourist Information system and you want to locate a restaurant that isnt too far from you. Use the system to find a Thai restaurants that is in your vicinity Find a hotel from the main menu screen You are in London and want to access information on hotels in the area the taxi dropped you off, youve been directed to Londons Tourist Information system and you want to locate a hotel that isnt too far from you and somewhere that doesnt require you to have a million dollar budget. Use the system to find a hotel that is in your vicinity Click on find a specific landmark and get directions to tower bridge You are in London with the family and unsure of how to find Tower Bridge, one of Londons landmarks, use Londons Tourist Information system to find out how 33
to get there Click on get directions and see options there Youve been asked to explore a new tourism system in London and been asked to click on directions to see what is available to you Summary of Problems The problems identified from the user testing are as follows: Navigation Pages not complete Users had trouble with the navigation on the system, when users had clicked several buttons they were taken to the wrong pages or there were buttons missing leaving users confused. Several pages on the system had not been properly finished which resulted in the users being confused and not being able to test it properly. Changes need to be made to the system and a cognitive walkthrough done to ensure the system is 100% complete.
Summary The results of the above problems allowed statistical information to be provided after thorough research was conducted with the top ten nationalities who visit London every year and other nationalities who were interviewed. The structured interview question results were analysed and outcomes were written which assisted in developing the system specification and identify the areas to focus on when developing a system which would aid in supporting the majority of tourists who visit London each year. The outcomes also highlight the lack of sources tourists are aware of whilst in London and the kind of things that could be provided to help the millions of tourists each year.
34
Chapter 6 REQUIREMENT SPECIFICATION

Methodology Chosen In order to identify the requirements for the system, all research was taken into consideration, with user requirements identified as follows: Deployable system across all technologies with the same interface and options available GPS tracker to bring up location of individual using system Fully categorised options that are expandable and broken down into every topic i.e. hotels the star rating including guest houses etc Option to select distance from current location and method of transport Review and star based rating to give users feedback on subject Links to social networking and other relevant sites Suitable to the majority of users with very basic functions with no clutter
35
Chapter 7 DESIGN SPECIFICATION

