Category Archives: David Hamill

Version 4 User Testing

Posted on by

The final round of interface testing will follow the same format as the previous sessions.  6 candidates will run through a series of tasks designed to test the usability of the interface.  Once again, candidates were selected from a list of registered Digimap users.  The main findings of this testing session are summarised below:

1.  Text Search

The “No results message boxâ€�  should include the following text “No results found for ‘dasas’ please check the spelling or try an alternative. You can search by Place name, Postcode or Grid refâ€�

The button used to close the search box currently says “Select and Close�  Several users found the term Select confusing. Change this to be “Close� and fix the tool tip.

2. Draw Rectangle

There were a couple of issues with this. The default function should always be pan, however it is possible to have draw rectangle and use coordinates/use time name selected. You should only have 1 select function active at any time.  A user selected a tile through use tilename and then returned to the map and wanted to pan, but their first click cleared the selection as the draw rectangle button was still active.

A wider issue to think about is that does the absence of a pan button confuse users and prevent them from panning? Or, is the current system learnable?  We could improve the help and the tool tip to improve the learnability of this toggle “ON – Draw rectangle to select data. OFF – Pan the mapâ€�

3. Add to basket error

Change txt to say “You have too much 1:10 000 Raster data in your basket, the limit is 200 tiles.  Either reduce your selected area or select another product�

4.  My Account

Further refinements are needed in the My Account section.  The Green Envelope and Blue rubbish bin worked well visually.  These should be the only clickable elements in each row.  Once selected, the bottom grid should populate and if the order botton is pressed this will re-order the complete order. Only if the user checks one of the check boxes will the order be split. So, all the radio buttons should be checked when the bottom grid is populated.

5. Preview

Add in a preview for datasets that are UK wide.  The lack of a preview confused more than one candidate. Tooltip on Preview is not right

6. Use Coordinates

Order of information is now confusing.  Map example was useful but the input boxes should sit below this image.  The OR options can then sit below the input boxes. We also need an error box on “Get coordinates form selected area� to catch when users have no area selected.

7. Use Time Name

Change the text below the txt input box to read “Click the “� icon on the right of the map to view tile grids at anytime.

Summary

Overall, Version 4 user testing was quite encouraging. No major issues were discovered. The feedback from the users was positive and the issues that were identified were generally quite small.  They focus on things that would make the interface clearer and more learnable.

The plan now is to collate the findings from the usability testing and produce a number of recommendations on how to improve the version of the data downloader that is currently live as a beta.  Recommendations will be supported by the evidence gathered during this user testing program.

 

Usability lab on a shoestring budget

Posted on by

Usability testing should be an important part of the development of any user interface. Ensuring that the interface is intuitive and easy to use is critical for its success. However, running usability sessions with real users often strikes fear into project teams. They assume that it will be a costly and time consuming process and will confuse as much as it clarifies the design process.  This article aims to demonstrate how easy it is to set up an effective usability lab on a shoestring budget.

Background

The USeD project aims to improve the interface of a data download website which provides   spatial data to the education sector in the UK.  User testing is an integral part of the USeD project and carrying out iterative assessment exercises will drive the development of the interface.  However, the project budget is quite modest and most of it is assigned for designing and coding the interface.

A discussion with our usability expert on the usefulness of various techniques suggested that most issues with an interface could be identified using quite simple techniques such as task-based exercises. Eye tracking allows testing to focus on very specific problems and it was better to identify general issues first before considering advanced techniques.

User Task Based Testing

Task based testing centers around setting users a series of small, distinct tasks that have been designed to test the functionality of an interface.  The initial tasks should be quite straight forward but later ones can be more involved allowing sessions to explore more advanced aspects of the interface.  Tasks should give the user a clear understanding of what they want to achieve but should allow them the flexibility to explore the interface. This flexibility can reveal how users discover functionality in the interface.  In these testing sessions we have 6 tasks and each session will last up to 45 minutes. Any longer than this and it is probably that the user will tire and loose focus.

So, how can you set up an effective user testing lab in your own office using pretty much “stuff” that you find lying around or “borrow”, temporarily?  The recipe below describes how we went about the task.

Ingredients:

  • 2 rooms, close together or preferably next to each other
  • 2 computers
  • 3 screens
  • 1 web cam
  • 1 mic
  • 1 set of baby monitor
  • A sprinkle of free software
  • 1 really helpful systems support person

First of all, having two rooms is a huge benefit as it means that the only the candidate and the facilitator (person running the test) need to be in the test room. This reduces the stress on the user during the test so that it feels less like a test. A nervous or flustered user will not interact with the interface in a naturally which may affect the results of the tasks.  Having the rooms next together makes things much easier as you can run cables between them.

