Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SI622 Evaluations of Systems and ServicesProject: PublicDrum.org
Team Stick: Ricardo Yi, Dawn Barton,
Lisa Quist, Edwin Teng
Presentation Outline
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
• Overview of Public Drum
• Methods
• Findings & Recommendations
• Summary
About PublicDrum.org
• Overview of Public Drum
– Aggregation Service
– Event Distribution
• Types of Users
– Aggregators
– Creators
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
User Demographics
Bryan Shaw
• Occupation: Concert promoter in Chicago
• Age: 35
• Education: Bachelor's degree (liberal arts)
Elizabeth Bennett
• Works part time at Home Depot.
• Age: 27
• Education: BA in music performance
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
Methods Summary
Comparative Evaluation
• 5 competitors: Zvents, Yahoo Upcoming, ArborWeb, ArborWiki ,
ArtsEverywhere
Heuristic Evaluation
• 4 Evaluators, 14 findings
Survey
• Response Rate: 22.8%
User Testing
• 1 pilots tests, 5 actual tests; 7 findings
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
Comparative Evaluation
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
Heuristic Evaluation # Issue Severity Heuristic Category1 Design 0 Aesthetic and minimalist design2 Event entry form 1.5 Consistency and
standards/Recognition rather than recall/ Visibility of system status
3 User Registration 2 User control and freedom/ Error prevention
4 Difficult to see who is using Public Drum
2 Aesthetic and minimalist design/ Consistency and standards/ Match between system and the real world
5 Global and Footer navs use unexpected vocabulary
2 Consistency and standards/ Match between system and the real world
6 Event Recommendations 3 Recognition rather than recall/ Flexibility and efficiency of use
7 No way to tell if aggregators have subscribed to an event
3 Visibility of system status
8 Search Vocabulary 3 Match between system and the real world/ Consistency and standards
9 Hard to enter events 3 Flexibility and efficiency of use/ Consistency and standards/ Error prevention
10 Global and Footer navs are difficult to navigate
3 Flexibility and efficiency of use/ Aesthetic and minimalist design/ Consistency and standards
11 Status of Event Submission 3.5 Visibility of system status12 Difficult to navigate website 3.5 Consistency and standards/
Flexibility and efficiency of use/ Error prevention
13 Event Correction Process 4 Error prevention
14 Hard to find search 4 Consistency and standards/ Visibility of system status
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
Survey
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
User Testing
# Usability Issue Priority Category1 Unclear navigation terminology 4 Task 2, Task 3
2 Buttons are unclear and out-of-place
4 Task 2, Task 4
3 Lack of Feedback 3 Task 1, Task 2, Task 4
4 Extra and/or out-of-place elements on the form
2.5 Task 2
5 Unclear terminology and requirements within forms
2 Task 1,Task 2, Task 3
6 Time entry is confusing/annoying 1.5 Task 2
7 Calendar configuration is confusing/annoying
1 Task 2
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
Finding #1
• Users have difficulty logging in
– lack of system feedback
– unclear what they're supposed to do
• Recommendations
– Big font saying you must check your email to complete
registration
– Do not say you have successfully completed it because people do
not check email after seeing that
– Have the least amount of text as possible, because people do not
read big blocks of text
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
Finding #2
• Navigation is unclear and disorienting to the user.
• Recommendations
– Consistent navigation throughout the site
– ONE global nav
– buttons should look like buttons, users accidentally
– clicked the help part
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
Finding #3
• Form elements do not conform to web standards which confuses the
user.
• Recommendations
– asterisk the required fields
– collapse the information that does not pertain to every user (ticket
details, sound, images)
– buttons should be at the bottom of the form
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
Finding #4
• Vocabulary does not meet web standards and confuses users
• Recommendations
– use standard web vocabulary. for example, search vs. find vs.
track vs. use
– be consistent. enter events does not also mean edit events
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
Finding #5
• Buttons do not conform to web standards and confuse users
– buttons generally happen at the bottom of the form
– buttons usually look alike (as in not have red font)
– buttons do not change functions (publish/unpublish)
• Recommendations
– publish/unpublish/save for later could be accomplished with
radio buttons and "save" button--this way there is no confusion
– remove unnecessary buttons/clarify function (clear form vs. clear)
– separate functions
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
Expected benefits
• System feedback in these areas will allow users to feel more
comfortable, by giving them more information about the system
status
• Reducing user frustration by increasing system visibility will increase
use of site by creators, which will increase use of site by aggregators.
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
Summary
• Areas for future investigation?
– Search, perhaps, or Aggregation section
– "Tools" section has code, code is scary etc.
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
Q&AThank you!
Introduction MethodsFindings &
Recommendations
Summary