Storyboard The storyboard was created in the first weeks of the project being put together. A basic idea was drafted and added to once user research had been undertaken. The storyboard outlines a process of how the system would operate and was used along with the system specification when developing it further in Balsamiq. The full story board can be seen in the Appendix. Prototype The prototype for the tourist system has been designed in Balsamiq. Screen shots are below of a few key screens. The full prototype system is included within the appendix (electronic version) The prototype has only the key information on each page without clutter and business advertisements and alot of white space has been used which gives the users a system with an easy eye when using it. The prototype has 4 key options from the main screen, tourists in London should require much more than this and the information that has been put into the system has been properly categorised for instance, a tourist who is looking for a Thai restaurant from their current, without the system, they would probably use Google.com if they have access to the internet and search for thai restaurants in the area they are in, the search engine would pickup Thai restaurants in the area they have searched for, but also another load of areas that are not anywhere near where they want to dine, for the user to get the restaurant information, they would have to go to each individual website, and so on, this proves to be quite a lengthy process. With the system, it enables them to select a cuisine type and select the distance they want to travel before being displayed with Thai restaurant within the distance they wish to travel. The user would then have information provided about the restaurant, reviews be available from other people who have visited the restaurant, and then, directions to the restaurant from their current location and ways they can travel there i.e. using a tube, bus or by simply walking. The prototype also has options available such as finding specific landmarks and seeing what offers are available from businesses in London that could maybe help them to save money rather than paying the full price for things. These are just a couple of examples of what the prototype can do, the actual system would be extremely large if taken on by an organisation and developed.
36
Chapter 8 EVALUATION
Expert Method Chosen A number of evaluation methods were used in order to carry out user testing of the prototype system. Using a variety of methods ensured the system could be tested with a range of users that represents the target market, but also with experts and via a technique that enables the designer to review the system from a user perspective. Heuristic Evaluation Aim To identify any problems with usability in the design so that they can be addressed as part of the iterative design process. A set of novice users will be used to examine the interface and judge its effectiveness. The heuristic evaluation will be carried out with a mix of people, i.e. different ages, different nationalities and different technology capabilities in order that they appropriately reflect the potential user base of the system. When testing is carried out, testers will be kept independent so that they remain unbiased. Unlike with other testing, if testers ask questions, I will be able to answer them. The testers will be supplied with a usage scenario so the user understands the actual user tasks that would be carried out in real life. They will be provided with questions under each heuristic i.e. the first one is Visibility of System Status, the user will not be given a question saying this, as they will not understand what it means, as they not an expert user, instead, theyll be given two or three questions under each heuristic such as - When you click on a button, does it take you to the page you expected and display the relevant information? this is a question that all novice users can understand. Output of heuristic evaluation A list of usability problems of the interface and reasons why there are problems with the system. The evaluator cannot just say they dont like it, it has to be for a reason within the points below. Questions for novice users below is a list of the 10 heuristics by Jacob Nielson that will be covered, the questions under each heuristic are in the testing document. 10 heuristics evaluators will evaluate system against: o Visibility of system status The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time. o Match between system and the real world The system should speak the users' language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. Follow realworld conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order. o User control and freedom 37
Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked "emergency exit" to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo. o Consistency and standards Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions. o Error prevention Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a problem from occurring in the first place. Either eliminate error-prone conditions or check for them and present users with a confirmation option before they commit to the action. o Recognition rather than recall Minimize the user's memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate. o Flexibility and efficiency of use Accelerators -- unseen by the novice user -- may often speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both inexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions. o Aesthetic and minimalist design Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility. o Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors Error messages should be expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution. o Help and documentation Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to search, focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large. Cognitive Walkthrough The cognitive walkthrough is a self-conducting process that will enable a review of the system from a user perspective to understand the assumptions I have made and the tasks that need to be undertaken to achieve a goal of the system. A cognitive walkthrough is a step-by-step exploration of a service to see how well a particular type of user (represented by a persona) is able to accomplish a set of objectives. It is performed by tracing the user actions and associated cues and feedback, for one or more particular tasks. Expert review The aim of the expert review is for experts, once they understand the 38