Test lab

Test Room

  • Set up a computer that is typical of the ones you expect users to access the interface through in normal use. If users are likely to use a laptop or a 15 inch monitor, it would be unfair to run the test on a 21 inch monitor.
  • Set up a web cam that shows the user and the facilitator. This should be set up in an unobtrusive way and is to monitor general body language rather than detailed facial expressions or eye movements.
  • Position the transmitting part of the baby monitor so that it will pick up the conversation
  • Place a microphone dictaphone to capture the conversation between the candidate and the facilitator. This is really just a back up in case parts of the conversation get missed.
  • Make sure you provide some water for the candidates and a bit of chocolate never hurts.

Observation room

The observation lab can be set up in various ways but if you have access to two monitors then this makes things easier.

  • Set up the computer with a “Yâ€� splitter to two monitors. Monitor 1 will show the users screen and monitor 2 will display the webcam feed.  Set the monitors up about 1.5m away from the observers.  This will give them room to make notes and setting the back a bit means that they can easily scan both monitors at the same time without the “watching tennis” effect.
  • The receiving part of the baby monitor will provide the live audio from the other room.
  • Remember some water and chocolate or sugary sweets to keep the observers alert

 

Observation room


Porting the display

To display the users screen, we used some free software called “Zonescreen�. This has to be installed on both computers. Once installed, start ZoneScreen on the machine in the user lab, set this to as the HOST. Make a note of the i.p address. On the computer in the observation room, start ZoneScreen and set the session to REMOTE and enter the i.p address of the computer in the other room. You should now be able to see everything that happens on the user computer.

Webcam

The webcam feed is a little bit trickier. We experimented with broadcasting this across our network, but there was often a lag of up to 20-30seconds which made it very difficult to follow what was actually going on. As we had the luxury of having two rooms next to each other, we were able to connect the webcam to the computer in the observation lab. To do this you need a powered USB extension. The 10m extension we used occasionally failed, possibly as the power attenuated along its length. Replacing this with a 5m cable solved the problem.

Results

This set up worked really well.  The observers were able to see the candidates screen, hear everything that was said.  The webcam was useful to give everything context.  You could tell when the candidate had turned to speak to the facilitator and you could monitor their general body language.  There was only the slightest delay on the screen display feed, but this did not cause a problem. The baby monitors might seem very low tech but they are reliable and effective.

So, what did all this cost?  All the software was free and well we scavinged everything except the 5m powered usb cable and the baby monitors.  The total cost of this equipment was £40.  A huge thanks to Nik, EDINA’s small system support officer, who managed to find the software and put the lab together.

Results of UI testing on Version 2

Posted on by

So, you think you have a good, usable project which clearly sets out what the user has to do to get what they want…….. and then you do some user testing.  The UI testing on Version two of the downloader was extremely useful, it pointed out many things that we had missed and now seem just so obvious.  This post will outline the main points that emerged from the testing and will describe how we ran the tests them self. But before we start, it is important to remember that the test revealed many positive things about the interface and users thought it was an improvement over the current system.   This post will now concentrate on the negatives but we shouldn’t be too depressed.

Setup

We decided to run this UI testing in a different configuration than we intend to run the tests with external students.  We wanted to allow our usability expert to be able to guide us through the test so that we would conduct the test using best practice.  Viv was to be the “facilitator” and Addy was the “Observer”.  David was observing everything and would provide feedback between test.

We had 5 candidates who would each run through 5 tasks during a 40-50minute period. We left 30 minutes between each test to allow us time to get feedback from David and to discuss the tests.  As it turned out, the day was quite draining and I wouldn’t recommend trying to do more than 6 candidates in a day.  Your brain will be mush by the end of it and you might not get the most out of the final sessions.

Results

The tests went well and we improved as the day went on thanks to feed back from the usability expert David Hamill.  It was certainly useful to have David facilitate a session so that we could observe him in action.

