Category Archives: version 4

Project Recap

Posted on by

With the USeD project drawing to a close it is a good time to recap on what we set out to achieve and how we went about it.

Overview

The USeD project aimed to improve the usability and learnability of a user interface which enabled users to download spatial data from the Digimap service. The current data downloader is a popular service but is perhaps not the most user friendly.  It was designed around the technical constraints of the software of he time (2002) and the requirement that it had to integrate with an inflexible server-side database.

It’s replacement would be designed around the needs of the user but would still have to integrate with a server-side database. However, the new database is more flexible and data extraction far simpler.

The new interface must serve all users from experienced users who know what they want to complete novices who are perhaps less confident working with spatial data.  The interface should therefore be intuitive and learnable, allowing users to explore some of the advanced functionality as they gain confidence. You can read a detailed summary on the  About USeD page.

Persona

The first task was to interview some users and create a set of user personas. 20 users were interviewed and this resulted in 5 distinct personas.  The personas would be used to shape the user requirements and would be used to steer the design of the interface throughout the project.  You can meet our personas on the persona page.

Design Specification

The design specification can be divided into 2 parts; user requirements and a technical specification.  The user requirements were defined from the user requirements.  In the personas we had created a list of “pesron X wants to” and “We would like person X to”.  which made it quite a simple task to put together an initial list of requirements.  We grouped the requirements into:

  1. a user must be able to
  2. a user should be able to
  3. a user could be able to

Grouping the requirements like this gave the engineers an idea of the importance of each requirement which made it easier to justify spending more time implementing small functions that were deemed to be a must. The user requirements documentation can be found here

The technical review focused on the software and libraries that could be used to make the new interface more attractive and interactive. The server side database had already been updated so new tech had to integrate with this.

Prototype or Full Build?

This was a key question in the project. Do we use wire-frame mockups to show different designs or do we use a fully functioning test site?  We went with the fll build as we suspected that there would be issues surrounding the strong visual map window and the expectation of what the used would receive in their order. It was felt that a wire-frame would not address these issues. Building fully functioning test sites involved far more developer time and effort, but it was certainly worth it.

Iterative User Testing

We used task based testing to explore the usability of the new interface.  We started with an expert review from our usability consultant, this caught a number of issues that we had missed. The task based testing engaged with real users. Each user had 45 mins to complete a number of tasks and we tried to have 6 people per session. The interface was then modified between sessions. We ran 3 sessions and saw our “problem points” migrate from the initial screen through the ordering process. This was encouraging as it suggested that users were able to progress further in progressive session before they ran into problems. The user testing is described in detail in a number of post.

Project hand-over

Handover

Handover – Tableatny @ Flickr

At the end of the project we will hand over our findings to the Digimap Service team. The hand-over will be a document that outlines a number of improvements that can be made to the existing interface. Each recommendation will be ranked as either High, Medium or Low.  Each recemondation will address an identified isue in the current interface and will suggest a solution which has been implimented and tested during the USeD project.  Where multiple solutions were trialed, a brief summary of this will be given to justify the final suggestion.

This style of documentation proved to be a very effective way of suggesting improvements to the development team.

 

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.