City Bus Application Project

8/3/2019 City Bus Application Project

1/26

Feasibility Report:

Mobile Application for CityBus

PREPARED BY

Karlee Bauer

Averie Dowell

Becky Forgey

Reed Longstreth

Emily Overmyer

November 2011


2/26

November 2011 1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...2

Social Media Concerns and Possible Solution...2

Mobile Apps: Data and Findings.......2

Global App Trends2Surveying Our Audience...........3

The Competition...3

Implementation Plan: App Interface Designs...3

Criteria for Evaluation...4

1. Clarity.52. Efficiency...53. Help Section...64. Consistency65. Learnability7 6. Fault Tolerance...87. Readability.88. Navigability99. Speed1010.Cost to Users....10

App Feasibility.....11

Implementation Plan and Conclusion

Cost.12

Sustainability..12

Design Modification..11

Conclusion......13

References...14

APPENDIX A

Surveys

A.1 Survey of Purdue Students.16

A.2 Survey of Lafayette Residents...........17

APPENDIX B

Interface Design

B.1 Interface Mind Map..19

B.2 Screenshots 13...20


B.4 Screenshots 79...22B.5 Screenshots 1012...23


APPENDIX C

Summary of Interface Scores..25


3/26

November 2011 2

Executive Summary

As part of an English business writing course at Purdue University, our student group must work

with a local business to solve a social media related problem. After researching several

companies and organizations, we decided to work with the CityBus, the operating name of the

Greater Lafayette Public Transportation Corporation. The purpose of our project is to create a

centralized, reliable source of information for CityBus riders by utilizing a mobile application

(app). In this feasibility report, we will summarize the problems found with current CityBus

social media, discuss our data and findings, present our design for a CityBus app, explain the

criteria used to evaluate the app design, and review the feasibility of creating the app.

Social Media Concerns and Possible Solution

Currently, the CityBus system has a website, Facebook page, blog, and Twitter account. There is

also a texting service and a Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) for phones. The Facebook site(CityBus Fan Page, 2011), Twitter page (@GoCityBus, 2011), and blog (CityBus News

and Notes, 2011) all provide updates on route information, closures, and construction; however,

there is no information on these sites about regular schedules or real-time stop information. The

texting service (MyRideTEXT, 2011) and WAP site (MyRideWAP, 2011) allow riders to

receive accurate departure times by providing stop information while not at a computer. While

the current social media created by CityBus utilizes various outlets, there is a lack of a

centralized location to access all CityBus information.

One form of social media not being used by CityBus is a mobile phone app. An app would have

the ability to provide accurate departure times, CityBus information and updates, and would beportable for riders when unable to access a computer. Therefore, our solution to the decentralized

social media currently provided by CityBus is an app encompassing all of the desired features

from existing sites.

Mobile Apps: Data and Findings

To determine the receptivity of a mobile app to Lafayette CityBus riders, our group found

general information on smartphones and mobile app success, surveyed Purdue students and

Lafayette residents, and researched the competition. Understanding global app trends, our

audience, and our competitors will help us create an app that is consistent with technologicaltrends and our target users needs, as well as stand out from other similar apps.

Global App Trends

According to Kathy Nagamine and data from the International Data Corporation (IDC) (2011),


4/26

November 2011 3

vendors shipped a total of 100.9 million smartphones during the fourth quarter of 2010 (4Q10),

up 87.2% from the 53.9 million smartphones shipped during 4Q09 (para. 1). The article also

states that shipment of smartphones worldwide increased 74.4% for the entire year of 2010

(para.1). Smartphone sales are increasingly on the rise around the world, which means more

exposure for mobile features, such as apps. According to ABI Research (2011), Global app

downloads for year-end 2011 are expected to balloon to 29 billion, compared to only nine billionin 2010 (para. 5). Along with smartphone sales, app downloads are also currently experiencing

a rise in popularity. These trends show a rapid increase within the app market, which is

encouraging for potential app developers.