The participants all said that they thought the interface was easy to use and quite straight forward. However, it was clear that most users struggled with the process of

  1. selecting an area of interest
  2. selecting data products
  3. adding these products to the basket
  4. submitting the order

As the primary role of the interface is to allow users to order data this seems to be an area that will need significant investigation before the next iteration.  Other issues that arose during the sessions include:

  • The “Search and Select An Area” still seemed to confuse users.  Some struggled to see that they had to actually select an area in addition to just navigate to the area using the map
  • Basket Button looks busy and is not prominent enough.
  • Download limits not obvious to the user
  • Users often couldn’t recover from minor mistakes and “looked for a reset button” (technically you don’t need a reset button but the users didn’t know this so this needs addressed)
  • Preview Area in the Basket was not all that useful, the popup covered the map which showed the selection. In addition to previewing the geographical extent selected, this should also preview the data product selected.
  • Make the info buttons easier to browse through
  • Add more information to the “Use Tile Name” section, perhaps investigate how we can integrate this with the view grid function on the right of the map window.
  • Add a clear all button to the basket area.

A detailed report of the main issues that emerged during the user testing can be found in the Version 2 Testing Report(pdf).

The testing session was a success on two levels.  Viv and I learnt a great deal about conducting UI tests by having the usability expert present and we identified some key areas of the interface that were causing users problems.  Most of these are glaringly obvious once they have been pointed out to you, but then that is the point of UI testing i suppose!

Recommendations from UI Testing 1

Posted on by

Based on the first round of UI testing and the report prepared by our usability expert, a number of suggested improvements were put forward for the data downloader.  Actually, the report prepared by David was very useful.  The report did a number of things that made it easy to discuss issues with the development team and identify the potential solution.  In particular, a UI testing report should:

  • Rank the reported issues  High, Medium and Low, you can decide to rank within these categories if you wish
  • provide an annotated screenshot
  • add supporting text description
  • suggest a solution, perhaps with a mock-up or link to another site that demonstrates the solution
  • report “bugs” separately
  • dont go overboard – listing 100 faults is not helpful. (note – hopefully you shouldn’t have 100+ faults if you have understood the who, what, why of the design brief)

The USeD development team were able to sit around a table and come up with a course of action on each one of the issues raised in the UI Expert report.  How long did this take? 60 minutes. That’s all, honest.  A well presented document that described each issue clearly meant the developer could concentrate on the technical solution and judge whether a solution could be implemented in the development time available. Only a couple of issues got “parked”.  This was generally to do with the capabilities of the software and hardware and implications of server load.

A list of the changes that we will make to the interface is given at the end of this post.  So what have we learnt from this initial review?

  1. the usability expert liked the new site so that was good.
  2. He pointed out several things that are now blindingly obvious to the USeD team.
  3. We now appreciate the benefits of presenting UI results clearly, they shape the development of the UI.
  4. We know that we can make the UI better and easier to interact with.
  5. We know what we have to focus on for version 2

We now have about 2 weeks of development time before we roll out Version 2 for some more UI testing.

Points that will be investigated for Version 2

  1. Remove “do one of the following”
  2. Isolate pan as it is a separate function to draw or select
  3. On load, products list should be collapsed
  4. Add better headers to products list such as “Product” “Allowance”
  5. Make it more obvious when an allowance is exceeded, perhaps red text or strike thru text.
  6. Add a modal box if a user selects a product for which the allowance has been exceeded
  7. Remove lock/unlock icon
  8. Make info button change on hover
  9. Add info about which data product is being viewed in the map window.
  10. Remove Scale-bar
  11. Define area buttons need cleaned up – perhaps 1 define button that opens a pop-up
  12. Add more descriptive help to functions like define Square in the popups
  13. Popup and modal boxes should close when “GO” is pressed
  14. In basket, change preview and trash can to change colour on hover
  15. Give the “Add to Basket” button more prominence.
  16. Greyed out buttons too subtle (add to basket/define circle(not functioning at present))
  17. Are arrows the best symbol to use for clickable function submit buttons?
  18. Possible to get lost in map, have a reset view (planned but functionality issues prevented it going out in Version 1)

Aspects that we could not take forward with an explination of why.

  • Change the product names to be more meaningful and descriptive – the OS are insistent that their products should described by the correct products name. We also agree that this is sensible as many products are quite similar in some ways, but different in others. Conveying this in 2-50 characters would be difficult.  Further, using the official product name means that Digimap users are using the correct terms that are used in the public and private sectors.
  • When a user selects a product, update the map window to show the product. This would make a stronger visual link between what users see and what they eventually get. The preview windows are too small to be very useful. – This would be possible for some products but initiating this to say preview Mastermap or other large scale mapping products.  The load on the server to facilitate this could potentially be considerable and impact on the speed of the service. In addition, maps would not render in a readable format on screen if users tried to view large areas of large scale maps.

Link to the usability report prepared by Usability Expert