characteristics of users, scenarios and sample tasks, to review the system generally through walking through action sequences and noting problematic usability features encountered. The expert review will be carried out by Michael and Leo from Middlesex University and a team from Visit England.
Results Research was carried out with 75 tourists in London from various countries and different age ranges to try and understand if a centralised tourist information system is needed to aid tourists who visit London. From the research carried out, it proved that tourists in London really struggle to find accurate information when theyre visiting London without having to search through mass sources. The majority of tourists interviewed use various online sources to try and find the information they want, when theyre outside of the hotel, if they manage to access the information they want through a smart phone, they struggle to find the information quickly and normally find themselves searching through pages upon pages of information. Tourists highlighted that this can be really frustrating especially on a smart phone that has a small screen. The centralized system that has been researched could be deployed across all technologies, such as smart phones, the internet, touch screen machines in tourists districts - importantly a system that has the same interface no matter what technology. Tourists highlighted they would like a system that they can use, without having to search through reams of information, and can pick up this information anywhere, whether its in their hotel or whilst theyre in the city. From the research, it showed tourists had to spend a lot of time searching for information they wanted, and it normally either added time to their day, or they could not see as much in the time frame as they were unable to find the places they wanted to go to. When the tourists were interviewed, many had suggested that if a centralised tourist information system was available, getting directions from place to place would be useful. If the system was to be deployed across different technology, for different nationalities, age ranges and for people with different technological capabilities, it was identified that it had to be something simple that almost guarantees they will find the information they want, that is properly categorised and able to help them plan their day going from place to place. Usability of the system and availability of information is key in designing a centralized tourist system, having a system that can be deployed across different technologies without a change in interface is also key. Prior to the research, the idea of having a system that is as simple as an oyster machine was explored, and this idea was carried forward when conducting research. Tourists who were interviewed and had used the Oyster machine, explained how the interface and usability of an Oyster machine was simple and easy to 39
use. In developing the wireframes for the system, this was taken into serious consideration, the data collected from the research was analysed and used when designing the wireframes. Tourist information categories were researched and the data was analysed from the research that had been carried out with the tourists so the system could be split into different categories such as restaurants, hotels, top 10 attractions etc. As this project is based on research, only wireframes were to be created, but to make these functional, Balsamiq has been used which enables fully working wireframes to be created. Wireframes of different categories have been made so expert testing and user testing can be carried out. The wireframes compliment the research that has been carried out to see if the system design can meet the user needs. Different methods of testing were designed that ensured that firstly, experts could understand the concept of what the system is and what the users need to achieve, secondly, user testing with tourists of different nationalities, age groups and technological capabilities and thirdly, a cognitive walkthrough which is a step by step exploration which was performed by the designer to ensure users didnt encounter any problems when performing tasks. The expert testing that was carried out showed that better navigation was needed as there were minor problems in navigating between pages and it was also suggested that a few more pages should be developed which would allow a better scope of what the system can do. Although the expert testers suggested this could be useful, it was also suggested that it wasnt necessary as the research supports the scope of what the project and system is about. Heuristic testing was carried out with eight tourists, all tourists were of different ages, nationalities and different technological capabilities. The reason why testing was planned with such a contrast of different people, was to ensure this system could be used by everyone. The heuristic testing carried out was performed by novice users, questions were written under each heuristic that the users had to answer once they had been given the scenarios and tested the system. As novice users wouldnt understand what heuristic testing is, questions were carefully thought out which would enable each heuristic to be measured effectively. Heuristic testing with the users showed that there were several navigational problems in the system and that the help page needed further development as it couldnt assist users if they were to get stuck. The heuristic testing proved that the layout and simplicity of the system was excellent, users were able to get the information they needed in a clear and precise way and the general usability of the system was good other than a the navigational problems that were mentioned that need tweaking. The expert and user testing showed navigation needed to be improved to ensure users didnt get lost in navigating back to previous screens when needed and that the help page needed further development which would aid in supporting users if they had any problems whilst using the system. Changes to the system have been made prior to the second set of expert testing 40