Surveying Our Audience

Once we determined that mobile apps are increasing in popularity world-wide, we wanted to

support these trends by surveying our audience. We first surveyed 63 random Purdue students,

and out of the 41 students with smart phones, 32 expressed interest in a CityBus app (See

Appendix A.1). Because CityBus runs throughout both Purdues campus and the greaterLafayette area, we decided to also poll Lafayette residents. A survey of 70 random Lafayette

residents resulted in 31 people expressing interest in an app (See Appendix A.2). While the

figures obtained from Lafayette residents are lower than the student figures, there still appears to

be some interest for an app.

The Competition

After finding interest in the proposed app, we decided to research existing apps used by Purdue

students. Our purpose of learning about competing apps was to get an idea of features are

currently used, features not used, and popularity of the apps. Our apps competitors would be thePurdueBus app for androids and the Purdue app for iPhones. The PurdueBus application shows

campus bus stop locations and scheduled times for bus arrivals, while the Purdue app has a

smaller subset of the app dedicated to bus route times. The main limitation of these apps is the

restricted area covered; both apps cater to Purdue students by providing only campus loop

information. Because there is already two Purdue Bus Apps that are currently in use, there

appears to be a niche to fill for bus apps. If CityBus decides to capitalize on the app industry by

creating their own app, the credibility of the information provided on the apps will improve, and

bus riders are likely to choose an app created by the bus system itself rather than second parties.

Recommendation: Our App Interface Design

The next step for our proposed solution to CityBus social media concerns is to develop sample

interfaces for a possible app design. In order to develop a functioning app, design interfaces can

be created as a reference and evaluated, looking for flaws, gaps or errors in data, flow, and

analyzing overall appeal. Online sites allow designers to create mock screen shots; we chose to


5/26

November 2011 4

use Balsamiq.com, a free and simple site for designing a basic mock-up. While sites like

Balsamiq do not evaluate the design for functionality or determine if the app is technologically

possible, the designs created using the site can help developers view the clients ideas to

determine if and how the app can be developed.

Balsamiq allowed us to design 14 screenshots based on our research and our own ideas. Some ofthe features included were inspired from existing apps (like the PurdueBus app) that work well,

such as detailed maps enabled with GPS. We also added features we believed would be

important, such as the ability to add favorites, view updates, and view current weather. The

Balsamiq tool kit provides the basic shapes, icons, and text boxes typically seen on an iPhone

app, which can be dragged into place, altered in color, shape, and size, and edited. Anyone can

design a screenshot; no user-name or password is required. However, to access all of the features

available on Balsamiq, a package must be bought. As a result, our designs are somewhat limited

to the specific tools provided, which were free of cost. The actual design would likely appear

more professional and could contain some features not shown.

In attempts to illustrate the potential functionality of the app, we also created a map of the flow

of information between the interfaces. The arrows in the map show the screenshots that appear

after clicking on each button from the homepage. The design mind map can be seen in Appendix

B.1, and enlarged images of the designs can be seen in Appendices B.2B.6. The designs in

Appendices B.2B.6 are numbered according to the numbers in the design map to help with

identifying each interface, and a brief description is provided about each screenshot.

Criteria for Evaluation

After creating our interface designs, it was necessary to evaluate our work objectively. By

researching companies that conduct professional evaluations of apps, we were able to define un-

biased criteria to apply to our app design. The basis of the criteria was developed from Jacob

Gube (2011), Founder and Chief Editor ofSix Revisions, a web development and design site,

and the Deputy Editor ofDesign Instruct, a web magazine for designers, and from Vensi (2011),

a professional mobile application development company created in 2006 (para. 2-8).

