I Tidy

Homework 5
Ahra Cho, Stephanie Chow, Lauryn Fantano, Tongbo Huang, Andrew Lee
Redesign: iTidy || 05-410 || Ahra Cho, Stephanie Chow, Lauryn Fantano, Tongbo Huang, Andrew Lee
Page 1
Homework 5:
Table of Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................... 3 ~ 4 Design Redesign........................................................................... 5 ~ 19
Summary Design Themes Design Features
Retrospective................................................................................ 20 ~ 30
Contextual Design Work Models Contextual Inquiry Think Alouds Personas Heuristic Evaluation KeyStroke Level Modelling
Appendix.......................................................................................31 ~ 108
Appendix: Navigational Flow Appendix: Chunking Appendix: Building into Existing Workflow Appendix: Allowing Asynchronous Work/Communication Appendix: Decision Making Appendix: Models Appendix: Single Setup Example - Picasa Appendix: CogTool Appendix: Fitts law Appendix: Infinite Edge Appendix: Consistent Menu Bar Appendix: UARS
Page 2
A well designed interface allows an user to accomplish his or her goals. It gives the user convenience and helps move his work process forward. This semester, our team designed a system to assist parents transitioning from being parents of dependent children to being parents independent adult children. Our major goal is to facilitate the decluttering process of the childrens possessions in their parents home. We strive to make the system fast and effective. With help of a series of HCI methods including contextual inquiry, contextual design, think aloud, KLM, we systematically addressed existing problems and use them as major evidence to drive our design. Our redesign centers on five themes derived from HCI methods: Chunking - The decluttering process is overwhelming and tedious and it is beneficial to finish the process in manageable pieces of time. Our application design supported this idea and breaks the whole process into parts to help make finishing the task easier. Building into Existing Work Flow - The application is built to fit the users existing work flow so there is not extra effort is needed to make use of the application. Two different interfaces are introduced to fit for different user groups. Allowing Asynchronous Work/Communication - The application split tasks to facilitate users to accomplish goal on their own. Unsolved problems are saved for users on the other end and no synchronous communication is necessary. Decision Making - The application help minimize interruption of work for parent-type users, and make decision making smooth for child-type users.
Homework 5:
Executive Summary
Word Count: 454
Page 3
All our redesign features are detailed implementations that help realize the themes defined above. We integrated a Photography and Recording function to facilitate a vivid description of the objects with both visual and audio assistance. The application supports Distinct Interfaces for parent and child to offer help in realizing goals of different roles. Both interfaces are simplified to be more user-friendly and more suitable to the work flow. The corresponding Tagging Systems are designed regarding their specific requirements. The parents tagging feature supports category and location feature while the childs tagging feature focuses on the actual decision. Even though we adopted a single set-up setting style, adding new tag options is easily accessible by the add option at the bottom of existing tags. To optimize the performance on the child end, our application took advantage of the infinite edges and child users can make decisions easily by simply swiping the item to one of the four directions. Our final design allows users to effectively declutter items with minimized obstacles in communication and maximized work efficiency. With help of the application, users can create a less painful and seamless family transition from having dependent children to only including independent adult children.
Homework 5:
Executive Summary Ctd.

Word Count: 454
Page 4
Redesign: iTidy
Ahra Cho, Stephanie Chow, Lauryn Fantano, Tongbo Huang, Andrew Lee Word Count: 2741
Redesign
Summary................................................................................................................................................page 6 Task Scenario.................................................................................................................................................page 7~8 Reccuring Design Themes Influencing Features..............................................................................................page 9 Feature: Smart-Phone Camera Utilization for Documentation Photos ..............................................................page 10 Feature: Categorical Tagging of Type for Documentation Photos......................................................................page 11 Feature: Distinct Interfaces for Parent and Child..............................................................................................pages 12-13 Feature: Enabling Note Recording................................................................................................................page 14 Feature: Collective Group Categorical Tagging................................................................................................page 15 Feature: Location Tagging for Parents...........................................................................................................page 16 Feature: Single Set-Up Settings......................................................................................................................page 17 Feature: Efficient Tagging for Childs Decisions ...............................................................................................pages 18-19
Page 5
Design Overview: Summary

iTidy is an iphone-based application that facilitates long distance communication between parents and their independent children regarding specific objects. The decision was explicitly made to create a smart phone application over a traditional website because of its inherent transportability. Specifically, our research has shown that it is critical for the parent to be able to document the information about a particular object in the actual space that the object is found in because seeing an object is what prompts a parent to take action in respect to that object (Sequence Model: Trigger: Object in Eyesight [82]). Furthermore, contextual inquiry has demonstrated that the child wants to be able make decisions regarding items on the go as well as in their home (CI Transcript: 68 ). The entire transactional flow of the iTidy app can be found in Appendix: Navigational Flow. Feature:
Design Overview: Summary
Page 6
Design Overview: Task Scenario

Feature: Bonnie and her husband, Jon, have decided that they want to organize and clean out their home since their youngest daughter, Liza, has just moved out of the home to an apartment on her own. Bonnie and Jon walk upstairs to Lizas room and begin to see objects that they would like to do something with, but they are sensitive to the fact that some of the stuff might be still be important to Liza so they want to consult her before they do anything with the objects. Bonnie takes her iphone out of her pocket and opens up to the iTidy app, clicks on the photo mode and selects the room she is in (from the previously set-up options) and begins to take photos. She takes a photo of a beanie baby she is prompted to put the object into a category according to its type (clothes, toys, books, etc). She chooses toys. She then is automatically taken back to the camera mode and is free to take more pictures of other items. The room she selected earlier is preserved until she notifies the system that she has moved into another room. She sees Lizas drawer of magazines, and begins to photograph them. After Bonnie takes a photo of the first magazine, Vogue 1992, she notices that there is no category for magazines so she is able to add one. Bonnie and Jon continue to go through the rooms of their house and document the items that they would like to consult their daughter about. ------------------------------------------------------Later in the day, when Liza wakes up in her NYC apartment, she looks on her iphone and notices an icon on her iTidy app indicating that there are objects that her mother uploaded for her to look at. She clicks on the app. She is taken to a main screen where she is able to see the categories her mother set-up (clothes, magazines, toys) and the number of undecided items contained within each category. Liza decides to click on the clothes category, and is taken to the first clothing tagged image.
Design Overview: Task Scenario
Within the interface, Liza is able to drag the photo up/down/left/right to make a decision about the object. Because Liza hasnt worn the sweater she is looking at in over 3 years, she decides to recycle the article. She is automatically presented with another clothing item, a pair of jeans. This is Lizas favorite pair of jeans and she would like to keep them but she knows she has two pairs and can part with one of them. She clicks on the interface to see if her mom uploaded both pairs and then marks one object as keep and one as donate. ------------------------------------------------------A few days later, Bonnie notices that Liza has made most of the decisions about the objects she photographed. After she clicks on the iTidy app, she is taken immediately to a screen that provides her with thumbnails of the images Liza has made a decision about organized by the room that Bonnie originally located the items in. Now Bonnie can go back through her home, can easily remember where the objects were located, and take action on the objects with Lizas input in mind.
Page 7
Feature:
Reccuring Design Themes Influencing Features Chunking

(See Appendix for Detailed Explanations)
Building into Existing Workflow
Allowing Asynchronous Workflow/Communication
Decision Making
Page 8
Feature Detail: Camera Utilization and Photography

Our Design: The parent is able to utilize the iPhone camera to take pictures of the items they want to share with their children within the iTidy app. Furthermore, no work is required on the parents behalf to upload the photos to a location where their children can see because the camera is contained within the app (See supporting data below). Current State: In the current state, parents took photographs with a external camera, uploaded them to a photo sharing website such as flickr or picasa, and emailed them to their child. However, this process seemed inefficient, as we discovered in our cognitive walk-through (Appendix: CogTool). Furthermore, in the existing system the user cannot label and send out the images in the same location that they found the object, which might increase the necessary cognitive of trying to attach descriptions to the photos on the photo sharing site. Possible Trade-Offs: Unlike a video, a photo only reveals one facet of an object making further methods necessary (i.e. a think-aloud of our prototype) to see if a photo is enough information to make an informed decision. Additionally, smartphones are not created to be cameras and the quality and storage space may be subpar for this task. Feature:
Smart-Phone Camera Utilization for Documentation Photos

Themes:
Chunking, Building into Existing Workflow
Supporting Data: - U1 explicitly states that she would prefer to use ichat so that there will be a visual reference for making decisions (line 65). The uploaded photos will serve as the visual reference, and also allow asynchronous work/communication. - Inferred intent in flow model is to show [[Clothes 135] to daughter (U4) later in person]. The assumption is that looking at the clothes is preferred to verbal descriptions. - Using a built in camera means no time wasted on uploading photos, or choosing photos to upload (Appendix: CogTool)
Page 9
Feature Detail: Categorical Tagging of Type

Our Design: The parent is able to tag the documentary photographs of the objects that the child must review with an object category, such as clothes, shoes, or toys. This provides the main structure for the way that the objects are then presented to the child, allowing the child to make decisions about all objects in a related category at once. Furthermore, a category can be set as the default for a photo so that subsequent photos do not have to be retagged. Current State: The contextual inquiry showed that parents naturally categorically group items when discussing them with their child. The parents did this instinctively rather than through any prompting of a system. Specifically, the mother in the contextual inquiry introduces the next series of objects as one category rather than as individual items. (See supporting data below.) Possible Trade-Offs: It is possible the parent will forget change the default tag of the photo. Also, this creates an extra step for the parent to complete. Feature:
Categorical Tagging of Type for Documentation Photos

Themes:
Allowing Asynchronous Work
Supporting Data: - In the Flow Model, U4 (child-type user) refers to many objects as a group of objects, such as clothes (Set aside for later [Clothes 135]), magazines (Intent: Ask about magazines [126]), and bags (Drawer of Bags [140]). IThe application would match the childs mindset if it is also organized by categories - U4 wanted to see all items in a specific category to make a decision on them as a group (Flow Model: Set aside for later [Clothes 135]).
Page 10
Feature Detail: Distinct Interfaces for Parents and Child

Our Design: Although the iTidy application is a tool primarily used to facilitate long distance communication between parents and children, both parties have unique and distinctive end goals and tasks when using the product. Thus, in order to have the most efficient and usable product for each stakeholder, they must have independent interfaces. The parents interface is optimized to support the main task of documenting artifacts through photography and voice recordings, whereas the childs interface is optimized to support the task of making decisions regarding provided photographs. Current State: Through the contextual inquiry and think aloud methods parents and children have utilized technology to facilitate long distance communication regarding artifacts found in the home, but none of these methods proved optimal for various reasons. In the think aloud method, the father uploaded photographs of objects to a photo-hosting website, Flickr. However, this program wasnt specifically created for the intention of sharing photos between a small group where conversations and decisions could be made about the photographs contents. As such, many of the features that the website contained were useless to the task that the father was trying to create and he got confused several times by the extraneous features (UARS: LF-07,AC-06,SC-04). Furthermore, in the contextual inquiry method, the mother voiced how she would like to use skype, a video chat program, to be able to show her daughter the various items that needed to be dealt with. However, once again this tool was suboptimal because it required the child to be at home and it didnt support differences in time zones between the parent and the child. (CI: 107 ) Feature:
Distinct Interfaces for Parents and Child

Themes:
Chunking, Parent-Child Communication
Page 11
Feature Detail: Distinct Interfaces for Parents and Child Ctd.

Trade-Offs: One possible trade-off could be that potentially the application would be hard to sell to a parent because parents may be skeptical that an application with two independent interfaces could facilitate better communication. It would also be hard for a parent to give technical support and instructions to a child and vice versa. Feature:
Distinct Interfaces for Parents and Child Ctd.

Themes:
Chunking, Parent-Child Communication
Supporting Data: - The users may get confused by features that do not pertain to him (UARS: Confusion over the term photostream LF-07,AC-06,SC-04) - If there are less features, the necessary features can be displayed more prominently/larger (Appendix: Fitts Law). - In the Cultural Model, U1 desires an uncluttered house, (A clean house is more livable, I want to have a clean house [342]) while U4 does not have the same desire (I: The things at home dont concern me, I dont live there anymore [66]) - In the Flow Model, the users have different roles in the process of de-culttering (Appendix: Building into Existing Work Flow), and therefore will not need the same functions. Naturally the interface should facilitate that idea. - A separate interface is needed to account for time-zone differences ( CI: 107 )
Page 12
Feature Detail: Enabling Note Recording

Our Design: The design on the iTidy iphone app allows both the parent and the child to add and receive voice memos that are attached to a particular photo. The intention of this feature was to provide additional flexibility (HEURISTIC 4: User Control and Freedom) for the parent when uploading a photograph of an object in case the photograph doesnt capture all of the details of an object, or if the parent wishes to share what they would like to do with the object to help inform their childs decision (CI: 271-273 ). Similarly, the design allows the child to send a voice memo back to their parent along with their decision (to recycle, save, send, or trash) in case they would like to explain their reasoning, or communicate additional feedback regarding the photo they were provided by their parents. Current State: During the contextual inquiry between a mother and her daughter revealed that the current method of providing additional information to the child was verbally over the phone where the mother describes the items beyond its name. However, it is important to note that this was a verbal transfer of information rather than a written one.(Flow Model: Call to discuss objects [124]) Possible Trade-Offs: Potential drawbacks of an audio note over text is that text is faster to read, and text takes less storage space. However, the benefit of an audio note would be that voice is the natural form of communication used by the parentfrom the data (Flow Model: Call to discuss objects [124]). Since little data is given on text communication, we chose to make the note function audio. Feature:
Enabling Note Recording

Themes:
Decision-Making, Allowing Asynchronous Work
Supporting Data: -A note function is needed for child user to ask questions or state conditions, while the photo acts as the prompt. In the Flow Model [Can you recycle anything? [130, 233, 240], and Cultural Model [Be ecologically friendly [130, 233, 335]] were comments/intentions from the child in reaction to being given a prompt [225, 235, 239]. Statements/questions like these help the parents to make adjustments or make smart, future decisions without the childs input.
Page 13
Feature Detail: Collective Group Categorical Tagging

Feature: Our Design: The iTidy application uses a collective categorical data feature to allow the child to make a decision about an entire category of item at the same time, rather than having to tag each individual photo at independently. For instance, if a child decided that none of the socks they had at their parents house were important to them they could decide to throw away the entire category rather than having to go through each photo of a particular pair of socks to make a decision. This feature significantly reduces the amount of redundancy that could become a downfall for the usability of the iphone app. Current State: There is no application that we observed that allowed an entire category of object to have a decision made about all of the objects at the same time. However, the contextual inquiry revealed that this is typical to the way that people naturally make decisions regarding objects. For instance, in the contextual inquiry the younger daughter made decisions about all of her magazines at once, rather than considering each issue within the stack. (CI: 128 ) Trade-Off: One trade-off for having collective categorical data is that the child may accidentally make a decision about an object that they actually wouldnt have chosen had they viewed each picture.
Collective Group Categorical Tagging

Themes:
Chunking, Decision-Making, Building into Existing Workflow
Supporting Data: - During the Contextual Inquiry, U4 makes several collective decisions on a group of objects (Sequence Model: Decide to throw away item [Bags-143], Decide to Recycle Item [Magazines-130], Set aside for later [Clothes 137]). An option to make a decision for all objects for one category would support these types of decisions.
Page 14
Feature Detail: Location Tagging for Parents