with Visit England and a cognitive walkthrough has been performed thoroughly to ensure there are no navigational problems with the system. Eight users were tested who varied in ages, nationalities and technological capabilities. However, as only eight users were tested, prior to this project going on to full development, further extensive user tested would need to be done. When user testing was carried out with novice users whereby a heuristic set of guidelines were followed, there was a good indication at that point that further development of the system was required, further pages needed to be developed and navigational issues needed to be addressed. Expert testing had similar results to the novice user testing. The results provided evidence further work needed to be done to the wireframes prior to expert testing with Visit England. A Cognitive walkthrough would then be done of the system checking that the different pages functioned properly.
41
Chapter 9 CONCLUSION
The literature review identified current tourism systems and facilities that are available to tourists in London and tourism systems that have been developed over the years. The need for direct access to up to date information was highlighted, along with information that is presented in a clear manner that enables tourists to find and collect information quickly. The literature review also identified the benefit this may add to businesses ensuring that a clear explanation is available of their business and how to contact them and get there. Key points of system development were identified which indicated that if a new tourism system was to be developed, what the system infrastructure should consist of and also indicated that further user research had to be conducted with tourists in London which would help to further identify tourist needs and what they would expect from such a system. Thorough research was carried out with tourists, the results identified the current sources tourists use to find information and the information they commonly look for. In the results, it was identified that tourists in London are overwhelmed with information, but not always the correct information. This is normally through search engines, as when tourists search for places of interest or places they want to see, they are displayed with reams of information that they have to dig through in order to find what they are looking for. Tourists want to be able to find information quickly, have one direct source such as a system that they can use to find all information they require, a system that can be commonly known among tourists who visit London that provides them with direct information that has been filtered. The results identified that tourists want to be able to access information all of the time, whether it be through a dedicated application on their mobile phone, through a website or through some kind of interactive pod in London. However, if a system was available that could be accessed on multiple platforms, the tourists strongly expressed that the interface should be the same, meaning that usability wouldnt be a problem no matter on what system they use. Visit England expressed a lot of interest in this project, once the proposal had been done and it was presented to their organisation, they asked to be kept updated throughout the project and then have the project presented to them. Visit England have two sources of information tourists can use to find information, firstly a website, that enables tourists to find information similar to the system that has been developed, however, it doesnt have the filtering facilities such as sorting by distance, cuisine type, hotel star rating etc that has been built into the system that has been developed. Secondly, they have a mobile application for Android and Iphones, this application has similarities to their websites and it provides the user with information they require, but again, it isnt as precise as the system that has been developed through this project. When research was conducted, only two out of 75 tourists had mentioned Visit Englands website, and there were no mentions of their mobile application. It is 42