The following criteria were used to evaluate our app: clarity, efficiency, help section,

consistency, learnability, fault tolerance, readability, navigability, speed, and cost to users. Each

criterion is explained with a table listing the possible scores (on a 1 to 5 scale) and supporting

descriptions to justify how the score was applied to the app design. For a complete summary ofthe scores for our interface design, see Appendix C.
http://sixrevisions.com/http://designinstruct.com/http://designinstruct.com/http://sixrevisions.com/


6/26

November 2011 5

1. ClarityScale 1 3 5

Justification Too many or too fewfeatures

Features are unrelatedto the purpose of the

app

Complex design,cluttered in appearance

Most of the featuresare related to the

purpose

Some features areless related to the

purpose and seem

out of place

All features of theapplication are unified with

a clear purpose

Simple design used (notcomplex in nature)

All features are related andmatch the scope and

purpose of the app

Our app received a score of 4 for Clarity. Our design is simple and uncluttered, with white space

where appropriate, and not too many features per screen. For example, the homepage features

each icon against a white background without distracting images, allowing users to see exactlywhich icon to press. Because the phone will be a touch-screen, having items too close together

could interfere with icon selection; therefore, we spaced each list item in consideration to

touchscreen ease of use. Aside from our weather feature, all features of the app relate directly to

CityBus (routes, stops, maps, updates). The weather feature is not directly related to our purpose,

but it could be helpful for some users because weather can influence a person to ride the bus (e.g.

inclement conditions).

2. EfficiencyScale 1 3 5Justification App is either not

available on iTunes

(or related site) or is

difficult to locate

from other source

Only available for onephone model

Information is notreliable

App may be availablein iTunes app store (or

related) but is difficult

to find

App only provided forcertain phone models

Information somewhatreliable

The app is available in theiTunes app store (or

related)

The app is easy to find usingbasic search terms

App is available on multiplephone models

Information is up-to-dateand is directly from CityBus

Because our app has not been developed yet, we cannot determine its Efficiency score. Our goal

is to have the app available on multiple smartphone models (iPhone, Android, etc.), but we

would likely begin with a single model to gain initial feedback. Also, our updates feature will

provide users with information directly from the source, CityBus, and we are hoping to have

updates regularly.


7/26

November 2011 6

3. Help SectionScale 1 3 5

Justification No help section orfrequently asked

question page (FAQ)

No user interactionoption or feedback

possibilities

No links to outsidesources for help

No contactinformation for users

to contact developers

Limited help sectionand no frequently

asked question page

(FAQ)

No user interactionavailable and no

feedback possibilities

Limited links to othersites for additional help

Some contactinformation provided

There is a help sectionpresent and a frequently

asked question page (FAQ)

User interactions arepossible (ability to ask

questions, receive timely

responses, ability to make

suggestions)

Links to more help arepresent and a

troubleshooting section

present

All relevant contactinformation provided

Our app received a score of 3 for Help Section. There is some help provided for the users, but it

is limited. The About CityBus section of the app provides useful links and basic information

for bus riders. Most of this information is located on the CityBus website as well. However, our

app does not offer user interaction or the ability for the app users to provide feedback to

CityBus. Because the app is directly through CityBus, riders could use information on the

website to contact CityBus and give feedback, so feedback could still be offered.

4. ConsistencyScale 1 3 5

Justification Brand is notmentioned within the

app at all

Colors seemdisconnected to brand

and lack of companyicons

Different style thanoriginal company

website

Some attention to thebrand but not

consistent

Similar color schemebut no relatable icons

or same color scheme

App is consistent with brandof company and the brand

is mentioned within the app

Similar color schemethroughout and is

consistent with the schemeof the original website


8/26

November 2011 7

Our app scored a 3 in Consistency. The app relates to the CityBus brand utilizing an About

CityBus button on the home screen. Due to the limitations on the interface design site, we were

unable to use the CityBus icons and we were not given a wide range of choices for color scheme.

Ideally, we would stick to the red, white, and blue color scheme found on CityBus site and

buses. The content of the application is consistent and similar to the information and featuresavailable on the CityBus main web page, including loop maps, riding information, and route

names. All information in the app is presented in a similar format to the website, which allows

riders to transfer the knowledge of the website easily to app. Also, this ensures that the tone and

style of the app is consistent with CityBus other social media.