Our Design: The iTidy application allows the parents to tag each photograph that they take to document the found objects with the room that they have found it in. This feature eliminates the need for a parent to remember where they found an obscure item after the child has gotten a chance to respond with their decisions. Furthermore, the photos and decisions can be listed by room independent of the order the photo was taken to efficiently allow the parents to go back through the rooms and deal with the items accordingly in the most efficient manner. For example, if a parent roams through the house and takes photos of items that they want to consult their child about, they could potentially generate hundreds of pictures that are difficult to deal with. Because the photos are presented by room, the parents can easily chunk the tasks to the actual space they are in without having to search through the interface and chance missing an item in the current room that needs to be dealt with. Current State: The contextual inquiry method demonstrated that the closest thing to the location tagging feature was the note that the mother generated on her iphone (CI: 90 ). In the note, she listed the items that needed to be dealt with along with the room (as a title) that the object was found in. However, this artifact was unstructured by the system and led to breakdowns in the documentation process (Artifact Model). Possible Trade-Offs: If parents accidentally tag the photo with the wrong room, it would be difficult to find the photo again, or possibly find the object. However, the ability to undo and the ability to sort photos by category of object will alleviate that problem.
Supporting Data: - In the Artifact Model, U1 labeled a subcategory within the list by the location of the object [Breakdown: Autotext said Laurasia [92] Extra Space / Improper English ] - U1 and U2 are concerned with the location of objects, and sometimes forget where items are (Flow Model - Breakdown: Disagreement about bag origin [300-306] ) - The steps within the Sequence model are repeated by room. Sequence model [Go to older daughters bedroom [63]] [Go to younger daughters (U4) bedroom [117]] [Go to pink room [183]] [Go to beanie babies room [183]]
Feature:
Location Tagging for Parents

Themes:
Chunking, Building into Existing Workflow
Page 15
Feature Detail: Single Set-Up Settings

Our Design: The iTidy application allows both the parent and the child to have single set-up options, meaning that the user can set up preferences (room names, categories, login, and profile settings once and the system will maintain these selections automatically. This intent of this feature is to decrease the amount of time the user must spend navigating the interface rather than focus on the corresponding physical or cognitive task. Current State: Some elements of the websites studied with Cogtool models, Flickr and Picasa, also featured single set-up settings. An example of this was that the email addresses for the interfaces were stored internally to the system (entered once in full by the user) and then automatically filled in by the system to decrease the typing time of the user. (Appendix: Single Setup example - Picasa) The single set-up settings of the iTidy application strive to have the same effect on the overall time it takes to complete a task. Possible Trade-Offs: Rooms or categories that are not used as much will still appear in the list as an option when tagging photos, which will only make searching the list for the right tag more difficult. Furthermore If there are many rooms or categories, scrolling the list of tags might take longer than typing the names of tags. A walkthrough of our system or CIs must be done to test if this is an issue. Feature:
Single Set-Up Settings

Themes:
Supporting Data: - The rooms where items are located are known beforehand (CI [32-24]) - Pre-made categories/rooms, or option to add general categories/rooms during picture taking process means the same names do not have to be typed repeatedly, saving time. (UARS - Confusion between the Tags and Comments Features [LF-06, SC-05]) - Category setup is clearly stated in settings, but also allowed to be created while taking photos (see below), which avoids confusion over where categories can be created. (UARS - Difficult to locate the tagging feature within the application [LF-04, AL-09, AC-05, TH-08, SC-05])
Page 16
Feature Detail: Efficient Tagging for Childs Decisions

Feature: Our Design: The iTidy application has a unique interface for the way in which the child makes a decision regarding items. SInce research in the contextual inquiry has shown that children are less likely to want to spend time doing this task then their parents (CI: 46 ) optimal use of Fitts Law to create optimal efficiency was necessary. In the interface, the child is shown a single photo that the parent has taken and the child can simply swipe the photo up/down/right/left to indicate the decision they would like to make about the object. Furthermore, having the choices located on the edge four sides of the screen rather than buttons contained within the space significantly decreases time (Appendix: Infinite Edge). Current State: The most similar example currently to the idea that we are trying to execute is the menu bar located on mac computers, but our research didnt show any indication that the children or the parents have this particular interaction technique when completing the specific task of communicating a decision regarding a specific object. The mac computers are the most similar because they utilize a consistent menu bar (Appendix: Consistent Menu Bar)
Efficient Tagging for Childs Decisions

Themes:
Decision-Making, Building into Existing Workflow
Page 17
Feature Detail: Efficient Tagging for Childs Decisions Ctd.

Feature: Possible Trade-Offs: Utilizing the edges of the screen as the decision-making interaction consequently means that only four options can be given to the child. Although the contextual inquiry doesnt indicate that more than four choices are necessary, additional tests should be completed with other users to definitively determine if four options are actually sufficent. Furthermore, because of the nature of the interaction, an additional screen is necessary for the child to reverse a decision they didnt actually want to select. Testing would have to be done to determine the error rate of this interaction.
Efficient Tagging for Childs Decisions Ctd.

Themes:
Decision-Making, Building into Existing Workflow
Supporting Data: - U3 and U4 are often the users with less time, or less motivation to do the work (Flow Model - Breakdown: U4 not present to make decisions [162, 253], Breakdown: U3 not present to discuss objects [107], Culture Model - I: U3 -The things at home dont concern me, I dont live there anymore [66]). Therefore, time and convenience is important. - U4 may find it overwhelming to have to make decisions on many objects or have to spend a lot of time cleaning. (Flow Model -cleans room for 15 minute declutterings [46, 55]). Therefore, we show only one photo at a time, and do not show the number of objects that still need to be tagged so as not to overwhelm the user. (see Appendix: Chunking) - The action of sliding a finger to the edge of the screen requires less precision, which then reduces time. (Appendix: Infinite Edge)
Page 18
Re
Page 19
Retrospective
Retrospective
Contextual Design...............................................................................................pages 21- 22 Work Models ................................ ......................................................................pages 23-24 Contextual Inquiry................................................................................................pages 25-26 Think Alouds ................................ ......... .............................................................page 27 Personas..............................................................................................................page 28 Heuristic Evaluation..............................................................................................page 29 KeyStroke Level Modelling .................................................................................page 30
Page 20
Retrospective: Contextual Design
Contextual Design An overarching design process we explored through several assignments was contextual design. The ultimate intent of contextual design is to understand how people work and leverage that knowledge to redesign work practice in an optimal manner. Enacted in complete form, contextual design consists of four stages; contextual inquiry, work modelling, consolidation, and work redesign. As an interdisciplinary team of five different majors--communication design, computer science, electrical and computer engineering industrial design, infromation systems--we discovered contextual designs focus on the user to be beneficial as a uniting baseline. The inductive nature of contextual design meant we acquired data, analyzed it together, and then built upon our observations to inspire a redesign. Through this process we formed a common understanding of the user and his work which all of us could cite and reference to validate decision-making. We learned that designing from a limited amount of data results in a solution of dubious external validity and relevance. Our work modelling and work redesign were based off only one contextual inquiry, which left us with limited perspective. Many breakdowns we endeavored to resolve or tasks we sought to facilitate we onlvy knew to have been encountered by one particular family. We battled a susceptibility to selection bias about what parents experience during a transition. Were the categories of their decisions about objects common? Was the nature of communication about objects with their child representative? Although such concerns was particularly evident in our case designing from only one contextual inquiry, similar concerns would still be faced even if designing from the 15-20 contextual inquiries recommended by the textbook. While we would have a larger body of data available, 15-20 is still often a statistically insignificant sampling of a population of users or potential users. From a pedagogical standpoint, since we modelled only one contextual inquiry, we did not need to consolidate models. As such, we did not gain much experience surveying a wider body of data to sense themes or important points. It may be a beneficial exercise to take an existing set of the same type of model and consolidate them. Contextual design provided us with a valuable framework for gaining an understanding of a user and his work, but it only provided direction in the design process to a certain extent. On more abstract issues such as aesthetic appeal which still have significant influence on usability, data could not assist us. Furthermore, even though a work redesign has been made with the users needs and interest in mind, this does not guarantee a desire by the user to adopt this solution. Redesign: iTidy || 05-410 || Ahra Cho, Stephanie Chow, Lauryn Fantano, Tongbo Huang, Andrew Lee Page 21
Retrospective: Contextual Design Ctd.
From a pedagogical standpoint, since we modelled only one contextual inquiry, we did not need to consolidate models. As such, we did not gain much experience surveying a wider body of data to sense themes or important points. It may be a beneficial exercise to take an existing set of the same type of model and consolidate them. Contextual design provided us with a valuable framework for gaining an understanding of a user and his work, but it only provided direction in the design process to a certain extent. On more abstract issues such as aesthetic appeal which still have significant influence on usability, data could not assist us. Furthermore, even though a work redesign has been made with the users needs and interest in mind, this does not guarantee a desire by the user to adopt this solution.
Page 22
Retrospective: Work Models

Work Models Work models are diagrams which serve as concrete representations of aspects of the users work and are developed in a interpretation session which reviews a contextual inquiry. Creating work models is the second stage in contextual design. There are five types of work models--flow, sequence, culture, physical, and artifact--which emphasize different aspects of the users work. Developing work models from the contextual inquiry enabled us to make observations and assemble data into forms which facilitated our ability to design. We were pleasantly surprised to see how information from each of the models ultimately influenced decisions we made during the work design phase. For example, we did not anticipate value from the culture, which seemed conceptually distant from the process of parents cleaning out their childs belongings. However, this model ultimately presented key data about the social dynamic of the relationships between the parents and their children. Walking through the contextual inquiry was an extremely time consuming process. This was in part due to the subjective nature of some of the analysis, particularly with subtle determinations such as possible courses of action in the sequence model or abstract influences such as family values in the culture model. Our time on work models resulted in valuable observations which played integral roles in shaping our redesign, but much effort was devoted towards avenues which ultimately had little bearing on generating information of eventual use to us. The complexity of some of the models made organizing the information in a coherent manner a challenge. As we inductively built up the models, much of time was consumed adjusting the placement of information or distribution of space to keep the models coherent. Having these models allowed us to keep observations organized topically in an accessible, logical, and relational form, and saved us the trouble of revisiting the video of the contextual inquiry or digging through the transcript. However, later during the work design phase, it seemed that much of the value of work modelling was in the process rather than the resulting work models. We recalled many individual observations, but rarely did we need to go back and view a model because we had absorbed the models into our mental understanding of the users work.
Page 23
Retrospective: Work Models Ctd.