clear, that tourists are not aware of sources that are available to them in London, and there are often to many of sources of information available to them. Visit England are interested in such a system as it is something that could be developed and used as a key tool for tourism in the UK, which could mean that they would be the number one place that is used for tourism information. From the user research, system needs were identified along with other research that had been carried out and other tourism systems that had been developed. The tourism system included a basic layout without clutter and advertising, a design that could be deployed across different technologies with the same interface. A system needs to have properly filtered information and be split up into categories such as, if a tourist was looking for a Lebanese restaurant, they could search for restaurants on the system - the system would identify their current location and they could select the cuisine type they wished to visit. They could also filter the results by distance, and then read information on the restaurant, such as reviews and getting directions. This kind of information is available on the internet, but it not filtered to this extent, if a user was performing this task, it would enable them to find the information quickly and accurately. Other features of the system include finding specific landmarks, getting detailed directions where theyre on foot, going by bus or by tube and another key feature is a tool that will suggest must see places and businesses with promotions in London. The expert evaluation showed that the system that had been developed was effective however, it needed further work and navigation needed improving. The experts could grasp what the system was about and complete each task quickly without problem. The experts gave good reviews on the system and advised this system provided the information and the concept of the whole system was effective. The novice users, which are the tourists, tested the system and outlined potential problems and problems they came across when using the system. Navigation was a key problem as well as some information that wasnt included in the wireframes of the system. The tourists did however give positive feedback, and advised once this system had the amendments; it would prove to be effective and would assist them better than other system on the market. The tourists complimented the simplicity of the system. Since the first two set of tests were done, the system has had the suggested changes made and further development has gone into the system. Navigation is now fully functional without problems and further pages have been developed. The help menu has also been completed which can aid the users should they get stuck when using the system. A cognitive walkthrough has been done to ensure all changes in the system have been effective. Visit England identified the need for such a system in place and they will do a second set of expert testing and give a written review of the project the week commencing the 8th of April. 43
Whilst the project has identified clear outcomes and suggestions to take forward such development it is obvious that a larger sample base of tourists could have further benefitted the research and user testing. Additional scope to take the development of wireframes forward and further investigage the alternative forms of technology that such a system would need to be compatible with add further weight to the project. If an organisation wants to develop this system further, a larger scale of research would have to be conducted, probably into the thousands of tourists to make sure all of the tourists needs are identified and incorporated, the research could follow the same plan that has been used in this project. In addition the user testing of such a product would be key in ensuring the product was suited to all user types. There would also need to be a vast amount of research into the different forms of technology so the system could be deployed across web, smart phone, and potential systems that tourists could access throughout London. The organisation could follow the suggested recommendations to then take this project to the next level and take the product to market.
44
RECOMMENDATIONS
For an organisation to take this on this project and take it to the next level and fully develop the tourism information system, certain aspects will need to be researched and developed further. A plan put in place as to how information would firstly be collated, and then kept up to date on the system. In depth research into the costs for developing the system How the system could be deployed across all technologies so tourists could access the information where ever they are Research into the running costs of the system Seek funding from the government and sell this project as a key tool for tourism Advertising campaign put together to make all tourists aware of this tool A promotional plan that tourists can benefit from if they leave review on the system and businesses on the system
45
BIBLIOGRAPHY
References Books: Nielson.J & Mack.R.L (2006) Usability Inspection Methods. John Wiley & Sons Swarbrooke.J & Horner.S (1999) Consumer Behaviour in Tourism (2 nd edition) A Butterworth-Heinmann Novelli.M (2005) Niche Tourism: Contemporary issues, trends and cases. A Butterworth- Heinmann Weaver.P (2004) Success in your project (1 st edition) Financial Times, Prentice Hall Gibson.I (2002) Software solutions for rapid prototyping. Wiley Blackwell Arnowitz.J, Arent.M & Berger.Nevin (2007) Effective prototyping for software makers. Morgan Kaufmann Philip.L (2011) Tourist behaviour and the contemporary world. Channel View Publications Rubin.J, Chisnell.D & Spool.J (2008) Handbook of usability testing (2 nd edition) John Wiley & Sons Windle.J (2010) User accepting testing Online papers: Maedch, A. and Steffen,S (2008) Applying Semantic Web Technologies for Tourism Systems of the University of Karlsruhe [Online] Available from: http://www.ontoprise.de/documents/Applying_SemanticWeb_Technologies_forT ourism_Information_Systems.pdf [Accessed 21st November 2011] Buhalis, D (2009) Use of Information Technologies in the Tourism Industry of the University of Westminster [Online] Available from: http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/1123/1/fulltext.pdf [Accessed 13th December 2011] Duran,E. and Seker D.Z and Shrestha M (2010) Web Based Information System For Tourism Resorts of Istanbul Technical University [Online] Available from: http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXV/congress/yf/papers/938.pdf [Accessed 4th January 2012] Valenzuela, D and Shrivastava, P (2009) Interview as a method for Qualitative Research [Online] Available from: http://www.public.asu.edu/~kroel/www500/Interview%20Fri.pdf [Accessed 13th February 2012 Spinsanti , L and Celli, F and Renso, C (2010) Where you stop is who you are Laura, Fabrizio, Chiara of EPFL, Lausanne, Switzeland [Online] Available from: 46