5. LearnabilityScale 1 3 5

Justification Instructions forcomplicated tasks are

missing and there is a

lack of direction

New features are verydifficult to understand

and learn

Some information canbe found online but is

limited in its

instructional qualities

The application isgenerally easy to

understand although

some practice is

required

The application does notrequire an instruction

manual

User tips can be found inthe app store or online for

more complicated features

that need further

instruction

The information found onthe app can easily be

accessed on the website

and has a similar format

Our app received a 4 in Learnability. Our app requires little practice to navigate and learn,

mainly because many features and labels are similar to the CityBus website, such as lists and

names of bus routes and loops. Labels are also clear, such as updates and routes, which lead

users directly to pages with information relevant to the selected icon. Similarly, the icons on the

home-screen relate to the section on the phone (such as a cloud for weather and a stop sign for

stops). Because the app is not yet in the app store online, there are no features in the store to help

users; however, we hope to provide basic information in the store. By using a similar format to

the website and other social media outlets currently used by CityBus, new users that already have

an understanding of the other CityBus media outlets will have an easier time learning to use the

app.


9/26

November 2011 8

6. Fault ToleranceScale 1 3 5

Justification The application maybe prone to freezes

or malfunctions due

to improper

programming

If an error is madeduring the running of

the application, the

user will have to

restart all progress

There are limitedfeatures including

few back tools so

recovery is difficult

The application isinconsistent with its

fault tolerance

features

The application has a quick

recovery time if crashes do

occur

The application hosts featuressuch as redo/return/home

screen buttons

The application features a backbutton which allows you to

reverse your searches or

progress throughout the

applications run

Our app received a score of 5 for Fault Tolerance. Our app features prominent back and

home buttons to allow users to retrace their path, return to the home-screen if an error is made,

and repeat a step. The back buttons appear as arrows at the top of the screen, and the home

buttons look like houses at the top of the screen. Back-tracking will be easy on this app, which

will allow for a faster recovery time if a mistake is made. Also, if a user wants to retrace steps or

repeat a process, returning to the home-screen each time is not necessary.

7. ReadabilityScale 1 3 5

Justification Fonts are not legibleBackground and font

colors are too similar

making it hard to read

and distracting

App has distractingimages and/or icon that

move and may not berelated to the purpose.

Text and color aresomewhat easy to

read

Some minordistractions

Fonts are legible and largeenough to read

Contrast in colors toenhance readability

There are no distractions inthe design

Text phrases are short (noparagraphs to read)

Our app scored a 5 in Readability because we utilized legible fonts, such as sans serif and

italics. Any descriptions are short and to the point, allowing to user to spend less time reading


10/26

November 2011 9

and more time using the app. For example, the updates will likely feed directly from the existing

Twitter. Because Twitter updates are limited to 140 characters, the updates on the app will be

short and concise. This will allow users to quickly learn information and find answers to

questions quickly. The background of the app is a solid, light color to enhance contrast and

prevent distractions. The font size is large enough to read, and maps with smaller font have zoom

tools to expand the size of images to enhance readability. There is also a contrast in colors so thefonts stand out from the background and are easy to read.

8. NavigabilityScale 1 3 5

Justification There is no centralizedhomepage for the user

to reference.

No search tools for theuser to find what they

are looking for.

It requires numerousclicks to find a page (>8)

The organization of theapp is unclear and

confusing

Requires between5-8 clicks to reach a

page

There is someorganization.

No clear organizedscheme.

The app is well organizedwith labels, clearly legible

and descriptive buttons,

homepages, and items arecolor coded

A search bar is provided It only takes a few clicks

(


11/26

November 2011 10

9. SpeedScale 1 3 5

Justification App is slow when inuse and in

downloading

App stalls often andhas poor refresh time

The file size is largeor interferes with

normal phone

functions usage

App has moderateloading speed when in

use and in

downloading

App requires sometime (20 -30 sec) for

loading of information

There are some delayswhen navigation

within the app to

access other

screens/options

App loads quickly and isrefreshed often when in

use.

The size of file download ismanageable and does not

interfere with normal

phone functions.

Prompt app navigation(within 20 seconds),

reaches new pages

promptly after clicked on.

Because our app has not been developed yet we cannot determine a score for Speed. We areunsure of the file size, speed, and loading time that will be present in our app. We hope to havean app scoring highly in Speed to be useful for CityBus riders anticipating the next bus. Ideally,the app will have a quick speed to keep riders accurately informed using GPS and the most up-to-date features. If the app runs slowly, riders will not be well-informed about stops, defeatingthe purpose of the app.