As such, the amount of time and effort we put into the physical form of the work models was quite significant for the amount which we used them later on in contextual design. Our experience is perhaps skewed in part because we designed using only work models from one contextual inquiry. Yet, we would expect that with more contextual inquiries and work models, the importance of information in a specific work model diminished, if anything. The different work models helped us by specifying common areas to examine for observations and breakdowns. However, this can have a drawback of segregating data about work into different categories, even there may be interactions between data in different models. This was encountered by the Mine Rescue lab group, where the actions in the sequence model were highly integrated into the exploration of a mine captured by the physical model. Additionally, observations were often duplicated between models. For example, communication between the mother and father or parents and children in the flow model were frequently echoed by notes in the culture model.
Page 24
Retrospective: Contextual Inquiry
Contextual Inquiry Contextual inquiry provides a basis for knowledge which lays the groundwork for the rest of the contextual design process. Through interviews with users, we obtain data about the nature of a users work in their work context by going to the user in their work environment, observing their ongoing work, and asking questions about that work. By critiquing a video of a contextual inquiry of parents attempting to clean up the belongings of their child, we took a general problem (people in transition from being parents of depndent children to being parents of independent adults) and built up an understanding of actual work which was grounded in observation rather than conjecture. In this critique we discovered the value of contextual inquiry by developing an understanding of our user, parents of grown up children. As university students, this is a group of people with whom we have little natural empathy. If anything, we bring experience from the perspective of the grown up children. We frequently built off these observations later on in the contextual design. Our interaction with contextual inquiry was passive in nature, since we were only able to observe the work of the participants and not ask them questions. Nonetheless, our critique resulted in us viewing contextual inquiry while thinking about questions relevant the nature of the parents work and tasks. Learning to ask the proper questions which seek the users interests interests and perspectives first shaped the nature of our intents and understanding for subsequent stages of contextual design. Even though the stated intent of contextual inquiry is obtain data from users in their context, we see contextual inquiry as possessing utility in obtaining data about people affected by the users of the work as well. Given our focus on helping transitioning parents, our primary user of interest was the parents. However, we also discovered that the children also play a major role in the process of the transition, particularly in decision-making about possessions. Limited availability of data about the childs role and context in the transition complicated our later efforts to understand how work redesign would affect the work of not only the parent but also the child. Although a group of people may not on immediate glance appear to be users, if they are involved in the work in some manner it may be beneficial to conduct contextual inquiries which focus on them. Even if they do not end up being direct users of the work redesign, their work is still possibly affected by work redesign. These additional contextual inquiries, this may come at significant financial and logistical cost, but these concerns should be weighed against the valuable insight additional additional data can facilitate about the implications of decisions made later in the contextual design process. Redesign: iTidy || 05-410 || Ahra Cho, Stephanie Chow, Lauryn Fantano, Tongbo Huang, Andrew Lee Page 25
Retrospective: Contextual Inquiry Ctd.
One criticism of contextual inquiries is that the presence of an observer in the work setting may alter the nature of the users work and affect the data gathered in an unrealistic manner. For example, parents may be less likely to argue with their children or exhibit strain in their relationship with their children if a stranger is observing their interactions. Consequently, the nature of breakdowns noted during the contextual inquiry have been influenced.
Page 26
Retrospective: Think Alouds
Think Alouds (TA) Think Alouds asks users to continually talk about what they are thinking while they perform a task specified by the design team. Of the three thought verbalization methods, the other two being the talk aloud and mediated processes, think aloud has a distinct advantage in generating data useful in actual UI design. Validity is often a major concern while using the think aloud method. During the think aloud process, if a novice user makes an apparent mistake, this mistake is magnified since they are supposed to speak out all their thoughts without a filter on their mind. The thoughts given by the participants are convincing considering the fact that their words are direct reflection of what is happening. Usability aspect reports are made regarding critical incidents and are merged to record breakdowns which occur. Breadth provided by having multiple people analyze a session can ensure most of the useful data is gathered. Each report has a severity rating associated with it, and taking these ratings into account, we consider related aspects including frequency, impact, and persistence, to decide the priority to assign to a breakdown. We acknowledge the substantial overhead which can be associated with the think aloud method, but recognize the importance of this overhead in generating value with the methods application. The first item of significant overhead is the selection of tasks. Sometimes influenced by discoveries collected from other methods like contextual inquiries, a determination must be made as to frequent, critical, and representative tasks for development into a coherent scenario of usage. Coordination with stakeholders may be involved since they either possess a good knowledge of current design or have specific requirement for further development of an interface. The second item of significant overhead is the selection of participants. Expert users may be hard to find or may require a long period of training and practice. The technical background and domain specific knowledge of novice users can affect their interaction with a new interface and complicate interpretation of how the system should be adjusted. The think aloud method works well as a complement of contextual inquiry. Through practice in application, we discovered how the think aloud methods generates more detailed information and breakdowns than contextual inquiries, particularly regarding existing features in systems. We note the differing coverages of the two methods as well, since contextual inquiries often focus on normal users and think alouds often focus on novice users. The joint results of the two methods gave us a better view of existing interface designs and how to shape crucial features in work redesign. Redesign: iTidy || 05-410 || Ahra Cho, Stephanie Chow, Lauryn Fantano, Tongbo Huang, Andrew Lee Page 27
Retrospective: Personas
Personas A persona is a representation of a real person in a context. It is often used to create representations of a typical user of certain design. They work like archetypes and model users are built in a way to show the interaction of the user with the design. After creating typical user types for the interface, the design or redesign process can be focused on improving the experience or performance of this model user. Although we did not create personas for our redesign, this method was applied in the Organizational Sustainability lab session. Stakeholders showed excitement about the idea of creating typical users, considering the fact that there were several major groups of users that using a particular design. These groups possessed different goals while using the designed interface, and this led to different demands regarding the focus of the design. With the help of the consolidated flow model, we identified personas of major importance, and our development of personae will provide information about interaction with designs in the future. We can see that persona are potentially beneficial to us in the redesign. In our single flow model, we observed two groups of users: the parent-type user and the child-type user. Use of personas could have helped us by highlighting useful themes and functions according to their goals. This would provide assistance in both evaluation of our current redesign and providing a potential source of new insights for improvements.
Page 28
Retrospective: Heuristic Evaluation
Heuristic Evaluation Heuristic Evaluation is a method of usability evaluation in which a group of evaluators examine an interface according to a group of standard usability principles, known as heuristics, and record individual problems. Each of these problems is assigned a severity rating and the ratings records of these problems are eventually consolidated, to be addressed as resources allow. Since heuristics can be applied on individual screens of an interface, they are of benefit in that the can be applied even when a system is not yet fully implemented in a usable form. This offers an advantage in early development over the use of think-alouds, in which evaluation is based around the performance of tasks and requires a more sophisticated degree of flow within the interface. Of course, heuristic evaluation can still take place later on in development, but many problems it often finds are of minor concern, such as cosmetic fixes in the interface, so its usefulness in identifying problems with the general usability of an interface is not significant. We found that the usability principles underlying the application of heuristic evaluation were useful even during the work redesign phase of contextual design. Data only drove design to a certain extent; when constructing the interface, we had less guidance from data on how to implement or link together the features suggested by data. Heuristics provided us with conventions to consider about user interactions. For example, the heuristic of error recovery led us to incorporate the option for a child to change the decision about what to do with an object if he recorded a wrong decision. Although heuristic evaluation is a technique intended for iteratively enhancing the usability of a system, heuristics can provide valuable points for consideration and incorporation into a system even before a point of formal evaluation is reached.
Page 29
Retrospective: Keystroke Modelling
Keystroke Level Modeling (KLM) Keystroke level modelling uses the simulation of actual user tasks and actions to compare the usability of different designs. This is a very practical way to estimate the time that a experienced user needs to complete tasks using designed interface, but requires an interface design and requires a predetermined set of tasks. CogTool, a software implementation enables us to perform all the calculations involved in KLM in a time-saving and easy to use manner. We were able to create a real walkthrough based on the design and calculate the actual needed time with only minor error (around 10%). In our CogTool modeling, we compared the differences between the performance of the Picasa and Flickr interfaces. While interpreting CogTool results, we identified typing as a time-consuming action in the Picasa CogTool Result. Based on this data, we realized that same would also happen on the mobile devices and thus decided to introduce the audio recording feature for our interface. Also, together with experience in the Organizational Sustainability lab group, we recognize another advantage of CogTool is the minimal overhead associated with its application. Prior to using the tool there is no resource-demanding need to make the contacts required by other common HCI methods like contextual inquiries and think alouds. KLM can also be beneficial to directly adopting think aloud tasks for modelling in CogTool. In this manner, we can reconsider the data from think alouds and further analyze the benefits and drawbacks of certain interface designs. This enables a deeper understanding of whether problems from think alouds come from the unfamiliarity of the user with the system or from actual design issues. CogTool saved us the time by visualizing operations defined in the GOMS model. It not only supports the six operators (key, point, home, draw, mentality and response) from keystroke level modelling but also supports touch screen testing which could enable us to make a firm connection between CogTool design on computer interface and mobile interface. At the same time, within the modeling process, objective factors are often used to estimate transitions such as system response time and mental thinking time. In reality, the accuracy of these time estimations may vary a significant amount depending on other factors.
Page 30
Appendix:
Table of Contents
Design Overview Design Themes
Appendix: Navigational Flow
page 32 pages 33~36
Appendix: Chunking Appendix: Building into Existing Workflow Appendix: Allowing Asynchronous Work/Communication Appendix: Decision Making
Supporting Data
Appendix: Models Appendix: Single Setup Example - Picasa Appendix: CogTool Appendix: Fitts law Appendix: Infinite Edge Appendix: Consistent Menu Bar Appendix: UARS
pages 37~108
Page 31
Appendix:
Navigational Flow
Navigational Flow for Parents and Child
P A R E N T S
Categorize Photos Add Voice Memo Take Photos Review Decisions
Home Page
Settings
Create List by Room Play Voice Memo
Set-Up Rooms
Set-Up Categories
Set-Up Children
Set Password
C H I L D
Make a Decision Play Voice Memo Review Single Photo
Home Page
Select Entire Category
Review Decision
Settings
Make a Decision
Play Voice Memo
Change Decision
Set Password
Recycle/Donate Throw Away Store Send to Me! Recycle/Donate Throw Away Store Send to Me!
Page 32
Appendix:
Chunking
Chunking:
By chunking parts of the process into manageable pieces by time, or amount of work, the user will not be overwhelmed.
General Evidence: - U1 describes herself as being overwhelmed with how much stuff needs to be cleaned up (Contextual Inquiry - line 342) and therefore uses fly ladys method of fifteen minute declutterings to make cleaning less overwhelming (Culture Model - Cleaning is easy, follow me! [51] - I can simplify and unclutter your life..! [47, 30 of zimmerman]).
Page 33
Appendix:

Building into Existing Work Flow:
The interface should include features that support the physical and cognitive actions the user naturally takes without creating additional work, yet change the workflow enough to address issues with the old workflow.
General Evidence: -one user/users is cleaning up the items (Flow Model - U1: gives commands / initiates action [143, 153, 178, 222] , U2 - loads objects in boxes [112, 153]), while another user is making the decisions, and may or may not be cleaning up the items (Flow Model - U4: holds ultimate authority on what to do with her objects [137, 260]).
Page 34
Appendix:
Allowing Asynchronous Work/Communication Allowing Asynchronous Work:

Multiple times the parents arent able to continue their work because of their inability to work within their childrens schedules. Therefore, features that allow the parents to work independent of their children, yet still retain the communication necessary to the work is ideal to solving these breakdowns.
General Evidence: - Multiple times, U1 and U2 are unable to continue their work because of failure to synchronize with U3 and U4, either information-wise, or time-wise. (Culture Model Breakdown: U3 and U4 not always available [107] - Flow Model - Breakdown: U4 not present to make decisions [162, 253], Breakdown: U2 completed task, but never notified U1 of completion [290], Breakdown: Must wait because of different timezones, no immediate feedback [109]).
Page 35
Appendix:
Decision Making
Decision Making:
Interface features related to this theme should help minimize additional work for the parents, and support decision making smooth for the children.
General Evidence: - U4 expresses difficulty with making prompt decisions (Culture Model - I dont know what I want to keep[245]), which interrupts the work of U1 and U2 (relates to Allowing Asynchronous Work above)
Page 36
Appendix:
Models: Flow Model
Group 4
05-410 | HCI Methods HW2 Part 1 - Flow Model, (Page 1 of 1)
Ah Ra Cho Stephanie Chow Lauryn Fantano Tongbo Huang Andrew Lee

U3 ( older daughter [26-28] )
Breakdown: U1 wants yes/no decision, not probably not [228] Breakdown: U4 not present to make decisions [162, 253]
Makes decision about object [127, 129, 134, 137, 228, 232, 245, 247, 250, 251]
Shares opinions [227, 252] Confirms Decisions [145-151]
U4 ( younger daughter [26-28] ) - makes decision about whats sentimental [135] - holds ultimate authority on what to do with her objects [137, 260]
- clean room[46] - cleans room for 15 minute declutterings [46, 55] - decide what to do with remaining belongings [109] Wonders whether children want beanie babies [204] Breakdown: U3 not present to discuss objects [107] Lauras Room Books [82] Bookends [96] Decided to keep [192] Hoberman Sphere [100-101] Beanie Baby Room Artwork [186-190] Beanie Babies [194]
Phone [70] Can you recycle anything? [130, 233, 240] Breakdown: Forgot to tell about pajamas [284] Call to discuss objects [223]
Lizas Room Magazines [118]
Pink Room Schoolwork [220]
Newspaper Article [132-134] Lizas Clothing [137]
Notebook / Extra Paper [224] College Stuff [233]
Drawer of Bags [140] Records reminder of what needs to declutter [89] Breakdown: Disruptive and incorrect text autcorrection [92] Call to discuss objects [124] Note/iPhone U1 ( wife [14], mother [26] ) - call daughter [68, 223] - makes notes [89] - makes preliminary decisions about object [98, 204, 260, Framing the Family - Kirk23] - gives commands / initiates action [143, 153, 178, 222] Asked / discussed where bags are [293] Tells to keep chili pepper because U4 did not say they could throw it away[165] discussion of object possession and daughters desires (stay or keep) [98-99, 259-263] Gift Bags [158] Shadyside Pajamas [172]
High School Papers [240] Highlighters [256]
Discussion of objects [96-112]
Shirts [285-286] Tell about found pajamas [172] Posterboard [335] Breakdown: U2 completed task, but never notified U1 of completion [290]
Comments on presence [256]
Asked to bring items home from New York [288]
Decides to keep because recyclable [335]
U2 (husband [14], father[26])
Reach consensus on action [260-262] Bags from previous declutterings [334]
Breakdown: Disagreement about bag origin [300-306]
- gets materials [77] - affirm wifes decisions [99, 120] - loads objects in boxes [112, 153] - informs presence of objects [212, 217, 219, 235, 239, 259] - makes preliminary decisions [212, 214, 235]
Lizas Room Magazines [118] Chili Pepper [164-165]
Recycle the magazines [153] Decides to toss out [165]
Breakdown: Disagreement over action [165]
Breakdown: Disagreement over action [266-273]
Page 37
Appendix: Role sharing Tailor the interface style to the user Tailor the data presented to the user Share data internally Fit with the rest of the roles each type of user plays Role isolation Communicate the whole context between roles Support communication between roles Present only the information each role needs Automate or eliminate unnecessary liason roles
FUTURE FAMILY You need to start preparing for us [93-96] If you dont make a decision on what to keep, Im going to throw your stu out[261] (U2) FATHER
Models: Cultural Model
Families spend the holidays together [109] I: Your kids are at the age where they should be independent, they should be starting new homes [30, slide 28 of zimmerman] I: Use your time wisely, so you have more time to do the things you like[51-56]
*IDEAL FAMILY/OTHER FAMILIES

This is the tentative name for society and what they say a good family does and is.We debated on puting the in uences here as the parents in uencing themselves because of their desire to be good parents [slide 28 of zimmerman], but we decided that it was American society, or the ideal American family determining the criteria for what makes up a good family. I: You should be proud of your kids accomplishments [186]
I: A clean house makes a mom look good[56-60, slide 28 of zimmerman]
I: My stu helps me de ne who I am [83, slide 15 of zimmerman, autotopography -6 of kirk]
I:Though I have moved out, I still respect your wishes, though perhaps reluctantly [46] (U3) OLDER DAUGHTER
You will/should like the things your parents liked [83] i.e. books [slide 19 of zimmerman, jam book - 20 of kirk]
I can simplify and unclutter your life so that you will have more time and more FLY LADY control over your life! [47, 30 of zimmerman] di cult to decide what to keep [245] I: Cleaning is easy, follow me! [51]
U2 is frustrated that he cant do what he wants to do [266-273]
I: The things at home dont concern me, I dont live there anymore [66]
Impossible to ask about every little We want you to be happy, we dont want thing [215] to mess up [161, 248, 25 of kirk] We care about your opinion [119] We cant tell what your opinion is, or what you nd sentimental [229, 361] We respect your space [65]
You con rm or agree with me [144, 153] I expect you to know stu I dont know [293]
(U1) MOTHER I accept what you value [99] I expect you to clean when you get home [109]
Keep stu to remember their kids [352-353] A clean house is more livable, I want to have a clean house [342]
(U4) YOUNGER DAUGHTER Be ecologically friendly [130, 233, 335] I still want my stu [68] like clothing [135]
U3 and U4 not always available [107] Well do what you say [145] U1 forgot to tell her of some of the clothing she had (shadyside pants [284] I dont know what I want to keep[245]
I: Frame to keep good stu forever [189, 191, slide 15, 43 of zimmerman]
PARENTAL UNIT
FAMILY UNIT
You can store your stu as digital media on your computer! [338, slide 15,50 in zimmerman, 35 of kirk]
COWORKER
Page 38
Appendix:
Models: Sequence Model