http://fabriziocelli.altervista.org/res/Where_you_stop.pdf February 2012] Websites:
[Accessed
21st
London Loves Business [Hotspots for tourist spending] http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/news/london-hotspot-for-touristspending/840.article [Accessed 8th November 2011] Visit England www.visitengland.org/ [Accessed 27th October 2011] Insights http://www.insights.org.uk [Accessed 2nd November 2011] Marketing Week [vision media plots network of interactive ad info pods] http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/analysis/vision-media-plots-network-ofinteractive-ad-info-pods/2060011.article Accessed 31st October 2011 Experimental ergonomic evaluation with user trials [User Trial and Usability Testing] http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514259378/html/x717.html Accessed [16th November 2011] Spicy Nodes [Expressive Information Architecture] http://www.spicynodes.org/welcome-infoarchitecture.html? gclid=CNna_o3HkKwCFRRc4QodN0urlw Accessed 4th November 2011] Visit Britain [Marketing Britain Overseas and Developing the Economy] http://www.visitbritain.org/insightsandstatistics/inboundvisitorstatistics/trends/tren dsbymarket.aspx Accessed 7th January 2012 Google Maps www.google.com/maps Accessed 11th January 2012 Google www.google.co.uk Accessed 14th January 2012 Transport for London www.tfl.gov.uk 47
Accessed 17 January 2012 Visit England www.visitengland.org.uk Accessed 13th October 2011 Visit England www.visitengland.com Accessed 13th October 2011 Usability Techniques http://www.stcsig.org/usability/topics/articles/he-checklist.html Accessed 22nd February 2012 Ten Usability Heuristics http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html Accessed 22nd February 2012 Robert Tea [Cognitive walkthrough] http://roberttea.com/projects/hci/ Accessed 25th February 2012 ESDS Qualidata http://www.esds.ac.uk/qualidata/support/interviews/semi.asp Accessed 3rd March 2012 Information Sciences and Technologies Advanced Computing and Science as a Profession http://acmbulletin.fiit.stuba.sk/vol2num2/vol2num2.pdf Accessed 2nd February 2012 World Tourism Organisation http://media.unwto.org/ Accessed 13th December 2011 Three reasons to start designing iteratively http://www.andersramsay.com/2009/03/01/three-reasons-to-start-designingiteratively Accessed 5th April 2012 5.0 Resources required: Software: Balsamiq Adobe Photoshop 48
th
Microsoft Word Microsoft Excel Microsoft Powerpoint
49
GLOSSARY
Visit England national tourist board Balsamiq Wireframe development programme
50
APPENDIX A
Analysed Research
51
APPENDIX B
Story Board .
52
APPENDIX C
Signed testing documents
53
APPENDIX D
Email Communication with Supervisor
consent forms
Robby Parker
Actions
To: s.smith@mdx.ac.uk Attachments: (3)Download all attachments form D_ Declaration_Form-1.doc (53 KB) [Open in Browser]; informed_consent_form (1).doc (101 KB) [Open in Browser]; informed_consent_form.doc (106 KB) [Open in Browser]
Sent Items 26 March 2012 11:17
Further to our meeting on Wednesday 14th March Please see requested documents attached
Robby Parker
Actions
To: s.smith@mdx.ac.uk Attachments: (7)Download all attachments Indepth Interviews.docx (13 KB) [Open in Browser]; Interview Results.xlsx (28 KB) [Open in Browser]; Structure for findings rep~1.doc (124 KB) [Open in Browser]; Testing Plan.doc (42 KB) [Open in Browser]; Heuristic Testing.docx (16 KB)[Open in Browser]; Cognitive walkthrough tes~1.docx (11 KB) [Open in Browser]; Usability - Expert testing.xls (105 KB)[Open in Browser]
Serengul, in the list below of things attached, please note, the second thing should read - Research carried out and results from interviews in Microsoft Excel Thanks Rob
Robby Parker
Hi Serengul Further to our meeting on Wednesday the 14 th of March, please see everything attached in the correct order and the details below explaining where I am upto in my project. Interviews designed Research carried out and results from testing in Microsoft Excel Findings report Research results evaluated and report written with some statistics Testing Plan Heuristic testing document Cognitive walkthrough document
54
Expert testing in Microsoft Excel I am about to test the system that has been designed in Balsamiq. I have asked Leo and Michael to be my experts, as suggested by Simon Attfield as he advised he did not have time to test the system. The testing they will complete will be the expert testing that is attached. The cognitive walkthrough will be completed by myself. The heuristic testing will be performed by users, they will be given scenarios against each Heuristic, there are questions I have formed under each heuristic they can answer, but as they are novice users, I will be answering each heuristic based on what they do when completing the task and the questions I have set out for them. The think aloud protocol will also be performed with novice users, 2-3 novice users will complete this task. - This is still to be designed and should be finish within the next few days, i will show it to you prior to carrying out the 'think aloud protocol' testing. Finally, expert testing will also be done by developers at Visit England, of whom I have a meeting with on the 4th of April. Once I have done expert testing and other user testing, by this point, changes will have been made to the system and the testing with the developers from Visit England should be at the final stage. I hope the above makes sense, if I havent explained some things in this email or in what I am doing, please tell me so I can try and make things clearer. Thanks again for your time on Wednesday Rob
(no subject)
Robby Parker
Actions
To: Serengul Smith [S.Smith@mdx.ac.uk]
Accepted
When:
14 March 2012 11:00-11:30.