10.Cost to UsersScale 1 3 5Justification There is a cost for entire

app for the users upon

download

No trial period or starterversion available to

download

Must pay for upgrades ornew versions releasedperiodically

App has a free trialavailable and after trial is

over the user is charged

a fee for continued use

of app

App has limited featuresfor free and user must

pay if they want the

premium version

The app is free toall users

permanently upon

download

No cost forupgrades or

downloads of a

new versions

released

We were unable to determine our apps score for Cost to Users because it has not beendeveloped yet. We are planning on creating a completely free app, but this would depend on thetotal cost for the app and the possibility of advertising on the app itself. If the app is free, itwould most likely have a higher popularity among students and residents because of the ease of


12/26

November 2011 11

accessibility. Free trial periods could offer limited features, and to receive all features, an updatewould need to be purchased. This method may encourage some to pay extra for more features,but it might also limit the number of people interested in the app.

App Feasibility

After creating and evaluating an app design, we believe the core features illustrated in our

interfaces would provide an excellent starting point for the CityBus app development. Based on

our analysis of each criterion for the app, we believe our app design would be feasible for

CityBus, if slight modifications are made. Overall, our app scored 30 out of 35 possible points

(not including the three criteria for which scores were non-applicable). In short, the 30 points

refer to the main design of the app, while functionality cannot yet be determined without actual

creation of the app. Based on design alone, our app scored relatively high.

The main areas of concern are Consistency and Help Section, which each scored a 3 out of 5.

Consistency is a concern for our app because brand loyalty to CityBus is critical. Our app will becompeting with existing apps, and should stand out by clearly representing CityBus to add

credibility. At present, our app is somewhat disconnected in appearance with the CityBus brand

due to a lack of similar color scheme, fonts, and icons. The main reason for this disconnection is

the program used to design the app, which did not allow for a range of font colors and styles, and

adding outside images was challenging. Therefore, we believe that while the app scored low in

Consistency, improvements could be made by either using a different program (which may cost a

fee), or asking real developers about specific design elements.

Our other area of concern is the Help Section. Our group did not consider adding a feedback

category to the app, which limits user input to make changes, correct errors, and improve the appto better serve riders. Although no information is provided on the app, because the app will be

directly through CityBus, riders can suggest changes through the websites existing comment

form and contact information. Our app received such a low score because while the app itself

limits feedback, riders can utilize CityBus other online forms of communication to contact

CityBus with concerns.

Aside from Consistency and Help Section, our app scored high in all other design elements. The

app is easy to navigate and read, it is not overly complex, and the design allows users to quickly

fix mistakes. Despite our design, we cannot answer questions on the feasibility of the apps

functionality, including speed, cost, and efficiency. These three categories are of greatimportance to users that expect a high quality and timely app. Because we cannot determine how

exactly the app will work without its creation, the true feasibility cannot be fully assed. It is for

this reason that we cannot state with complete certainty that our app will be feasible for CityBus,

and more research and development must be done.


13/26

November 2011 12

Implementation Plan and Conclusion

We believe the app design is only one component of the entire feasibility plan for the CityBus

app, and other considerations must be made when determining if an app is right for CityBus.

Therefore, our group came up with several recommendations to implement the app, which are

based on research by a current developer. We would like to contribute our thoughts on cost for

CityBus, sustainability, and design modification, in hopes that our ideas will help CityBus make

a final decision on feasibility in the future.

Cost

One of the initial concerns with app development is the cost for the company to create the app.

Our group contacted Tim Watson, the creator of the Purdue Buses app to determine a realistic

price range for development (T. Watson, personal communication, November 4, 2011).

According to Watson, hiring a developer can cost up to $10,000 to $20,000; however, to create

the app without hiring a professional developer, the cost is only $100 a year for the Apple

development account (for Apple apps). We recommend alleviating the high cost of hiring a

developer, a student or a group of students could be hired at a lower cost, or even offer their

services for free. Therefore, the work will not have to be outsourced, and CityBus can help

showcase some of the talents of Purdue Students at a reduced price.