Group 4
05-410 | HCI Methods HW2 Part 3 - Sequence Model, (Page 1 of 1) Ah Ra Cho Stephanie Chow Lauryn Fantano Tongbo Huang Andrew Lee
Triggers: 1.Time to be downsizing [29]; [Zimmerman-S:30] 2. Stuff all over[31] [Zimmerman-S:30] 3. Not their home anymore[30] [Zimmerman-S:30] 4. Younger daughter moving into apartment [28] [Zimmerman-S:30] Decide where to start to clean/sort through items/ take stock of tasks [206] Ask daughters permission to go through rooms [65] Get 3 boxes [78] Intent: Follow Fly Ladys (for give away/throw away/put away) Methodology Breakdown: U1 confused as to what to do next Go to upstairs [63] [114] Breakdown: Discover that Go to older daughters bedroom [63] they cant do anything without outside feedback. [114] Trigger: Object in Eyesight [82] Breakdown: Cant Identify what is in the box until it is opened [281] Locate a box [274] Breakdown: Cant get to the desired object Kindergarden stuff [311] Locate object [books-82] [bookends-96] [magazines-118] [gift bags-158] [drawer of bags140] [Pjs- 172] [ artwork-186-190] [beanie babies-194] [clothes-135] [paper- 132] [highlighters-256] [extra paper244] Haberman ball [101] t-shirts [232-234] Breakdown: Users cant agree Intent: Show what to do with the object, daughter (U4) later Set aside for later [Clothes causes frustration [266-273] 135] in person Breakdown: Need all users because each prospective on Decide to give away Set aside for later objects value is different. [361] [Clothes 137] [Clothes 137] U1 and U2 discuss objects future [books-83] [magazines-118] [artwork 186-190] Decide to hold on to item [Paper134-135] [Artwork-189] Frame Artwork Intent: to [189-191; display Zimmerman proudly S:19] Decide later Intent: put about objects off decision future [134] until later Digitalize Intent: perserve value Artwork [325-330; Zimmerman [326-328] S:15; Kirk p.50] Inference: Scan into Computer [323] Inference: Enhance Quality [Kirk-p 3; 323] Decide to Recycle Item [Magazines-130} [College Stuff-233] High School papers [240] Decide to ask daughter [bookends-103] [schoolwork-220] [beanie babies-204] [Poster-334] [Haberman Ball 101] Intent: Clean/Deal with Item Trigger: Cant Identify another object that U1 and U2 can deal with alone [114] Trigger: Know that theres work to be done in younger daughters bedroom [115-116]
Go to younger daughters (U4) bedroom [117]
Go to pink room [183]
Go to beanie babies room [183]
Breakdown: Need outside clarification [119]
Intent: Ask about Contact Young Daughter (U4) [119] magazines [126] Inference: No Answer Daughter (U4) Answers [124] [119-124] Confirm next actions [145-151] Hang up Call [151] Continue to talk [124] Verbally Discuss Objects [124] Inference: ichat [69 & 124] Inference: Defer to different task [124]
Inference: discuss objects w/ video [69 ]
Breakdown: U1 cant part with bags; decide to keep [bags-143] Decide to throw away item [Bags143] [Binder-292]
Decide to store object [books 84-86] Breakdown: No boxes, had to put off task [88-89] Intent: Remember Make Note of prerequisites what U1 needs later (i.e. boxes)/ To-do List [89] Inference:: permanently store object [Books-88]
Inference:: bring to daughter [PJs-172]
Decide to write down things she might want Breakdown: Cant [bookends-103] immediately ask daughter about Add to previous note [103] objects [109] Records Note [91-93] Breakdown: Must wait because of different timezones [109] Inference: Need to ask older daughters opinion [109] Delinate time for task/ Adds to Note [109]
Breakdown: Unclear Internt (Downsizing vs. Decluttering; smaller vs. organization) (HESITATION) [90]
Create new note on iphone [90] Titles Note [90]
Inference:Put object in a box [274-279] Inference: Label the Intent: Remember what is in the box box [276-279]
Breakdown: TECH BREAKDOWNUnhelpful autocorrection [92]
Page 39
Group 4
05-410 | HCI Methods HW2 Part 4 Artifact Model, (Page 1 of 1)
Appendix:
Models: Artifact Model
Title [90] Autotext said Laurasia [92] Extra Space / Improper English Intended to say books [93] Unclear Actions
Header in application mirrors from rst line Action Items KEY Text Label/Observation
Denotes Breakdown Arrow Indicator
Misspelled: Should be Hoberman
List of actionable items Breakdown in organization and hierarchy
Page 40
Appendix:
Models: Physical Model
Group 4
05-410 | HCI Methods HW2 Part 5 - Physical Model, (Page 1 of 1)
Breakdown: Boxes are located too far away (in the Garage) [264] Items found in Younger Daughters Bedroom: - Magazines [118] - Newspaper Article [132-134] - Lizas Clothing [137] - Drawer of Bags [140] - Gift Bags [158] - Chili Pepper [164-165] - Shadyside PJs [172] Younger Daughters Bedroom (U4) Liza [117] Older Daughters Items found in Older Daughters Bedroom: Bedroom (U3) - Books[82] Laura [78] - Bookends [96] OBSERVATION: - Hoberman Sphere [100-101] Objects out of eyesight were missed [112] OBSERVATION: U1 (mom) spends most of time trapped in corner [Video 3, 4:15- Video 4, 2:03] Pink Room [206] Breakdown: Get distracted [183] Items found in Beanie Babies Room: - Artwork [186-190] - Beanie Babies [194] Breakdown: Boxes are located too far away (in the Garage) [264] Breakdown: Cant get to objects/ too much stuff in the way [Video 3, 12:40 - 12:50] Items found in Pink Room: - Schoolwork [220] - College Stuff [233] - High School Papers [240] - Extra Paper [244] - Highlighters [256] - Shirts [285-286] - Binders [292] - Poster [334]
Garage [264] OBSERVATION: Boxes stored here [264]
Beanie Babies Room [194]
Breakdown: Forgot to grab boxes from downstairs [77]
Living Room [20]
Page 41
Appendix:
Single Set-Up Example: Picasa
Page 42
Appendix:
Cog Tool
Page 43
Appendix:
Fitts Law
Page 44
Appendix:
Infinite Edge
Page 45
Appendix:
Consistent Menu Bars
Page 46
Number: LF-TA-11 Problem/Good Aspect: Bad Name: Upload Feature not easy to locate or logical to find. Evidence: 00:00:05- 00:00:28 - Line 4-7: So I should, what should I do? Upload these photos onto Flickr. How upload? I've never done itOrganize and create. Organize your photos. Upload some photos. Let's try. Choose photos and videos. It was on desktop, and then Photos, and I think I can take every photo. All photos. Okay. Upload.
Appendix:
UARs: Camera Utilization and Photography
The participant starts on the home page of flickr and says he is unsure how to proceed. He clicks onto organize and create to try and upload photos and is brought to an error page that provides the link to upload photos. He clicks on it. Criterion: 4. The user accomplishes the task, but in a suboptimal way. (This means that as a member of the design team, you need to familiarize yourself with the system to know what are possibly more optimal ways to accomplish the same goals.) Explanation: The user didnt know where the upload tab was, and instead clicked on the first tab that seemed to be relevant to uploading pictures. The system knew that the participant hadnt uploaded anything yet, and thus realized he had nothing to organize and prompted him to begin by uploading photos, which aligned with the goal the user set out to do. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 1: minor annoyance; Rationale for Rating I would say that this is only a minor annoyance because Flickr was able to direct the user to the correct path fairly immediately. At no point did the user show frustration and the problem ultimately didnt hinder him from completing his task. Furthermore, once a user recognizes where the upload tab actually is, it is unlikely that they would then forget and commit the same error again. The only bad aspect of this problem would be that it might
Page 47
reinforce a poor mental model of how to upload photos in the users mind. Possible solution: One possible solution would be to call more attention to the upload button by maybe bring it from the far right of all the tabs to the far left because people begin to go through a site much like they read, and the participant probably wouldnt have made this error. Relationship:
Appendix:
Page 48
Number: TH-TA-01 Problem/Good Aspect: Bad Aspect Name: User-interface does not make it obvious enough that the user directly upload photos on the main page. Evidence: When the user is given to task to upload photos on flicker, the user choose the organize and create option which is designed for organized uploaded photos. He accomplished the task by choosing upload some photos under the problem report page after clicking the organize and create tab. Although he accomplished the task eventually, the method he used is not optimal. (He made two more clicks than the optimal solution.) This happens at 0:22. [Line 6] Criterion: 4. The user accomplishes the task, but in a suboptimal way. (This means that as a member of the design team, you need to familiarize yourself with the system to know what are possibly more optimal ways to accomplish the same goals.) Explanation: The user does not know specifically know the difference between create and upload. And the upload tab is far away from the organize and create, which makes it hard to relate them together. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 1: minor annoyance Rationale for Rating: I rated the problem as a 1 (minor annoyance) and no higher because even if the user makes the wrong choices, the interface still gives the option of uploading new photos on problem report screen, so the problem is easy to overcome. Furthermore, the user did not express any frustration of not using the optimal method to upload the picture. Instead, he was still patient and the time and effort wasted in achieve the goal are both minimal. I would not rate the problem as a 0 (not a problem) because it is easily to make the wrong choice and get to the problem report screen. And also this problem will occur over and over again until the user know what is the optimal solution. Possible solution: While user has not uploaded any photos, highlight the upload option so it is easier to identify. Relationship: None.
Appendix:
Page 49
Number: AC-TA04 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: The user could not find nor understand how to create and add tags to a particular photograph. Evidence: From when the task of creating tags to photographs were given the user showed confusion and goes back into the Set and attempts to hover over the images and other text and navigates through the different sets and other tabs (Print and Create) and asks questions such as Can I add a tag somewhere, or do I have to open things? (6:07) and Wheres the tag? I dont see where theres a tag. (6:12) Criterion: 6. The user expresses confusion over how to achieve a goal Explanation: I think that it does not help to the situation that the user is unfamiliar with the concept and vocabulary of tagging a photograph. However, there is no indication of being able to tag in the menus and interfaces that the user has discovered so far with the program. The interface shows no indication where they could even begin to look for tagging options from the menu. Severity or Benefit Rating: 3 Rationale for Rating There is no hints or any sort of indication from the interface that the user can tag the photographs (it is not until the user finds the photostream, that this word tag appears anywhere, which they dont know what it is either) so its really detrimental to a novice user who is not familiar with the system nor the proper vocabulary to try to navigate and use this option. The user showed frustration by asking many questions about how they could go about doing this task and clicked/tried many different tactics (hovering over images, right clicking) in order to try to see if they could find how to tag a photograph. Possible solution: Perhaps similar to what they had done with the suggestion of the adding a description, they could have another short list or tasks that are frequently done after doing a certain task (eg. Since you have created and organized these photos, would you be interested in.). Relationship:
Appendix:
UARs: Categorical Tagging of Type
Page 50
Number: AC-TA05 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: The user cannot find the tag option within the system Evidence: The user eventually finds the tag option (8:07) after several attempts to find it (AC-TA-04) such as hovering over images, right clicking on images, and going through different menu options, however when they reach the tag menu they decide that its going to be too hard. The user states If you like to find out more about tagging you might like to start at the Tag FAQ page. Ah, it lasts too long, I must find another way (8:22) Criterion: 2. The user articulates a goal, tries several things or the same thing over again before explicitly giving up. Explanation: The user has attempted to find different possible ways to try to find how to tag, but when they got to actually being able to, even before they attempted to learn how to tag, they decided immediately that it was going to take too long and wasnt worth discovering. Severity or Benefit Rating: 2 Rationale for Rating The user was getting frustrated not being able to find the tag option, clicking and searching many areas of the system and when they actually got to the help part where they could learn how to tag, they decided it wasnt going to worth even getting help because of their frustration and they want to get this task just over with. Its especially difficult for novices who do not have the language and not being familiar with the system to navigate through it proficiently and getting help so later on after they have tried so many things isnt going to motivate them to learn. Possible solution: A possible solution could be that when they are in the set organizing mode, the user could click on each photograph to edit specific things about that photograph and being able to tag that photograph could be one of them. Another solution could be that the tags would stay where they are on the photostream but hovering over them could show a pop up of a description or how to tag. Relationship: AC-TA-02
Appendix:
Page 51
Number: AC-TA-07 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: Instead of tagging the photographs, the user adds comments to the photographs Evidence: The user believes that commenting and tagging are the same thing so when he has to tag a photograph he goes to the comment box and types in the tag (Add your comment here. Snow White.Save (9:10) and after he has posted several comment he state So, Ive posted several tags now(10:56). Criterion: 1. The user does not succeed in a task. That is, when there is a difference between the task the user was given and the solution the user produced. Explanation: Since the user was not familiar with the concept of tagging, they seem to have misunderstood the term tagging for adding comments to the photograph in order to describe the content of the photo. Severity or Benefit Rating: 2 Rationale for Rating: The system needs to take into account that not all users are going to read the help manual especially if a novice already has a hard time navigating and understand all the concepts that is on the website. I placed it as a 2 because the help was there but the user purposely decided not to view it. Possible solution: Placing the tags underneath the photograph could make it more visible to the user and if it has a tag icon and if there are tags already added to it, it might make it clearer of what tags are, if not there in faded grey/italized text it could say Add tags here to make the tags seem more relevant to the photographs. Relationship:
Appendix:
Page 52
Number: AL-TA-02 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: Lack of hint makes it harder to understand how to specify groups/sets of photos after upload. Evidence: As the user waits for the photos to upload, he examines the document of tasks to perform and at 1:37 observes, So I need three categories He then observes, I hope theres a hint, how to do it at 1:44. When the upload completes, a dialog containing a link appears on the screen saying Finished! Next: add a description, perhaps? The user wondered, Add a description? at 1:55. He checks the document of tasks again and at 2:10 concludes, Theres not talked about description. Sets. Criterion: 8. The user makes a design suggestion Explanation: While the user is waiting for the upload to complete, he plots out what to do next in order to separate the photos into categories. Unsure of exactly how to proceed, he expresses his thought that a hint would be helpful to guide him on how to add the photos to a set. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 2: Minor Usability Problem Rationale for Rating The user does not receive a hint which helps him understand how to add photos to a set. This is a disruption to his expectations for an intuitive workflow. Adding pictures to a set is a common action, and many users using Flickr would want to perform it after uploading pictures. They may find a hint to provide valuable guidance, similarly to this user, so there is clear utility in responding to this suggestion. Nonetheless, this will not usually be a recurring problem. Once a user clicks on the link and realizes it leads them to a screen where they can add photos to a set, they will likely recall how to access this functionality in the future. This problem is not cosmetic, so a lower severity rating is not appropriate. If this hint addressed a recurring problem, rather than avert a single instance, a higher severity rating would be warranted. Possible solution: Modify the hint link to say Finished! Next: add a description or add photos to sets, perhaps? This would communicate the ability to add photos to sets, in the screen which the link leads to. Relationship: AL-TA-03 Illustrates hardships in adding photos to a set through other means AL-TA-04 Hint would have led to screen with fairly optimal way of adding photos to a set.
Appendix:
Page 53
Number: AL-TA-03 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: How to add photos to a set is not easily apparent to user in the organize screen. Evidence: At 1:37, the user states, So, I need three categories. After seeing the dialog hint which appears on the page, he checks his instructions and notes, Theres not talk about description. Sets, and then clicks on the Organize & Create link at the top of the screen to open the organize window. Starting at 2:39, he first considers the All your content dropdown, and then his cursor hovers over the strip of thumbnails at the bottom of the screen. He then reads the text at center of the screen aloud at 2:42, saying, Drag items here to edit them as a batch. You can change then change picture attributes He drags thumbnails of two pictures upwards into a big container on the screen and drops them. After doing so, he right-clicks on one of the thumbnails. He hovers his cursor over each of the thumbnails for a bit and then clicks the Sets tab at the top of the window to open up a different view. In this view, he drags a thumbnail into the main area of the screen and creates a set. Criterion: 3. The user articulates a goal and has to try three or more things to find the solution. Explanation: The user tries at least three things to accomplish his stated task to separate the photos into 3 sets. First, he hovers his cursor over All your content. Next, he moves his cursor to rest over the strip of photos at the bottom of the screen. Next, he drags two thumbnails up into the main area of the screen. Next, he right-clicks on one of them to call up a context menu. Next, he hovers his cursor over each of the two thumbnails. Lastly, he clicks on the sets tab and drags up a thumbnail to create a set. Three or more distinct actions are attempted before the user finds a solution to complete his task of adding photos to a set. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 2: Minor Usability Problem Rationale for Rating In the organize screen, the user makes many attempts to add a photo to a set before discovering a solution. Many others may encounter this same difficulty in understanding how to add photos to a set. Sucha fundamental feature for organizing photos should be readily accessible and discoverable, but once learned the action will be quicker to perform in the future. The user was still ultimately able to figure out how to carry out the action through this interface, and will likely not encounter this problem in the future, so a higher severity rating is not deserved, and it is not a cosmetic issue so a lower severity rating is not appropriate. Possible solution: Place Add to Set in context menu which appears when the user right-clicks on a thumbnail.
Appendix:
Page 54
Relationship: AL-TA-02 Starting point of confusion of how to add photos to a set which led to this point.
Appendix:
Page 55
Number: AL-TA-04 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: User misses more optimal ways of adding photos to a set. Evidence: After uploading, the user does not click on the hint presented, noting at 2:10 that Theres not talked about description. Sets. He instead clicks on Organize & Create and goes to the organize window. There he tries several different ways of adding photos to a set, hovering over thumbnails in the strip at the bottom of the screen, dragging photos into the main portion of the screen, and right clicking on them, before clicking on the sets tab at the top and creating a set in that window. Criterion: 4. The user accomplishes the task, but in a suboptimal way. Explanation: After the upload, if he had just clicked on the link, the user would gone to a screen where the option to add a photo to a set is placed prominently in the webpage.
Appendix:
In the organize screen, the user missed the drop-down button/menu titled Add to set which would have provided easy access to adding a photo to a set as well.
Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 3: Major Usability Problem Rationale for Rating
Page 56
There are more optimal ways to add photos to a set than the way which the user did. These appear to be reasonably and accessible in a way that most other users would find and use these options to add a photo to the set, whether encountering it purposefully or by accident. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that this user misses easier two easier ways to carry out a task which is fundamental to the organization of pictures. Even if it is a small number, it is likely that for other users like this one, the process for adding pictures to a set will take longer and be more complicated. Furthermore, if they become habituated to those methods of adding pictures to a set and never notice the other options, they will regularly use this suboptimal method. This may make the task more frustrating and time consuming than necessary. There is enough of a concern about usability and long-term effect to mark this as a serious problem. If it were a less prominent feature or not have the potential to become habitual, a lower severity rating would be justified. Even though it is a substantial problem, the system can still function to support the users intent and work, so a higher severity rating indicating a catastrophic problem in usability is not warranted. Possible solution: Color drop-down menus/buttons with more obtrusive color than grey. Relationship: AL-TA-02 Clicking on link leads to means of adding photo to a set more immediately AL-TA-03 Other options explored instead of noticing Add to set drop-down menu
Appendix:
Page 57
Number: AL-TA-08 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: User is confused about what objects to tag. Evidence: When reading the third task to understand what to do, notes at 5:50 that he doesnt understand these, referring to Snow White and Hello Kitty. At 9:14, he asks, where does it fit to? as he tries to find Snow White. At 10:00 he wonders again, Whats Hello Kitty? At 10:41 he questions, This is Hello Kitty? At 11:21 he wonders Is it Snow White somewhere here? Snow White, no? Criterion: 6. The user expresses confusion over how to achieve a goal. Explanation: The user expresses uncertainty about his understanding of what he is supposed to tag. Much of this centers around his inability to identify Hello Kitty and Snow White in pictures. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 2: Minor Usability Problem. Rationale for Rating If the user is unable to understand what he is supposed to tag, then he will not be able to complete his task. In some senses, this is consequently extremely substantial problem that potentially prohibits the user from completing a task. However, most of this is outside the scope of the Flickr system, so there is little which can be done to address imperfections in the users intent or knowledge of what they themselves want to accomplish. This is more than just a cosmetic fix, so a lower severity rating is not warranted. A greater severity rating would be appropriate if the system had greater involvement in being the source of this problem. Possible solution: Automatic tagging system using object recognition. Relationship: AL-TA-09 User was confused about other aspects of tagging, how to do it, as well.
Appendix:
Page 58