Where:
My office
Demonstration of final project with Visit England

Robby Parker
Actions
To: s.smith@mdx.ac.uk
55
Hi Serengul, I thought i would let you know, Visit England have asked me to go in and do a demonstration of my final project and have advised they will also do expert reviews/user testing on my final product. Regards Rob
(no subject)
Robby Parker
Actions
Sent Items 29 February 2012 21:49
Hi Serengul, I apologise for disturbing you today. I hope you understand some of the things i spoke with you about today and in the email i sent to yourself, Carl, Kathryn Mcanulty and Ed Currie. I always take on board what you say, and i will make sure i am in every class until the end of term, i just hope you understand that i am finding things extremely difficult with everything i explained earlier. I want to do as well as i can in every module and i put and i am putting alot of effort into my work, my grades are good and i am trying my best to get a 1st. Please let me know whenever you have time to see me so i can show you the progress on my project, i dont want to take up much of your time. Hope you can accept my apology and understand my situation. Rob
Meeting for project update

Robby Parker
Actions
Hi Serengul, Are you available to meet next Monday so i can run through where i am in my project? Many Thanks Rob
56
Project update - please see documents attached as requested

Robby Parker
Actions
To: s.smith@mdx.ac.uk Attachments: (8)Download all attachments img001.jpg (1 MB); img002.jpg (1 MB); img003.jpg (1 MB); img004.jpg (1 MB); img005.jpg (1 MB); img006.jpg (1 MB); img007.jpg (1 MB); img008.jpg (854 KB)
Hi Serengul, Please see my milestone 2 documents scanned in, these are in order. You asked me to scan them a week ago and i apologise that i have only just got round to scanning them now. I have edited everything you requested as promised and progress with the next few steps in my project. Are you available to see me next Monday so i am able to show you how my interviews when with the results analysed and how i can use this data in developing my wireframes? Hope you are well Rob
Completed literature review

Robby Parker
23/12/2011
MAILER-DAEMON@MAILER-DAEMON
Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups: kashif_zamon9@hotmail.com A problem occurred during the delivery of this message to this e-mail address. Try sending this message again. If the problem continues, please contact your helpdesk. The following 23/12/2011
Robby Parker
23/12/2011
Robby Parker
Actions
To: s.smith@mdx.ac.uk Attachments: (3)Download all attachments Literature Review Complete.doc (73 KB) [Open in Browser]; Audience Analysis Final.doc (35 KB) [Open in Browser]; story board.jpg (1 MB)
Sent Items 19 December 2011 19:48
You forwarded this message on 23/12/2011 22:33.
Hi Serengul,
57
Please see attached my updated literature review, this is my final version and only needs to be concluded and referenced properly. Before i do this, i would like to ask you for feedback on my literature review, audience analysis and flow chart process of the project. I think i have included all aspects in my literature review that support my project, if you think i need to add anything else or change anything, please can you let me know before i conclude it. I will continue with other parts of my project in collating data which will help me to support my project. Many Thanks Rob Parker
Meeting to discuss progress of literature review/analysis of audience/story board

Robby Parker
Actions
Sent Items 01 December 2011 15:41
Hi Serengul, Would i be able to arrange a meeting with you for next week so i am able to show you what i have done for my project so far, i have done alot of research as well as my literature review and analysis of audiene and would like you to take a look at what i have done. Could you let me know when you have some time so i can arrange a suitable time to meet with you that is convenient for you. I know your extremely busy at the moment and i will appreciate the time to meet with you. Thank you in advance Rob Parker (M00266208)
Project - As you have seen my proposal and were happy, am i able to start?
Robby Parker
Actions
Sent Items 16 November 2011 14:58
Hi Serengul, Im going to submit my proposal tonight, i have made further adjustments as Bob made some further comments before i chose you as my supervisor, his comments were extremely helpful.
58
I know you have extended the date as to when the project proposal is due in, but i am keen to move onto the next stage in my project, would you be ok with this? Im happy to come and see you and discuss anything, but im confident i can start and work on the first part without having to bother you to much as i know you probably have alot on with other students project. If you could get back to me, i would really appreciate it, i'll try and find you tomorrow and if your free i can talk to you about this further. Many Thanks Rob Parker
59
APPENDIX E
System check
60
APPENDIX F
Documents from expert testing, user testing and cognitive walkthrough
61
APPENDIX G
Screenshots of system
62

Final Dissertation 12.04

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Final Dissertation 12.04

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Bringing an enhanced visitor experience to the UK through the development of an improved tourist information system

Robby Parker M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

BSc IT & Multimedia at Middlesex University, 2012.

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Chapter 2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Chapter 3 LITERATURE REVIEW

Robby Parker - M00266208

Travel Agents Suppliers

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Chapter 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Breakdown of respondents ages

Robby Parker - M00266208

Breakdown of tourists proficiency in using up to date technology

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Chapter 6 REQUIREMENT SPECIFICATION

Robby Parker - M00266208

Chapter 7 DESIGN SPECIFICATION

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

http://fabriziocelli.altervista.org/res/Where_you_stop.pdf February 2012] Websites:

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Microsoft Word Microsoft Excel Microsoft Powerpoint

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208

Robby Parker - M00266208