Sustainability

If a student creates the app, the biggest concern with the app might be sustainability for the

future. Watson believed that an app like our idea would not need a full-time developer to

maintain the system. Instead, a developer could be contacted (or students) if updates are needed.

The average cost of a developer can reach $100 an hour, but this option is still less expensive

than hiring a developer to create the app initially. Watson also suggested that the app could

automatically pull in information from the existing CityBus Twitter or blog, so updates relating

to buses are updated regularly without the need of a developer. Also, this option would help

connect the existing social media to the app and help to centralize CityBus information. To help

with the cost of developing an app, we recommend advertising space can be made within the

app. The advertisements would only take up a small space on the app, so the basic design would

not change dramatically. This would allow local businesses to purchase space on the app for

advertising, which both increases community awareness of small businesses and helps with the

apps costs for upkeep.

Design Modification

The app design will depend on the operating system and any updates related to the mobile device

being used. The features, design details, and abilities of the app, such as GPS and weather, may


14/26

November 2011 13

not be possible with certain phones, so our interface designs may need altering. Our group is

willing to work with CityBus and offer our ideas if the design must be changed or updated, and

we understand that not all features might be available at a reasonable cost.

Conclusion

Our goal for CityBus is to create a centralized form of social media utilizing app technology.

After evaluation our design, we believe that our core elements and features would benefit

CityBus, although further research and testing must be done to determine true functionality of a

working app.

The design presented in this report has features not seen in other apps, such as creating favorites,

providing updates directly from the source, and a weather snapshot. These features will help the

CityBus app stand out from competitors, as well as simplify and enhance riders experience on

CityBus. Our design also scored high in various design elements, and would serve as an

excellent template for the creation of a CityBus app, with some of the slight modificationsmentioned in the feasibility section.

Our novel features and strong design would help to unify CityBus social media, while providing

extended services to Purdue students and Lafayette residents. While there are other

considerations that must be made by CityBus, including cost, sustainability, and design

modification, we hope that our app design and input and ideas for implementation will help

CityBus make the decision to create their own, centralized mobile app.


15/26

November 2011 14

References

ABI Research (2011, October 24). Android Overtakes Apple with 44% Worldwide Share of

Mobile App Downloads. Retrieved from http://www.abiresearch.com/press/3799-

Android+Overtakes+Apple+with+44%25+Worldwide+Share+of+Mobile+App+DownloadsCityBus (2011). CityBus Fan Page. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/pages/CityBus-

Fan-Page/261336093175

CityBus (2011). CityBus News and Notes. Retrieved from

http://citybusnews.blogspot.com/2011/10/state-st-resurfacing-impacts-citybus.html

CityBus (2011). @GoCityBus. Retrieved from http://twitter.com/#!/GoCityBus

Greater Lafayette Public Transportation Corp. (GLPTC/CityBus) (2011). MyRideTEXT.

Retrieved from http://www.gocitybus.com/myridetext.html.

Greater Lafayette Public Transportation Corp. (GLPTC/CityBus) (2011). MyRideWAP.

Retrieved from http://www.gocitybus.com/myridewap.html

Gube, J. (2011, September 30). 22 Essential Tools for Testing Your Websites Usability. Retrieved

from http://mashable.com/2011/09/30/website-usability-tools/

Nagamine, K. (2011, February 7). Android Rises, Symbian^3 and Windows Phone 7 Launch as

Worldwide Smartphone Shipments Increase 87.2% Year Over Year, According to IDC.