Number: AL-TA-11 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: User does not succeed in tagging photos. Evidence: The user reads from his instructions at 5:38-48 about the task to complete of tagging photos. From 5:48 onwards, the user browses tabs at the top of the organize screen, right-clicks on thumbnails, moves his cursor over drop-down menus, and browses between sets while trying to figure out how to tag a photo. He eventually finds his way to the photostream, goes back to the organize screen, and then begins exploring the photostream. He finds the tags link at the topic of the photostream, reads the text there, but decides the Tag FAQ lasts too long at 8:34 and goes back to the photostreams main page. He right clicks a picture in the photostream, moves his cursor over some of the links and images there, and then opens up a picture and finds and clicks on an add comment link. At 9:05 he begins the process of adding comments to the pictures with the same text as that specified by the tagging request. During the remainder of the session he does not successfully tags the pictures. Criterion: 5. The user does not succeed in task. Explanation: Although he explores many options, the user is not able to successfully tag the pictures, but rather adds comments to them with the specified tagging text, which is not equivalent. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 3: Major Usability Problem Rationale for Rating: Despite trying and exploring many options, the user is never carries out the assigned task of tagging the photos. He settles on marking the pictures with comments containing the text for tags, which is not the same as tagging. This indicates that for some users, the accessibility of the tagging feature is hard enough to discover and use that they may not be able to use it. They may even learn to substitute comments for tagging, and consequently continue to not be able to tag photos when using the system in the future. If the user eventually succeeded in discovering how to actually tag images, a lower severity rating could be justified, but in this case, the user did not tag any of the images properly. At the same time, his inability to complete this task is not indicative of a fundamental or catastrophic problem in the systems design, so a higher severity rating is not needed. Possible solution: Put an Add Tags button in every tab of the organize screen, instead of just under the Batch Organize tab, and make it a brighter color.
Appendix:
Page 59
Relationship: AL-TA-09 User was confused about how to tag photos. AL-TA-10 The user expected to be able to tag photos in the organize screen, but was not able to discover how to. AL-TA-13 The users comments about the length of the Tagging FAQ occurs during the many actions the user attempts while trying to find a solution.
Appendix:
Page 60
Number: AL-TA-12 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: User does not figure out how to tag pictures within 3 minutes. Evidence: The user states his intent from 5:38-48 that he needs to tag photos. From 5:48 onwards, the user is involved in the process of trying to tag photos. At 9:05 he begins the process of adding comments to the pictures with the same text as that specified by the tagging request, having not succeeded in tagging the photos. He never successfully tags the photos. Criterion: 1. The user articulated a goal and does not succeed in attaining that goal within 3 minutes. 2. Explanation: The user finishes his stating his intent at 5:48, and the video has length of 12:43. Since the user never successfully tags the photos, this means he did not attain his articulated goal within 3 minutes. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 3: Major Usability Disruption Rationale for Rating: The user was not able to complete an important task of tagging pictures within a reasonable time frame. Additionally, in the future, he may still not be able to fulfill the task, or settle on a non-equivalent alternative. Other users may share this same problem as well. Since the user is not able to complete a core task, this problem may recur, and other users may run into this problem as well, a lower severity rating does not seem appropriate. Nonetheless, his inability to complete this task within a 3 minute timeframe is not in itself indicative of a fundamental or catastrophic problem in the systems design, so a higher severity rating is not needed. Possible solution: Put an Add Tags button in every tab of the organize screen, instead of just under the Batch Organize tab, and make it a brighter color. Relationship: AL-TA-09 The user was confused about how to tag images during this time. AL-TA-10 The user did not find the ability to tag images where he expected to. AL-TA-11 The user does not succeed in the task. AL-TA-13 Commenting that the Tagging FAQ occurs during these many things the user attempts while trying to find a solution.
Appendix:
Page 61
Number: LF-TA- 03 Problem/Good Aspect: Bad Name: Lack of information to inform the participant how to create sets of photos Evidence: 00:02:32- 00:05:5-- Lines 15-20: All your content. I try Drag items here to edit them as a batch. You can then change picture attributes I try it. So, and now? Ah. This is other items, or Sets, sets? Create your first set. This is what I should do. Ah, in three different sets. So, sets is correct. I take it, this set is called other items. Save. Or should I add more. Okay. These are toys. That's a toy. Oh, where is it now? Toys Maybe this is a toy, this is also a toy, everything is a toy. These are bags. Okay, this is an other item, and this is an other item. What's that? Also an other item. And maybe these are toys. Okay, save. Now, create. Create a new set. New set, toys. Okay, toys were, I take Maybe this is also a toy. I try it, it can have a set... one item in different sets. Is it possible, I don't know, I try it.
Appendix:
The participant reads the instructions and vocalizes confusion that this screen is the correct one for the creation of sets, but he says he will try it. He drags an image into the batch and then repeats with a second image. Then, he right-clicks on the mouse to determine what his next step will be. He then clicks on the sets tab which had been visible on the screen since he had opened the organize and create tab. He then drags the same photo he had worked with before into the active work area on the screen. He then enters a title and saves and begins to drag more images to the active work area. After he saves the first set, it takes him several tries to figure out how to start the creation of another set. (His cursor moves to several screen locations before clicking on the correct link). Criterion: 4. The participant accomplishes the task, but in a suboptimal way. Explanation: The participant was confused by the terminology the site used. I dont think that the participant knew the differences between the different options (Batchs, Sets) and assumed
Page 62
that the page he landed on was the page he needed to interact with in order to achieve his goal of creating a set. The large text in the center of the screen Drag stuff here to edit them as a batch. You can then change any attributes or create a new set. Made it seem like this screen was a preliminary step to create a set. However, after he completed his batch he clicked on the sets tab at the top of the screen when really he probably wanted to start there and skip the screen he did work on because the designers left that tab active from when the participant initially clicked on the Organize and Create tab. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 1: minor annoyance; Rationale for Rating I gave this critical incident a severity rating of 1 (minor annoyance) because it did not impede the user from accomplishing his task, but merely made his task a little longer. Additionally, it was clear that the participant didnt perceive this as an error but merely a step in the process, so the impact was negligible. Overall, natural exploration of the program would eliminate the user from making this mistake and in the interim this incident will not create a major struggle for getting their goals accomplished. Possible solution: One possible solution is to explain on this opening page the difference between a batch and a set in the greyed out text the options are highlighted in. This could actually be read by novices, but could be skipped over by experts without impeding the experts ability to speed through the process. Relationship:
Appendix:
Page 63
Number: LF-TA-06 Problem/Good Aspect: Bad Name: Confusion between the Tags and Description Features Evidence: 00:08:41- Line 32: Can I set a tag here? No. Tags. Sets. Galleries. Click here to add a description. Aha. Okay. What kind of snow white. (Participants mouse was actually in the description box entering the information in there) 00:10:07- Line 43: Here? There's a cat? Ah, this one. I place a tag here. And post. (Participants mouse was actually in the description box entering the information in there) 00:10:51- Line 49:So, Ive posted several tags now. 00:12:08-00:12:09- Lines 53-54: Ah, this one. So maybe I should add another. Ehm, snow white. And post. So we have two comments on this picture
Appendix:
The participant enters the given tags into the description box and publishes the provided text for tags as descriptions. While he is doing this he is describing his actions as if he were actually tagging the photos. Criterion: 5. The participant does not succeed in a task. That is, when there is a difference between the task the participant was given and the solution the participant produced. Explanation: The participant didnt understand the difference between comments and tags within the context of this site. As such he used them interchangeably and was not able to properly complete his task in the end.
Page 64
Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 3: major disruption that should be fixed Rationale for Rating Because the user was ultimately unable to complete his task, I classified this incident as a severity level 3 (major disruption that should be fixed). Furthermore, if this issue were not addressed it could possibly cause the user and their viewers a lot of embarrassment and confusion when the application was used in a social contexts. Possible solution: One possible solution would be to increase the visual space dedicated to the tags on the right margin to increase the likelihood that the participant would see the link and make the natural distinction between comments and tags. Relationship: LF-TA-04 LF-TA-07
Appendix:
Page 65
Number: SC-TA-02 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: User interface does not make the steps to creating sets and the purpose of sets clear enough. Evidence: The user articulates his goal at 1:20, which is to create three sets organized into Toys, bags, and other items. At 1:54 he says I hope there is a hint on how to do it while on the same page where the pictures are uploading.
Appendix:
At 2:13, he clicks the organize & create option. He makes a step towards creating a set in 2:32 when he says Drag items here to edit them as a batch. You can then change picture attributes I try it. When he sees Drag items here to edit them as a batch. You can then change picture attributes or create a new set, he tries the below after dragging two photos:
After this, at 3:13, he clicks on the sets tab. From 3:19 to 5:39, he creates the 3 sets, but briefly at 5:15 shows confusion over whether photos can be in multiple sets. Criterion: 1. The user articulated a goal and does not succeed in attaining that goal within 3 minutes. Explanation: The user interface confuses the user by stating possible ways to create sets, but does not
Page 66
state clearly the steps to creating sets in general. There is no follow up after the message Drag items here to edit them as a batch. You can then change picture attributes or create a new set. Also, it is not clear what sets are. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 2: disruption This is a 2 rather than a 3 because the frequency of the problem is reduced once the user figures out how to create sets. In the video, once the user figures out how to create the first set in 3:19, the other two sets are easy to create. However, it is a 2 rather than a 1 because it does take time for the user to overcome, and also there is a risk that new users will run into the same problem. Possible solution: Make it so that the creation process for sets are more obvious; for example, show the steps to creating sets when the user is notified that he or she can make sets.
Appendix:
Also, when the above notification is shown, it would be helpful if after the pictures were dragged to the area, a message would pop up telling the user the next step to changing attributes or creating a set. Relationship: SC-TA-04 Where user expresses happiness after completing the task of creating 3 sets.
Page 67
Number: SC-TA-05 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: User-interface does not make it clear where to go to create tags, and what tags look like. Evidence: At 5:37, the user articulates his goal to add tags for snow white and hello kitty. His first attempt to achieve the goal is to right click the photo at 6:19. After this, he clicks on a photo, and tries to find the options to tagging the photos, with no result. He clicks sets at 6:33, saying Set. Where's the tag? I don't see where there's a tag but is unable to find the tag option after clicking on both the photo set for toys and for bags. He then clicks on Print & Create at 6:57, chooses sets again afterwards, and goes so far as to look at the firefox browser options at 7:23. He comes close to the option of tags in 7:35 as shown below:
Appendix:
But does not choose it, even saying Maybe this was wrong, I should while he is on the page above at 7:38. He then chooses to try the photostream, and explores areas of the photostream before coming upon Tags in the photostream at 8:21. However, he chooses not to look at the tag faq, saying Ah, it lasts too long, I must find it out in another way. and explores the photostream further by clicking and hovering over various links. Finally, he chooses a photo at 9:34, and confuses adding a comment for tagging a photo, saying Aha after he accomplishes the task. At 9:47, he hovers over the option to Add a tag but does not click on it. At 10:26, he adds a comment on a hello kitty photo, while saying Ah, this one. I place a tag here. And post., meaning he thinks he is tagging the photo when he comments on it. Criterion: 5. The user does not succeed in a task. That is, when there is a difference between the task the user was given and the solution the user produced. Explanation: It is not obvious to the user, when scanning the page, where to search for the option to tag a picture. This is shown in the fact that he hovers his mouse over the Add a tag option, and puts his mouse near the add Tags option in the above picture. His misconception of what tagging is is that tagging is the equivalent to commenting, which puts him on the wrong path. Also, the system seems to expect that the user would be on specific pages when they desire to tag photos, since the tagging option is not common. The user is also unfamiliar with flickr, and so he confused features with similar user-input methods. The system also seems to assume that if a user is stuck, they will use the faq, but this user shows that people do not use the faq, so the system will have to be changed to take that into account.
Page 68
Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 3: major disruption that should be fixed Rationale for Rating The reason why I rated this as a 3 is because potentially all users who have the intention of tagging photos will encounter this problem. The links to create tags are located in places that are not intuitive to a user, and they may have to explore and make guesses as to where the tagging option is. I did not rate this a 2, because the user was confused and had no idea where to start. Also, the user took more than 5 minutes just to try to find a solution. However, I did not rate this a 4, because this problem is not so threatening that it would cause the product to fail. It is merely a usability problem with the user being unable to find the tag button, not a system error. Possible solution: Make the tag option link more visible/obvious, or put the option to tag photos in more locations. Relationship: SC-TA-06 The faq for tagging is viewed as a helpful resource for troubleshooting SC-TA-07 - User thinks that tagging photos takes a long time
Appendix:
Page 69
Number: SC-TA-07 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: User thinks that tagging photos takes a long time. Evidence: At 5:37, the user articulates his goal as such Next task: To help your daughter find things that you know she really cared about as a child, add tags to the "snow white" and "hello kitty.His first attempt to achieve the goal is to right click the photo at 6:19. After this, he spends a lot of time just exploring the system, looking for how to tag photos. (see SC-TA-05 for more details) He chooses a photo at 9:34, and confuses adding a comment for tagging a photo, saying Aha after he accomplishes the task. At 9:47, he hovers over the option to Add a tag but does not click on it. At 10:26, he adds a comment on a hello kitty photo, while saying Ah, this one. I place a tag here. And post., meaning he thinks he is tagging the photo when he comments on it. At 12:09, he expresses his dissatisfaction by saying So we have two comments on this picture. That's all? Oh. What a hard work. At the amount of time it took to accomplish the task. Criterion: 7. The user expresses some negative affect or says something is a problem. Explanation: The user felt like it took much too long to tag photos, even though most of the time was spent trying to figure out how to tag the photos. It seems that his expectations were not met, and he expected more done in the same amount of time. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 2 Rationale for Rating The reason I put this as a 2 and not a 1, is that the user is expressing dissatisfaction after seemingly accomplishing a task, which should not be the case. Furthermore, this problem will discourage him from using the function, as he already is discouraged after trying it. However, this is not on the level of a 3, because this problem doesnt prevent the user from accomplishing the goal, it just slows the user down, or discourages the user from wanting to accomplish the goal. It is also not a problem that will break the system or cause bugs, which is why it is not a 3 or 4. Possible solution: Make the option to tag more obvious, and in more locations so the user does not have to look for the tag option. Relationship: SC-TA-06 FAQ for tagging is not seen as a useful source SC-TA-05 does not make it clear where to go to create tags, and what tags look like.
Appendix:
Page 70
Number: TH-TA-01 Problem/Good Aspect: Bad Aspect Name: User-interface does not make it obvious enough that the user directly upload photos on the main page. Evidence: When the user is given to task to upload photos on flicker, the user choose the organize and create option which is designed for organized uploaded photos. He accomplished the task by choosing upload some photos under the problem report page after clicking the organize and create tab. Although he accomplished the task eventually, the method he used is not optimal. (He made two more clicks than the optimal solution.) This happens at 0:22. [Line 6] Criterion: 4. The user accomplishes the task, but in a suboptimal way. (This means that as a member of the design team, you need to familiarize yourself with the system to know what are possibly more optimal ways to accomplish the same goals.) Explanation: The user does not know specifically know the difference between create and upload. And the upload tab is far away from the organize and create, which makes it hard to relate them together. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 1: minor annoyance Rationale for Rating: I rated the problem as a 1 (minor annoyance) and no higher because even if the user makes the wrong choices, the interface still gives the option of uploading new photos on problem report screen, so the problem is easy to overcome. Furthermore, the user did not express any frustration of not using the optimal method to upload the picture. Instead, he was still patient and the time and effort wasted in achieve the goal are both minimal. I would not rate the problem as a 0 (not a problem) because it is easily to make the wrong choice and get to the problem report screen. And also this problem will occur over and over again until the user know what is the optimal solution. Possible solution: While user has not uploaded any photos, highlight the upload option so it is easier to identify. Relationship: None.
Appendix:
Page 71
Number: TH-TA-03 Problem/Good Aspect: Bad Aspect Name: There is no hint how to create set for photos uploaded. Evidence: Before The user has finished uploading all the photos, he moved on to the next task to create different sets like toys, bags and other items for them. The user tried to find how to create sets for the photos but there is no hint on how to achieve the goal. And he said I hope theres a hint (of) how to do it at 1:43. [Line 12] And after the photo finished uploading, the user was presented a big add a description option right in the middle of the screen but no add set option. Criterion: 6. The user expresses confusion over how to achieve a goal. Explanation: The user-interface does not explicitly say that the photo is still being uploaded and further manipulation should be carried out after the uploading process. And the user-interface does not guide the user of the possible options after the photos are uploaded. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 2: disruption Rationale for Rating: I rated the problem as a 2 (disruption) and no higher because the user can search for the whole screen for the tab and there are only limited number of tabs that he/she can select so its not hard to overcome. The problem will no longer occur after the user know he can create set under the organize and create tab. This is also not a life-critical problem since the user can find the tab without the help of guidance. And also, the user is expressing the frustration almost at the first few seconds of trying to accomplish the task. He/she will still have enough patience to look for the tab. I would not rate the problem as a 1 (minor annoyance) or below because this issue does affect the systems usability and is not cosmetic. Possible solution: Explicitly say that the photos are being uploaded during the loading process. Include create sets or organize in the options shown after photos are uploaded. Relationship: TH-TA-04 - The options of how to organize photos by sets is not very easy to see. TH-TA-06 - Easy to create new sets after the users created a few sets already. TH-TA-07 - Fairly easy to create set for photos.
Appendix:
Page 72
Number: TH-TA-04 Problem/Good Aspect: Bad Aspect Name: The options of how to organize photos by sets is not very easy to see. Evidence: The user was brought to the batch option, which is default after clicking organize tab in the photo uploading screen. The user tried creating batches for photos while he intended to create sets for them. [First trial at 2:30] Then he was lost in finding how to actually create a set. Then he tried to find options by right clicking and failed to find the option he wanted. [Second trial at 2:57] So he finally looked again for the set option and finally found the tab he wanted in the top bar. [Succeed at 3:24, Line 17] Criterion: 3. The user articulates a goal and has to try three or more things to find the solution. Explanation: The user was not aware of the difference between batches and sets. There are two possibilities here: one is that the user is not aware of the fact that there are more multiple options for organizing photos; the other possibility is that the user is not aware of the fact that batches will give him different result as sets. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 2: disruption Rationale for Rating: I rated the problem as a 2 (disruption) and no higher because even if the user will be able to see the difference result created by batches and noticed that this is not what he/she intended to do. After the user failed under the batch tab, he will no longer try to create set under batch tab. So this problem will not frequently happen. And also there is a set tag on the top bar that is not hard to find. I might have rated the problem as a 3 (major disruption) or higher if the user had actually expressed some frustration or serious annoyance, which he did not. Also, this is also not a life-critical problem since the user can find the set tab after a bit more navigation. I would not rate the problem as a 1 (minor annoyance) or below because this issue does affect the systems usability and is not cosmetic. Possible solution: Either create a list of options while the user enters the organization area or make the tabs easier to identify. Relationship: TH-TA-03 - There is no hint how to create set for photos uploaded. TH-TA-06 - Easy to create new sets after the users created a few sets already. TH-TA-07 - Fairly easy to create set for photos. TH-TA-11 - The user interface does not give a hint on how to change to another set under photo viewing.
