|
|
|
|
|
Introduction
|
|
|
In
this section, we will discuss each phase of our interface
development. We used 3 methods to test our prototype, iterating
between each pass, paper-prototyping with users, heuristic
evaluation with a group of experts, and informal user testing
on our interactive prototype. In addition, we also performed
an experiment on one aspect of possible idea for the visual
design.
|
Paper
Prototyping Synopsis
|
|
|
For
this first stage of the design process, we first created rough
sketches of the main pages, then converted these into a paper
"computer" with a paper "screen" to represent
the primary pages of the site. We then tested this prototype
on 3 users, using an informal 'talk aloud' method. From this
feedback, we moved onto a flat html prototype with limited
interactivity. Full
Report
|
Heuristic
Evaluation Synopsis
|
|
|
For
this initial interactive prototype (primarily relying on links
between pages for the interactivity), we then had a fellow
group of students, usability experts, perform a heuristic
evaluation. We, in turn, evaluated their interface. From these
results, we then started to build out the interface, developing
all of the primary pages and main functionality. Full
Report
|
Informal
User Testing
Synopsis
|
|
|
This
informal usability study was designed to identify aspects
of the TraveLite system that users find difficult or easy.
We also sought feedback from participants regarding how TraveLite
could improve to match needs and expectations. This evaluation
was conducted on the Second Interactive Prototype. We conducted
this study in two sessions. On the first we tested 4 people
and discovered some very serious problems with the interface.
We fixed the major problems, primarily having to do with our
business model and interaction flow, and tested another three
potential users. Full
Report
|
|
Visual
Design Experiment Synopsis |
| |
In
this experiment, we compared an interface that uses visualization,
IBM's Visual Attribute Explorer, to two forms-based interfaces,
one flat and one that dynamically shows query results. Tasks
had to do with choosing a set of restaurants. We wanted to find
out how the interfaces compared in terms of task completion
time, quality of query results and user confidence. In addition,
we collected user satisfaction information. We also wanted to
determine whether textual training had any impact on success
with the visualization interface. Full
Report |
|