Retrieved from

http://www.idc.com/about/viewpressrelease.jsp?containerId=prUS22689111&sectionId=

null&elementId=null&pageType=SYNOPSIS

Vensi (2011, January 17). What Makes a Good Mobile Application?. Retrieved from

http://vensi.com/blog/what-makes-a-good-mobile-application/165/
http://www.abiresearch.com/press/3799-Android+Overtakes+Apple+with+44%25+Worldwide+Share+of+Mobile+App+Downloadshttp://www.abiresearch.com/press/3799-Android+Overtakes+Apple+with+44%25+Worldwide+Share+of+Mobile+App+Downloadshttp://www.abiresearch.com/press/3799-Android+Overtakes+Apple+with+44%25+Worldwide+Share+of+Mobile+App+Downloadshttps://www.facebook.com/pages/CityBus-http://citybusnews.blogspot.com/2011/10/state-st-resurfacing-impacts-citybus.htmlhttp://twitter.com/#%21/GoCityBushttp://www.gocitybus.com/myridewap.htmlhttp://mashable.com/2011/09/30/website-usability-tools/http://www.idc.com/about/viewpressrelease.jsp?containerId=prUS22689111&sectionId=null&elementId=null&pageType=SYNOPSIShttp://www.idc.com/about/viewpressrelease.jsp?containerId=prUS22689111&sectionId=null&elementId=null&pageType=SYNOPSIShttp://vensi.com/blog/what-makes-a-good-mobile-application/165/http://vensi.com/blog/what-makes-a-good-mobile-application/165/http://www.idc.com/about/viewpressrelease.jsp?containerId=prUS22689111&sectionId=null&elementId=null&pageType=SYNOPSIShttp://www.idc.com/about/viewpressrelease.jsp?containerId=prUS22689111&sectionId=null&elementId=null&pageType=SYNOPSIShttp://mashable.com/2011/09/30/website-usability-tools/http://www.gocitybus.com/myridewap.htmlhttp://twitter.com/#%21/GoCityBushttp://citybusnews.blogspot.com/2011/10/state-st-resurfacing-impacts-citybus.htmlhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/CityBus-http://www.abiresearch.com/press/3799-Android+Overtakes+Apple+with+44%25+Worldwide+Share+of+Mobile+App+Downloadshttp://www.abiresearch.com/press/3799-Android+Overtakes+Apple+with+44%25+Worldwide+Share+of+Mobile+App+Downloadshttp://www.abiresearch.com/press/3799-Android+Overtakes+Apple+with+44%25+Worldwide+Share+of+Mobile+App+Downloads


16/26

November 2011 15

Appendix A

Surveys

A.1 Survey of Purdue Students

A.2 Survey of Lafaytte Residents


17/26

November 2011 16

A.1 Survey of Purdue Students

Our group conducted a poll with 63 random Purdue students on campus in October of 2011. We

asked students if they would be interested in an app created by CityBus, not part of the

PurdueBus or Purdue apps. We told them the app would likely include features such as bus

routes, maps, real-time updates on stops, information on closures, and possibly weather. Theresults were collected and are illustrated in the graph below:

Poll of Purdue University Students:

Would you be interested in a CityBus App?

Interested (32 Students)

Do Not Have a Smart-Phone (22

students)

Not Interested (9 students)


18/26

November 2011 17

A.2 Survey of Lafayette Residents

Our group conducted a poll with 70 random Lafayette residents on October 29, 2011. We asked

residents if they would be interested in a CityBus app. We told them the app would likely include

features such as bus routes, maps, real-time updates on stops, information on closures, and

possibly weather. The results were collected and are illustrated in the graph below:

Poll of Lafayette, IN Residents: Would you be

interested in a CityBus App?

Interested (31 residents)

Not Interested (39 residents)


19/26

November 2011 18

Appendix B

Interface Design

B.1 Interface Mind Map

B.2 Screenshots 1 3

B.3 Screenshots 4 6

B.4 Screenshots 7 9

B.5 Screenshots 10 12

B.6 Screenshots 13 - 14


20/26

November 2011 19

B.1 Interface Mind Map

This mind-map of screenshots illustrates the anticipated flow of information. The center image

(#1) represents the home-screen, and the color-coded arrows branching from each icon on #1

show the screen that would appear after clicking each new button. The purpose of this map is to

see how each screen will relate to the other screens; further information about each screen isprovided in Appendicies B.2B.6


21/26

November 2011 20


1Home-screen

When the app starts, this is the first screen users will

see. There are 7 buttons located on the Home-screen,leading to the remaining 13 screens. The buttons arecolor-coded, with colors that remain consistent foreach section. The buttons are: Routes, Stops, Map,Favorite Stops, Weather, Updates, and CityBusInformation. When the home icon is clicked on any

other screen, it will lead to the homepage.