Appendix:
Page 73
Number: TH-TA-11 Problem/Good Aspect: Bad aspect Name: The user interface does not give a hint on how to change to another set under photo viewing. Evidence: When the user intended to go on processing the next set of photos, he cant find the change set option under the photo viewing screen. He expressed his confusion by saying where do I change to another set at 11:36. [Line 52] Criterion: 6. The user expresses confusion over how to achieve a goal. Explanation: The interface does not give options to jump to other sets under the which set this picture belongs to option. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 2: disruption Rationale for Rating I rated the problem as a 2 (disruption) and no higher because the user can jump to the other sets by first selecting the current set on the right column although there is now direct jump option on the photo viewing page. And the user figured out how to go to the set page afterwards so I wont be very hard to overcome the problem. And part of the problem is caused by the fact that the user didnt understand the task correctly. There is no need for him to jump to another set. I might have rated the problem as a 3 (major disruption) or higher if the user had actually expressed some serious annoyance or lost his/her patience, which did not happen. Also, this is also not a life-critical problem since the user found the set page afterwards. I would not rate the problem as a 1 (minor annoyance) or below because this issue does affect the systems usability and is not cosmetic. Also, the problem is persistence based on the fact that it will occur over and over again since there is no jump to other set option under picture viewing screen. And the potential risk is that the problem might occur fairly frequently. Possible solution: Add a select set option on the set part of the right column. Relationship: TH-TA-03 - There is no hint how to create set for photos uploaded. TH-TA-04 - The options of how to organize photos by sets is not very easy to see. TH-TA-06 - Easy to create new sets after the users created a few sets already. TH-TA-07 - Fairly easy to create set for photos.
Appendix:
Page 74
Number: AL-TA-05 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: Creating a new set after adding the first set. Evidence: As the user says Create a new set at 4:42, his cursor first hovers over the thumbnail of a set Other Items then drifts over to the bottom near the All your content drop down. The cursor then hovers briefly over the clear selection link, swings upwards to briefly hover over the Sets table, and then locates the create a new set link at the top of the screen. Criterion: 3. The user articulates a goal and has to try three or more things to find the solution. Explanation: The user intended to create a new set and by his movement indicated various options which he explored before settling on one which he believed, would give him the desired result. He explored more than three options before he discovered a solution he wished to attempt. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 2: Minor Usability Problem Rationale for Rating The user moved his mouse to several different options, before being able to find the correct solution. Given his stated unfamiliarity with the system at the beginning of this session, it is reasonable to expect that in the future he would know of the presence of this link and find it more easily. Also, although he explored several options, it did not take him a considerable amount of time time to explore them. Despite this brief disruption as he finds the correct place to add a new set, this disruption is not very significant and will likely not recur, so a higher severity rating is not appropriate. This is not a cosmetic issue, so a lower severity rating is not appropriate. Possible solution: Make Create a New Set a different color from the other text at the top of the screen to make it stand out more. Relationship: AL-TA-07 Upon repeating the task later, the user comments that its now easy.
Appendix:
UARs: Chunking
Page 75
Number: LF-TA-02 Problem/Good Aspect: Bad Name: Confusing Navigational Flow Organization (Phrasing and Presentation of the next logical options) Evidence: 00:01:38- 00:02:56 - Line 12-15: So I need three categories. I hope there's a hint, how to do it. finished. Add a description? Next. Description? To every picture or ? organize into different sets. There's not talked about description. Sets. How can I organize Okay, organize. I try it again. Organize. Em. All your content. I try Drag items here to edit them as a batch. You can then change picture attributes I try it.
Appendix:
UARs: Chunking
The participant moves his mouse first along the vertical scroll bar where the images are loading to look for options to create sets. Then he is presented with the add a description option, which he hovers over although it is not his current goal. Lastly, he returns to the top navigational tabs that were hidden from when he scrolled down to see his images loading and selects the organize and create tabs. Criterion: 4. The participant accomplishes the task, but in a suboptimal way. Explanation: After the participant loaded the photos, It was very unclear to him how he was supposed to go forth within the program. He spends a lot of time debating whether he should write description or click on tabs or links before ultimately making a guess and explores that option. From a design stand-point, I believe that the open-ended navigational direction at this point in the process came out of the many functions that are available on flickr to a user once they have uploaded a photo. It is possible that a user may want to pursue any of them, but a lack of direction confused the novice participant.
Page 76
Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 2: disruption Rationale for Rating I rated this problem a 2 (disruption) because for the novice user this caused a major hang-up in the pace at which they were able to accomplish their goals on the site. However, this problem stemmed from a lack of understanding as to what to critical features were of the site and after some very quick exploration the user was able to overcome this problem. Once the user engages in this initial exploration point the problem will most likely not occur again on such a grand scale. Although it did slow the participant down, I would not go so far as to rank this a 3 (major disruption) because the participant didnt exhibit and outer frustration as he tried to complete his task. Furthermore, a more experienced user would know the basic features and functionality of the site and how to proceed and never run into this problem of not understanding the basic navigational flow of the site. Possible solution: One possible solution would be to recognize if the user was a novice or an expert by the number of times they have accessed their account and the length of time they were on the site for. By knowing this information it might be possible to design several levels of interfaces that begin with a lot of navigational guidance for novices and back-off as the users become experts. Relationship:
Appendix:
UARs: Chunking
Page 77
Appendix:
UARs: Chunking
The participant enters the given tags into the description box and publishes the provided text for tags as descriptions. While he is doing this he is describing his actions as if he were actually tagging the photos. Criterion: 5. The participant does not succeed in a task. That is, when there is a difference between the task the participant was given and the solution the participant produced. Explanation: The participant didnt understand the difference between comments and tags within the context of this site. As such he used them interchangeably and was not able to properly complete his task in the end.
Page 78
Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 3: major disruption that should be fixed Rationale for Rating Because the user was ultimately unable to complete his task, I classified this incident as a severity level 3 (major disruption that should be fixed). Furthermore, if this issue were not addressed it could possibly cause the user and their viewers a lot of embarrassment and confusion when the application was used in a social contexts. Possible solution: One possible solution would be to increase the visual space dedicated to the tags on the right margin to increase the likelihood that the participant would see the link and make the natural distinction between comments and tags. Relationship: LF-TA-04 LF-TA-07
Appendix:
UARs: Chunking
Page 79
Number: AC-TA-01 Problem/Good Aspect: Good Aspect Name: The user-interface was clearly and accurately labeled and it was easy to carry out the action that the user needed to do. Evidence: After the user carried out the specific task given (Protect the images so that only family can see them) they carried out the task with no hesitation (01:05) pressed the Private button then straight to Visible to family then expressed the ease of this task saying That was easy (1:07) Criterion: 9. The user has expressed some positive affect or says something is really easy Explanation: The task was simple but the buttons and what the user could do was clearly labeled and visible to the user, and the phrasing matched very closely with the instructions and what the buttons were labeled as. Severity or Benefit Rating: 1 Rationale for Rating While it was easy for the user to carry out this task and has explicitly expressed so, this is a task that does not need to carried out frequently (only when the user is uploading new photographs or when they want to change the privacy settings later) and it is a small usability aspect compared to the entire system but because it does not disrupt the user using the system but in fact helps the process more easier in a small way would be the reason why I would give this a 1. Solution: Relationship: AC-TA-03
Appendix:
UARs: Single Set-Up Settings
Page 80
Number: AL-TA-01 Problem/Good Aspect: Good Aspect Name: User interface makes it easy to set privacy settings to make photos visible only to family. Evidence: The user reads the assigned task of protecting the images so only family can see them at 0:51. He then switches back to Flickrs upload interface, selects Private radio button, and checks Visible to Family checkbox. He then comments, Thats easy! at 1:06. Criterion: 9. The user expressed some positive effect or says something is really easy Explanation: The user interface lays out options for adjusting privacy settings in a way the user found easy to use. Upon completion of the making it visible only to family, he voiced how he considered it easy to complete. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 0: Not a Problem at All Rationale for Rating This is a good aspect, and no action needs to be taking to resolve any outstanding problems. Possible solution: N/A Relationship: None
Appendix:
Page 81
Number: AL-TA-07 Problem/Good Aspect: Good Aspect Name: Creating the second new set after adding the first set. Evidence: The user says And bags at 5:24, drags the pictures of bags up to the center of the screen and types in Bags as the label for a new set, then clicks save. While doing so, he comments at 5:23, Okay, now its easy. Criterion: 9. The user expressed some positive effect or says something is really easy. Explanation: Repeating the action of creating a new set for the second time, the user finds it to be easier than before since he now knows how to do it. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 0: Not a Problem at All Rationale for Rating This is a good aspect, and no action needs to be taking to resolve any outstanding problems. Possible solution: N/A Relationship: AL-TA-05 Struggled to find out how to create a new set an earlier time, but task is now found to be easier with repetition.
Appendix:
Page 82
Number: LF -TA- 01 Problem/Good Aspect: Good Name: Adding privacy settings to uploading photographs are easy to locate. Evidence: 00:01:02-- Line 9: Family. Private. Visible to family. Thats easy.
Appendix:
The participant selected the photos to upload and selected a privacy setting before clicking the upload photos and videos button. Criterion: 9. The participant expressed some positive affect or says something is really easy. Explanation: The placement of the privacy settings, right below the images that are loading, was a really good design decision that was made because it immediately catches the participants attention at the point in the process where they should be considering their privacy settings. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 0: not a problem Rationale for Rating This incident is not a problem because it in fact helped to correctly prompt the participant to select the security settings, which could have been easily overlooked in the completion of the other tasks the site offers. Possible solution: There is no possible solution because this incident was a good one. Relationship:
Page 83
Number: LF-TA-03 Problem/Good Aspect: Bad Name: Lack of information to inform the participant how to create sets of photos Evidence: 00:02:32- 00:05:5-- Lines 15-20: All your content. I try Drag items here to edit them as a batch. You can then change picture attributes I try it. So, and now? Ah. This is other items, or Sets, sets? Create your first set. This is what I should do. Ah, in three different sets. So, sets is correct. I take it, this set is called other items. Save. Or should I add more. Okay. These are toys. That's a toy. Oh, where is it now? Toys Maybe this is a toy, this is also a toy, everything is a toy. These are bags. Okay, this is an other item, and this is an other item. What's that? Also an other item. And maybe these are toys. Okay, save. Now, create. Create a new set. New set, toys. Okay, toys were, I take Maybe this is also a toy. I try it, it can have a set... one item in different sets. Is it possible, I don't know, I try it.
Appendix:
The participant reads the instructions and vocalizes confusion that this screen is the correct one for the creation of sets, but he says he will try it. He drags an image into the batch and then repeats with a second image. Then, he right-clicks on the mouse to determine what his next step will be. He then clicks on the sets tab which had been visible on the screen since he had opened the organize and create tab. He then drags the same photo he had worked with before into the active work area on the screen. He then enters a title and saves and begins to drag more images to the active work area. After he saves the first set, it takes him several tries to figure out how to start the creation of another set. (His cursor moves to several screen locations before clicking on the correct link). Criterion: 4. The participant accomplishes the task, but in a suboptimal way. Explanation: The participant was confused by the terminology the site used. I dont think that the participant knew the differences between the different options (Batchs, Sets) and assumed
Page 84
that the page he landed on was the page he needed to interact with in order to achieve his goal of creating a set. The large text in the center of the screen Drag stuff here to edit them as a batch. You can then change any attributes or create a new set. Made it seem like this screen was a preliminary step to create a set. However, after he completed his batch he clicked on the sets tab at the top of the screen when really he probably wanted to start there and skip the screen he did work on because the designers left that tab active from when the participant initially clicked on the Organize and Create tab. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 1: minor annoyance; Rationale for Rating I gave this critical incident a severity rating of 1 (minor annoyance) because it did not impede the user from accomplishing his task, but merely made his task a little longer. Additionally, it was clear that the participant didnt perceive this as an error but merely a step in the process, so the impact was negligible. Overall, natural exploration of the program would eliminate the user from making this mistake and in the interim this incident will not create a major struggle for getting their goals accomplished. Possible solution: One possible solution is to explain on this opening page the difference between a batch and a set in the greyed out text the options are highlighted in. This could actually be read by novices, but could be skipped over by experts without impeding the experts ability to speed through the process. Relationship:
Appendix:
Page 85
Number: SC-TA-01 Problem/Good Aspect: Good Aspect Name: Selecting privacy settings is easily accomplished Evidence: Initially, the user says I have never done it at 0:05, in response to being given the goal to upload photos, and then set privacy settings to only family. However, once on the flickr page, the user navigates to the Organize & Create section of flickr, follows the links on the page (Upload some photos! link at 0:25, Choose photos and videos at 0:30) and is able to navigate to the location on the desktop where he stored the photos, using a shortcut to selecting all photos (no mouse activity, not a mouse shortcut). At 0:47, he states his next goal Ah, private. We should, what was the task? Flickr won't let you pick indivual people that can see your images, but you can at least protect your images by only allowing' family to see it.. At 1:02, he says Family. Private. Visible to family. That's easy. while he clicked the radio button for Private, and the check box for only family. Criterion: 9. The user expressed some positive affect or says something is really easy. Explanation: The privacy settings are conveniently located right after the photos are uploaded. The user seems to know a bit about computers, showing from the way he knew how to navigate to his files, and use a shortcut (most likely a keyboard shortcut) to select all photos. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 0: not a problem Rationale for Rating The user had no issues with accomplishing the task, so it seems reasonable to conclude that there is no problem. Flickr has done a good job of making the option of setting privacy settings obvious, and including the option right after the photos are uploaded. Also, the user will most likely have to use this function often, since flickr requires a lot of photo uploading. So the ease of this process, and satisfaction from the user makes the rating 0, and not a problem. Possible solution: None Relationship: None
Appendix:
Page 86
Number: SC-TA-02 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: User interface does not make the steps to creating sets and the purpose of sets clear enough. Evidence: The user articulates his goal at 1:20, which is to create three sets organized into Toys, bags, and other items. At 1:54 he says I hope there is a hint on how to do it while on the same page where the pictures are uploading.
Appendix:
At 2:13, he clicks the organize & create option. He makes a step towards creating a set in 2:32 when he says Drag items here to edit them as a batch. You can then change picture attributes I try it. When he sees Drag items here to edit them as a batch. You can then change picture attributes or create a new set, he tries the below after dragging two photos:
After this, at 3:13, he clicks on the sets tab. From 3:19 to 5:39, he creates the 3 sets, but briefly at 5:15 shows confusion over whether photos can be in multiple sets. Criterion: 1. The user articulated a goal and does not succeed in attaining that goal within 3 minutes. Explanation: The user interface confuses the user by stating possible ways to create sets, but does not
Page 87
state clearly the steps to creating sets in general. There is no follow up after the message Drag items here to edit them as a batch. You can then change picture attributes or create a new set. Also, it is not clear what sets are. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 2: disruption This is a 2 rather than a 3 because the frequency of the problem is reduced once the user figures out how to create sets. In the video, once the user figures out how to create the first set in 3:19, the other two sets are easy to create. However, it is a 2 rather than a 1 because it does take time for the user to overcome, and also there is a risk that new users will run into the same problem. Possible solution: Make it so that the creation process for sets are more obvious; for example, show the steps to creating sets when the user is notified that he or she can make sets.
Appendix:
Also, when the above notification is shown, it would be helpful if after the pictures were dragged to the area, a message would pop up telling the user the next step to changing attributes or creating a set. Relationship: SC-TA-04 Where user expresses happiness after completing the task of creating 3 sets.
Page 88
Number: SC-TA-07 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: User thinks that tagging photos takes a long time. Evidence: At 5:37, the user articulates his goal as such Next task: To help your daughter find things that you know she really cared about as a child, add tags to the "snow white" and "hello kitty.His first attempt to achieve the goal is to right click the photo at 6:19. After this, he spends a lot of time just exploring the system, looking for how to tag photos. (see SC-TA-05 for more details) He chooses a photo at 9:34, and confuses adding a comment for tagging a photo, saying Aha after he accomplishes the task. At 9:47, he hovers over the option to Add a tag but does not click on it. At 10:26, he adds a comment on a hello kitty photo, while saying Ah, this one. I place a tag here. And post., meaning he thinks he is tagging the photo when he comments on it. At 12:09, he expresses his dissatisfaction by saying So we have two comments on this picture. That's all? Oh. What a hard work. At the amount of time it took to accomplish the task. Criterion: 7. The user expresses some negative affect or says something is a problem. Explanation: The user felt like it took much too long to tag photos, even though most of the time was spent trying to figure out how to tag the photos. It seems that his expectations were not met, and he expected more done in the same amount of time. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 2 Rationale for Rating The reason I put this as a 2 and not a 1, is that the user is expressing dissatisfaction after seemingly accomplishing a task, which should not be the case. Furthermore, this problem will discourage him from using the function, as he already is discouraged after trying it. However, this is not on the level of a 3, because this problem doesnt prevent the user from accomplishing the goal, it just slows the user down, or discourages the user from wanting to accomplish the goal. It is also not a problem that will break the system or cause bugs, which is why it is not a 3 or 4. Possible solution: Make the option to tag more obvious, and in more locations so the user does not have to look for the tag option. Relationship: SC-TA-06 FAQ for tagging is not seen as a useful source SC-TA-05 does not make it clear where to go to create tags, and what tags look like.
Appendix:
Page 89
Number: TH-TA-02 Problem/Good Aspect: Good aspect Name: Its easy to set the photos to be accessible only to family members. Evidence: When the user is given to task to set the photos to be accessible only to family members, he easily found the set privacy part on the screen and selected the private option. And in the private option, he checked the Visible to family option without thinking for a long time. And he commented: Thats easy at 1:07. [Line 9] Criterion: 9. The user expressed some positive affect or says something is really easy. Explanation: The interface show all the options and sub-options at the same time (including private and visible to family). Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 0: Not a Problem at All Rationale for Rating It is straight forward of choosing the privacy option either to friend or to family. Possible solution: None. Relationship: None.
Appendix:
Page 90
Number: TH-TA-06 Problem/Good Aspect: Good aspect Name: Easy to create new sets after the users created a few sets already. Evidence: While the user tried to create the third set that he was asked to, the easily found the create new set option and selected correct pictures and finished task by clicking save. Also, he said Then bags. Okay. Now it's easy. Bags. Save At 5:26. [Line 21] Criterion: 9. The user expressed some positive affect or says something is really easy. Explanation: The create new set options is easy to find and the procedure of creating sets are the same so the user can accomplish the task by just repeating what he has done previously. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 0: not a problem Rationale for Rating Since the set creation process are all the same for every set created. So after the first try, it becomes really easy to do it again. The user find it easy to create set again after first trial. Possible solution: None. Relationship: None.
Appendix:
Page 91
Appendix:

Number: TH-TA-07 Problem/Good Aspect: Good aspect Name: Fairly easy to create set for photos. Evidence: After successfully creating three sets for photos, the user said So, happy to have done that at 5:40. [Line 22] Criterion: 10. The user expresses happy surprise. Explanation: The user is delighted by the fact that it is really quick and convenient to go through same process for two more times while creating three different sets. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 0: not a problem Rationale for Rating The user felt surprised by the fact that it is easy to go through same process again and the set can be created in one screen. (Both photo selection part and set naming part are on the same page.) Possible solution: None. Relationship: TH-TA-03 - There is no hint how to create set for photos uploaded. TH-TA-04 - The options of how to organize photos by sets is not very easy to see. TH-TA-06 - Easy to create new sets after the users created a few sets already. TH-TA-11 - The user interface does not give a hint on how to change to another set under photo viewing.
Page 92
Number: AC-TA- 02 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: The user-interface was clearly and accurately labeled and it was easy to carry out the action that the user needed to do. Evidence: The user reads the task description (1:18) and is suggested by the interface perhaps Add a description after the photos have been uploaded. This seems to throw off the user because their following task after uploading the photos was to create sets for the uploaded photographs. The user goes back to the task script in order to confirm what their next task is, reads it again (2:00) and realizes that description is not part of their task (Theres not talked about description (2:18)) then goes into the Batch Organize tab and attempts to create a set in there by dragging the photographs (2:18) but it is only after they discover the Sets tab next to the Bath Organize that they go into it (3:02) and starts to create sets for the photographs. Criterion: 1. The user articulated a goal and does not succeed in attaining that goal within 3 minutes Explanation: The user was thrown off when the program prompted/suggested what they might want to do next which was not lined up with the task script they were given. It was not labeled anywhere on the page after they uploaded the photographs where they could organize the photographs into different sets. But the user successfully goes into Organize and Create where the option of creation of sets exist but was stuck in the Bath Organize area because they read the You can change any attributes or create new set, then attempted to do the task in the wrong area because of this description. All these aspects made the user fail to organize the photographs into separate sets in under 3 minutes. Severity or Benefit Rating: 2 Rationale for Rating This is a disruption because it is frustrating for a user who has not been exposed to the interface (like the user in the video) that would lead them to the organization of the sets. Also it does not help that there is one suggestion (Add a description) that might confused a novice user and makes them inclined to do that even if that is not what they were looking to do. Possible solution: If the system is going to propose a possible step that the users might want to take, it might be useful to have several steps that are frequently used by their users (which would probably result in another study) or perhaps not have any suggestions at all that might not throw off the user.
Appendix:
UARs: Efficent Tagging for Childs Decisions
Page 93
Relationship: AC-TA-06 Appendix:
Page 94
Number: AL-TA-07 Problem/Good Aspect: Good Aspect Name: Creating the second new set after adding the first set. Evidence: The user says And bags at 5:24, drags the pictures of bags up to the center of the screen and types in Bags as the label for a new set, then clicks save. While doing so, he comments at 5:23, Okay, now its easy. Criterion: 9. The user expressed some positive effect or says something is really easy. Explanation: Repeating the action of creating a new set for the second time, the user finds it to be easier than before since he now knows how to do it. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 0: Not a Problem at All Rationale for Rating This is a good aspect, and no action needs to be taking to resolve any outstanding problems. Possible solution: N/A Relationship: AL-TA-05 Struggled to find out how to create a new set an earlier time, but task is now found to be easier with repetition.
Appendix:
Page 95
Number: AL-TA-11 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: User does not succeed in tagging photos. Evidence: The user reads from his instructions at 5:38-48 about the task to complete of tagging photos. From 5:48 onwards, the user browses tabs at the top of the organize screen, right-clicks on thumbnails, moves his cursor over drop-down menus, and browses between sets while trying to figure out how to tag a photo. He eventually finds his way to the photostream, goes back to the organize screen, and then begins exploring the photostream. He finds the tags link at the topic of the photostream, reads the text there, but decides the Tag FAQ lasts too long at 8:34 and goes back to the photostreams main page. He right clicks a picture in the photostream, moves his cursor over some of the links and images there, and then opens up a picture and finds and clicks on an add comment link. At 9:05 he begins the process of adding comments to the pictures with the same text as that specified by the tagging request. During the remainder of the session he does not successfully tags the pictures. Criterion: 5. The user does not succeed in task. Explanation: Although he explores many options, the user is not able to successfully tag the pictures, but rather adds comments to them with the specified tagging text, which is not equivalent. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 3: Major Usability Problem Rationale for Rating: Despite trying and exploring many options, the user is never carries out the assigned task of tagging the photos. He settles on marking the pictures with comments containing the text for tags, which is not the same as tagging. This indicates that for some users, the accessibility of the tagging feature is hard enough to discover and use that they may not be able to use it. They may even learn to substitute comments for tagging, and consequently continue to not be able to tag photos when using the system in the future. If the user eventually succeeded in discovering how to actually tag images, a lower severity rating could be justified, but in this case, the user did not tag any of the images properly. At the same time, his inability to complete this task is not indicative of a fundamental or catastrophic problem in the systems design, so a higher severity rating is not needed. Possible solution: Put an Add Tags button in every tab of the organize screen, instead of just under the Batch Organize tab, and make it a brighter color. Relationship:
Appendix:
Page 96
AL-TA-09 User was confused about how to tag photos. AL-TA-10 The user expected to be able to tag photos in the organize screen, but was not able to discover how to. AL-TA-13 The users comments about the length of the Tagging FAQ occurs during the many actions the user attempts while trying to find a solution.
Appendix:
Page 97
Number: AL-TA-12 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: User does not figure out how to tag pictures within 3 minutes. Evidence: The user states his intent from 5:38-48 that he needs to tag photos. From 5:48 onwards, the user is involved in the process of trying to tag photos. At 9:05 he begins the process of adding comments to the pictures with the same text as that specified by the tagging request, having not succeeded in tagging the photos. He never successfully tags the photos. Criterion: . The user articulated a goal and does not succeed in attaining that goal within 3 minutes. Explanation: The user finishes his stating his intent at 5:48, and the video has length of 12:43. Since the user never successfully tags the photos, this means he did not attain his articulated goal within 3 minutes. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 3: Major Usability Disruption Rationale for Rating: The user was not able to complete an important task of tagging pictures within a reasonable time frame. Additionally, in the future, he may still not be able to fulfill the task, or settle on a non-equivalent alternative. Other users may share this same problem as well. Since the user is not able to complete a core task, this problem may recur, and other users may run into this problem as well, a lower severity rating does not seem appropriate. Nonetheless, his inability to complete this task within a 3 minute timeframe is not in itself indicative of a fundamental or catastrophic problem in the systems design, so a higher severity rating is not needed. Possible solution: Put an Add Tags button in every tab of the organize screen, instead of just under the Batch Organize tab, and make it a brighter color. Relationship: AL-TA-09 The user was confused about how to tag images during this time. AL-TA-10 The user did not find the ability to tag images where he expected to. AL-TA-11 The user does not succeed in the task. AL-TA-13 Commenting that the Tagging FAQ occurs during these many things the user attempts while trying to find a solution.
Appendix:
Page 98
Number: SC-TA-05 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: User-interface does not make it clear where to go to create tags, and what tags look like. Evidence: At 5:37, the user articulates his goal to add tags for snow white and hello kitty. His first attempt to achieve the goal is to right click the photo at 6:19. After this, he clicks on a photo, and tries to find the options to tagging the photos, with no result. He clicks sets at 6:33, saying Set. Where's the tag? I don't see where there's a tag but is unable to find the tag option after clicking on both the photo set for toys and for bags. He then clicks on Print & Create at 6:57, chooses sets again afterwards, and goes so far as to look at the firefox browser options at 7:23. He comes close to the option of tags in 7:35 as shown below:
Appendix:
But does not choose it, even saying Maybe this was wrong, I should while he is on the page above at 7:38. He then chooses to try the photostream, and explores areas of the photostream before coming upon Tags in the photostream at 8:21. However, he chooses not to look at the tag faq, saying Ah, it lasts too long, I must find it out in another way. and explores the photostream further by clicking and hovering over various links. Finally, he chooses a photo at 9:34, and confuses adding a comment for tagging a photo, saying Aha after he accomplishes the task. At 9:47, he hovers over the option to Add a tag but does not click on it. At 10:26, he adds a comment on a hello kitty photo, while saying Ah, this one. I place a tag here. And post., meaning he thinks he is tagging the photo when he comments on it. Criterion: 5. The user does not succeed in a task. That is, when there is a difference between the task the user was given and the solution the user produced. Explanation: It is not obvious to the user, when scanning the page, where to search for the option to tag a picture. This is shown in the fact that he hovers his mouse over the Add a tag option, and puts his mouse near the add Tags option in the above picture. His misconception of what tagging is is that tagging is the equivalent to commenting, which puts him on the wrong path. Also, the system seems to expect that the user would be on specific pages when they desire to tag photos, since the tagging option is not common. The user is also unfamiliar with flickr, and so he confused features with similar user-input methods. The system also seems to assume that if a user is stuck, they will use the faq, but this user shows that people do not use the faq, so the system will have to be changed to take that into account.
Page 99
Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 3: major disruption that should be fixed Rationale for Rating The reason why I rated this as a 3 is because potentially all users who have the intention of tagging photos will encounter this problem. The links to create tags are located in places that are not intuitive to a user, and they may have to explore and make guesses as to where the tagging option is. I did not rate this a 2, because the user was confused and had no idea where to start. Also, the user took more than 5 minutes just to try to find a solution. However, I did not rate this a 4, because this problem is not so threatening that it would cause the product to fail. It is merely a usability problem with the user being unable to find the tag button, not a system error. Possible solution: Make the tag option link more visible/obvious, or put the option to tag photos in more locations. Relationship: SC-TA-06 The faq for tagging is viewed as a helpful resource for troubleshooting SC-TA-07 - User thinks that tagging photos takes a long time
Appendix:
Page 100
Number: TH-TA-05 Problem/Good Aspect: Bad aspect. Name: The bottom part changed when user tried to delete photo with no hint. Evidence: While the user found out that he was trying to add some toy picture to the other item set, he wanted to delete them. When he drag the item, the bottom part of the interface changed to drop a photo or video here to remove from the set and there is no hint where the previous options go. The used expressed his confusion by asking Oh, where is it now? at 3:56. [Line 19] Criterion: 7. The user expresses some negative affect or says something is a problem. Explanation: The user interface does not provide a notice that it will change to the remove mode and it will bring back to the previous screen after the user release the dragged photo. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 1: minor annoyance Rationale for Rating I rated the problem as a 1 (minor annoyance) and no higher because the interface will automatically goes back to the previous screen after the user release the photo. And this interrupt does not create a big disruption or makes the user feel frustrated. Although the bottom part will change frequently if the user drag a photo, the problem will not occur after the user has a prediction that it should change and resume after release. But I also wont rate it as a 0 (not a problem) because the user specifically spoke out that he is confused about where he is in the process or what he can do to fix. This problem is a minor annoyance based on the fact it doesnt require the user to find the fix and it can fix itself before the user feel frustrated so the problem is easy to overcome. Possible solution: Give a notice that the interface is in delete mode or specific say that it will go back to the previous screen automatically. Relationship: None.
Appendix:
Page 101
Number: TH-TA-08 Problem/Good Aspect: Bad aspect. Name: The tag option is not obvious in the organize part of the interface. Evidence: The user tried every tab in the organize screen and failed to find the tag option. After a lot of failure trail, the user expressed his confusion of how to complete the task by saying that Where can I add a tag? at 6:30. [Line 27] Criterion: 6. The user expresses confusion over how to achieve a goal. Explanation: The user interface does not show tag as a separate tab on the top bar. Although the task can be accomplished by choosing batch and tag the batch, it is not obvious that the task can be accomplished in this way. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 3: major disruption that should be fixed Rationale for Rating I rated this problem 3 (major disruption that should be fixed) and not higher because, the tag task can be accomplished in other way. (i.e., in individual photo page, there is a tag option on the right side.) And this problem will no longer occur after the user knows that he can add tag under batch tab. I did not rate the problem lower to 2 (disruption) because the user tried every tab on the top bar but still failed to find the tag option. The add tag option is in faded typeface under batch tab which is hard to identify so to overcome the problem appears to be hard. The user was trying everywhere to find the tag option and feel frustrated after trying every possible tab. At that point, he has no clue what he should do next. Also, this is a frequent problem that they user need to add tag for quite a lot of times under organizing screen. So, this problem should be fixed to give user a more straight forward guidance. Possible solution: Either make add tag option more identifiable, or explicitly create tag as a tab on the top bar. Relationship: TH-TA-09 - The interface ask user to visit tag FAQ page while there is no tag set up yet, which is complicated and time consuming. TH-TA-12 - First time user find it hard to add tags.
Appendix:
Page 102
Number: TH-TA-12 Problem/Good Aspect: Bad aspect. Name: First time user find it hard to add tags. Evidence: After the user had done the job, he expressed negative feedback by saying What a hard work at 12:14. [Line 54] Criterion: 7. The user expresses some negative affect or says something is a problem. Explanation:
The add tag option is generally hard to find no matter what approach the use choose. (Either under organize or try the tag FAQ page or under the picture viewing page.)
Appendix:
Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 3: major disruption that should be fixed Rationale for Rating I rated this problem 3 (major disruption that should be fixed) and no higher because the user finally found the correct way to add a tag although he didnt convince himself to do under the correct way. I will not rate this problem lower to 2 (disruption) because the user almost lost his patience and failed to complete task after trying for more than three minutes expressed that he was frustrated by the result and dissatisfied. This problem affects the usability by giving first time users a really hard to organize their photos using tags and this is definitely not a cosmetic problem. Also, the problem is fairly easy to encounter (a high frequency). Since the whole add tag process is cumbersome, the problem will be persistent if they user come back and intended to add tag again after some time. Possible solution: Make add tag options more apparent under all solutions. Relationship: TH-TA-08 - The tag option is not obvious in the organize part of the interface. TH-TA-09 - The interface ask user to visit tag FAQ page while there is no tag set up yet, which is complicated and time consuming.
Page 103
Number: AL-TA-12 Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Name: User does not figure out how to tag pictures within 3 minutes. Evidence: The user states his intent from 5:38-48 that he needs to tag photos. From 5:48 onwards, the user is involved in the process of trying to tag photos. At 9:05 he begins the process of adding comments to the pictures with the same text as that specified by the tagging request, having not succeeded in tagging the photos. He never successfully tags the photos. Criterion: 1. The user articulated a goal and does not succeed in attaining that goal within 3 minutes. Explanation: The user finishes his stating his intent at 5:48, and the video has length of 12:43. Since the user never successfully tags the photos, this means he did not attain his articulated goal within 3 minutes. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 3: Major Usability Disruption Rationale for Rating: The user was not able to complete an important task of tagging pictures within a reasonable time frame. Additionally, in the future, he may still not be able to fulfill the task, or settle on a non-equivalent alternative. Other users may share this same problem as well. Since the user is not able to complete a core task, this problem may recur, and other users may run into this problem as well, a lower severity rating does not seem appropriate. Nonetheless, his inability to complete this task within a 3 minute timeframe is not in itself indicative of a fundamental or catastrophic problem in the systems design, so a higher severity rating is not needed. Possible solution: Put an Add Tags button in every tab of the organize screen, instead of just under the Batch Organize tab, and make it a brighter color. Relationship: AL-TA-09 The user was confused about how to tag images during this time. AL-TA-10 The user did not find the ability to tag images where he expected to. AL-TA-11 The user does not succeed in the task. AL-TA-13 Commenting that the Tagging FAQ occurs during these many things the user attempts while trying to find a solution.
Appendix:
UARs: Enable Note Recording
Page 104
Appendix:
The participant enters the given tags into the description box and publishes the provided text for tags as descriptions. While he is doing this he is describing his actions as if he were actually tagging the photos. Criterion: 5. The participant does not succeed in a task. That is, when there is a difference between the task the participant was given and the solution the participant produced. Explanation: The participant didnt understand the difference between comments and tags within the context of this site. As such he used them interchangeably and was not able to properly complete his task in the end. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4>
Page 105
3: major disruption that should be fixed Rationale for Rating Because the user was ultimately unable to complete his task, I classified this incident as a severity level 3 (major disruption that should be fixed). Furthermore, if this issue were not addressed it could possibly cause the user and their viewers a lot of embarrassment and confusion when the application was used in a social contexts. Possible solution: One possible solution would be to increase the visual space dedicated to the tags on the right margin to increase the likelihood that the participant would see the link and make the natural distinction between comments and tags. Relationship: LF-TA-04 LF-TA-07
Appendix:
Page 106
Number: TH-TA-10 Problem/Good Aspect: Bad aspect Name: No explanation about what comment is for first time user. Evidence: In users process to find the add tag option, he finally navigated to the individual photo page. He found the comment box and thought the comment is the same as a tag and he can add tag to the photo by posting comments to it. By the time of 9:27, he has already tried more than three minutes but still didnt come up with the correct solution (even the suboptimal way). Also, he is confused about how to save a comment and he asked: Where is save? [Line 37] Criterion: 1. The user articulated a goal and does not succeed in attaining that goal within 3 minutes. 5. The user does not succeed in a task. That is, when there is a difference between the task the user was given and the solution the user produced. 6. The user expresses confusion over how to achieve a goal. Explanation: The interface does not give first time user a definition of comments and tags. Severity or Benefit Rating: <Rate from 0 to 4> 3: major disruption that should be fixed for criterion 1 & 5. 2: disruption for criterion 6. Rationale for Rating criterion 1 & 5: I rated this problem 3 (major disruption that should be fixed) and no higher because the user finally found the correct add tag option despite the fact that he chose the use the wrong solution. So the problem will not be persistent if the user know the correct solution is to click the add tag option. I will not rate this problem lower to 2 (disruption) because, the user failed the tasks and he still has no clue of the fact that comment is different from tag by saying his could also be. This problem seriously affect the usability by misleading the user to something different from his/her intention and there is no explanation given of why and what they are doing wrong. So also the problem will not occur again after they know the correct choice, the process to find difference between comment and tag will be hard. criterion 2: I rate this problem 2 (disruption) and no higher because the user is only presented two possible options to deal with comment. The user already knows that the preview option is not what he wants and he tries to understand what post a comment mean, so the problem is not hard to overcome. This is also not a life-critical problem because post a comment is the same as same and the problem only occur once. I will also not rate the problem lower to 1
Appendix:
Page 107
(minor annoyance) because this problem is not cosmetic and the user expressed the confusion. Possible solution: Put a small link beside the comments option, like what is this? And link it the comment definition page. Use post a comment/save rather than just post a comment. Relationship: None. Appendix:
Page 108

