(1) Improve your high-fidelity prototype
Group 3 mentioned that clicking on the same tab from different screens led to different results.
Why is this the biggest problem for your users?
This is the biggest problem because it deviates from the expectations of the user, thus potentially confuses them.
How will you solve it?
We followed their recommendation and made the state constient by removing the forgotten link we still had active in figma.
How do you expect the user will behave, after the problem is solved?
Thanks to the added tutorial at the beginning of the interference with our app, the user is guided how to start using the app. The layout of our diagrams is consistent now and follow general guidelines on which we decided.
Decide what usability issues you are going to fix in your prototype and what features you are going to implement next.
We implemented all of the three proposed fixes (add tour through the app at start, change one icon, fix one inconsistent screen), as they were small in scope and we saw their potential for improving the usability and understandability of our app.
(2) Preparation for a summative evaluation
What are things you would like to do differently this time?
The tasks were formulated too specific. For example, 2 b) was:
“Schaue dir die Statistik zu diesem Thema an”
We wanted the user to acknowledge the “stats” tab but now we just told them to click on it. Instead, we should have formulated it like “get an overview of the number of articles” or similarly, so that it’s an actual behavior which might be observed in real users.
Additionally, there were too many tasks compared to the small scope of the prototype.
What documents do you need?
Consent form:
6.1 Pilot Study Forms
Think-Aloud and Interview Pilot Study – Consent Form
Sheet #1
I agree to participate in the study conducted by the Human-Centered Computing Lab of the Freie Universitat Berlin. Participation in this study is voluntary and I agree to immediately raise any concerns or areas of discomfort during the session with the study administrators.
I understand that all data gathered in this test, including sound records, will be anonymized. I am aware that results from these tests might be published. Please sign below to indicate that you have read and you understand the information on this form.
Date: ____________________
Please print your name: ____________________
Please sign your name: ____________________
Thank you!
The Task Observation Form
We updated our script:
(1) Hinweise für den User
Small-talk
Disclaimer: “Wir testen die App, nicht dich! Fragen bitte gerne stellen, ich kann aber nicht versprechen, alle Fragen direkt zu beantworten! Bitte laut denken (Think aloud).”
(2) Kontext der Anwendung
Veritas ist eine App, die für alle gesellschaftspolitisch interessierten Menschen entwickelt wurde. Veritas bietet Usern die Möglichkeit, URLs oder Themen einzugeben. Den Usern wird dann ein umfangreicher Überblick über das Thema gezeigt.
Wie interessiert bist du an gesellschaftspolitischen Themen?
(3) Szenario(s) und
Du bist auf der Website der NYTimes. Du liest einen spannenden Kommentar über Joe Bidens Waffenpolitik. Du findest den Artikel nicht sehr ausgewogen und würdest gerne andere Perspektiven über dieses Thema einholen.
Benutze die veritas-App, um ähnliche Artikel zu finden.
(4.1) Aufgaben
- Lies einen Artikel, der eine gegensätzliche Meinung zu dem NY-Times Artikel hat
- Verschaffe dir einen Überblick, wie die Medien über dieses Thema berichten
(4.2) Post test questionnaire
https://forms.gle/9NYpoejYoFVRM9Js7
(5) Abschließende Fragen
Hast du noch irgendwelche Fragen oder Anregungen?
(6) Abschluss
Danke für deine Zeit
Which standardized questionnaire did you choose and why?
We used the UMUX questionnaire and adopted it to our needs: Link
(3) REFLEXION
WHO MADE WHAT CONTRIBUTION?
We met all together and analyzed the evaluation that we received from group 3 and decided what we need to change in our prototype. Daniel played the biggest role in working on the Figma prototype On another meeting we conducted preparations for summative evaluation. On all of that we worked together during the meetings.
WHAT DID YOU LEARN?
We could retrospect assignment #6. After gaining more experience and knowledge about our project, we changed our approach in testing and restructured the tasks for the next testing session.
WHAT WENT WELL?
As we were quite happy with our prototype already, with tips from group 3 and our own conclusions, we made our prototype even better.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO IMPROVE?
We could have split up the work as some of the points we did during our meetings didn’t require all of us at the same time.