2

Routes

When the black Routes button is clicked from thehome-screen, a list of all of the CityBus routes willbe listed. Riders can select a category of routes,which will lead them to screen 3.

3 - Routes

From screen 2, riders will see a list of all routeswithin the category selected. There is a scroll bar tofind all routes, and a back button (the arrow) toreturn to the previous screen if an error has beenmade.


22/26

November 2011 21


4Routes

Once a specific route is selected from screen 3, the

rider can choose a specific stop of interest. Thepurple icons located next to each stop allow the riderto favorite a stop (more information on screen 8).From this screen, riders can click Route Map

leading to screen 5, or they can click on a specificstop, leading to screen 7)

5

Routes

From screen 4, riders can view the general route mapdrawing (typically found on the CityBus website). Azoom tool (the magnifying glass icon) allows users toexamine the map closely to find stops of interest. Aback button/arrow allows users to return to the

previous screen

6 - Stops

When the gold button is selected from the home-screen, users will see a list of all stops used byCityBus. Because of the lengthy list, a search bar anda scroll bar are available to find stops more quickly.The stops will be organized alphabetically. The

purple icons located next to each stop allow the riderto favorite a stop (more information on screen


23/26

November 2011 22


7Stops

This screen can be accessed from multiple locations.

Every time stop information is requested, from theroutes section, stop section, or favorites section, theuser will see this screen with accurate departuretimes for the stop, and the loops that currently reachthe specific stop. From this screen, the map can alsobe accessed (see screen 12).

8

Favorite Stops

When the purple button is selected from the home-screen, riders will see a screen with their favorite

stops. The favorites come from items selected onscreens 4 and 6. There is a search bar to search forstops, and a home button to return to the home-screen. From this screen, stop information can beviewed (screen 7).

9 - Updates

When the red button is selected from the home-screen, riders will see a screen with updates directlyfrom CityBus, including closures, construction, timechanges, etc. Each update can be clicked on to

expand and read. The home button returns users tothe home-screen, and the scroll bar helps users viewall updates. Most recent updates will appear on thetop of the screen.


24/26

November 2011 23


10CityBus Information

When the tan button is selected from the home-

screen, riders will see a list of CityBus informationtopics (originally round on the CityBus website).

Each section can be selected and the topic will

expanded to include all web-content. A home button

returns users to the home-screen.

11

Weather

When the blue button is selected from the home-

screen, riders will see a screen with the current

weather in Lafayette. The weather screen would

likely include temperature, precipitation/conditions,

wind chill, and an image representing the current

weather. A home button returns users to the home-

screen.

12Map

When the green button is selected from the home-

screen, riders will see a screen with a satellite map of

Purdue and Lafayette. Screen 7 can also lead riders to

this screen. The green dots on the map represent a

CityBus stop (which could be selected), and the blue

and white circles represent the riders current location.

The icon in the top right allows riders to return to

their current location after scrolling away. Riders can

click Highlight Route, leading to screen 13. A

home button returns users to the home-screen.


25/26

November 2011 24


13Map

When Highlight Route is selected from screen 12,a list of all of the routes is provided. Users then click

on the route they wish to be highlighted, leading

them to screen 14.

14Map

After a route is selected from screen 13, riders will

see the selected route highlighted in bright yellow.

This allows riders to see the entire route and each

stop made.


26/26

25

Appendix C Summary of Interface ScoresUsing the criteria and objective justifications, our group evaluated our app interface designs.

These tables represent the scores given to the app in each criteria. Scores are based on a 15

scale, which is detailed in the Criteria for Evaluation section of the paper.

Criteria Clarity Efficiency Help Section Consistency Learnability

Interface

Score4 N/A 3 3 4

Criteria Fault

Tolerance

Readability Navigability Speed Cost to Users

Interface

Score5 5 5 N/A N/A

Documents

City Bus Application Project