I Tidy

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

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 :

Formats disponibles

I Tidy

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Homework 5

Executive Summary Ctd.

Design Overview: Summary

Design Overview: Summary

Design Overview: Task Scenario

Design Overview: Task Scenario

Reccuring Design Themes Influencing Features Chunking

Building into Existing Workflow

Allowing Asynchronous Workflow/Communication

Feature Detail: Camera Utilization and Photography

Smart-Phone Camera Utilization for Documentation Photos

Chunking, Building into Existing Workflow

Feature Detail: Categorical Tagging of Type

Categorical Tagging of Type for Documentation Photos

Allowing Asynchronous Work

Feature Detail: Distinct Interfaces for Parents and Child

Distinct Interfaces for Parents and Child

Chunking, Parent-Child Communication

Feature Detail: Distinct Interfaces for Parents and Child Ctd.

Distinct Interfaces for Parents and Child Ctd.

Chunking, Parent-Child Communication

Feature Detail: Enabling Note Recording

Enabling Note Recording

Decision-Making, Allowing Asynchronous Work

Feature Detail: Collective Group Categorical Tagging

Collective Group Categorical Tagging

Chunking, Decision-Making, Building into Existing Workflow

Feature Detail: Location Tagging for Parents

Location Tagging for Parents

Chunking, Building into Existing Workflow

Feature Detail: Single Set-Up Settings

Single Set-Up Settings

Building into Existing Workflow

Feature Detail: Efficient Tagging for Childs Decisions

Efficient Tagging for Childs Decisions

Decision-Making, Building into Existing Workflow

Feature Detail: Efficient Tagging for Childs Decisions Ctd.

Efficient Tagging for Childs Decisions Ctd.

Decision-Making, Building into Existing Workflow

Retrospective: Contextual Design

Retrospective: Contextual Design Ctd.

Retrospective: Work Models

Retrospective: Work Models Ctd.

Retrospective: Contextual Inquiry

Retrospective: Contextual Inquiry Ctd.

Retrospective: Think Alouds

Retrospective: Heuristic Evaluation

Retrospective: Keystroke Modelling

Design Overview Design Themes

Appendix: Navigational Flow

page 32 pages 33~36

Create List by Room Play Voice Memo

Select Entire Category

Play Voice Memo

Building into Existing Workflow

Allowing Asynchronous Work/Communication Allowing Asynchronous Work:

Models: Flow Model

05-410 | HCI Methods HW2 Part 1 - Flow Model, (Page 1 of 1)

Ah Ra Cho Stephanie Chow Lauryn Fantano Tongbo Huang Andrew Lee

Lizas Room Magazines [118]

Pink Room Schoolwork [220]

Newspaper Article [132-134] Lizas Clothing [137]

Notebook / Extra Paper [224] College Stuff [233]