Archive

Posts Tagged ‘UX’

Event Style Usability Testing

July 9th, 2010 Aaron 1 comment

During a recent project, a client asked us to evaluate the initial user experience for setting up a telephony product. They were not interested in doing a more traditional usability test as they felt that this “out of the box” experience could not be easily captured or replicated by forcing a user to perform a set of pre-defined tasks. They wanted feedback that was more contextual and ethnographic in nature, but they still wanted the quantitative data such as times, errors, assists, and usability ratings that you get from standard usability testing. The more we thought about this, the more we came to realize that there is a gap in methods from where lab testing ends and contextual/ethnographic studies begin.

Bridging the gap - Event Style Testing

Bridging the gap - Event Style Testing

Usability testing is often used for getting feedback or benchmarking the usability of key task flows of a product or service. These key tasks are discrete and isolated to make it easier to get more quantitative data, but this comes at the cost of losing what the natural workflow may be since a structure or order is enforced. The natural workflow is something that is researched through more contextual methods. What we wanted for this project was to be able to allow a natural workflow that would allow users to use multiple tools and do things that were not expected by the product team while being able to get metrics such as time, errors, assists, and perceived usability. With this in mind, we created a method that we’ve dubbed internally as Event Style Usability Testing to help bridge this gap between usability testing and contextual/ethnographic studies.

Components of Event Style Usability Testing

There are a couple of basic components to the use of Event Style Usability Testing

  • A set of pre-defined “events” are identified that users are asked to perform.
  • Users are allowed to use a system (or software) to do the events in any way and any order that they deem appropriate. There is no forced order.
  • The test facilitator records the events as they take place creating a workflow record as well as keeping metrics such as time that events start and stop, number of errors and assists for events, and perceived usability of events.
  • New events that were not pre-defined or expected are added ad hoc as they are observed during sessions.

To better understand this, what do I mean by an “event”? Events are very similar to tasks that are used in more standard usability testing with a couple of distinctions. Like tasks, events are created that users are asked to perform or experience. For example, an event would be to send an online payment to a person from an online bank account. If this were simply a task in a usability study, then users may be told specifics about who to send the payment to, for how much, and when it should arrive by. For an event, things are turned into a scenario as much as possible.  They are told what they are trying to accomplish, not given specifics.  In the case of the event for sending an online payment, users would choose who to send it to, for how much, from what account, etc.  Allowing them to shape the event using their own data or specific to their own interests allows interesting insights and observations about what users may do in real situations.

Once the events have been pre-defined, an event list is created for participants to use for the session. Prior to beginning the session, users are asked to read the entire list of events that they will be asked to do. They are then instructed to complete the list of events in whatever order they would like and makes the most sense to them. Having them read through the entire list of events this way allows them simulate more closely what they would do out in the real world. It’s assumed in most systems and software that users generally know what they want to do (or else why are they using the system or software in the first place) but may not know specifically how to do it. Event style testing aims to more closely replicated this.

The rest of the process now relies on the careful observation of the testing facilitator. Since there is no specified order that participants are using to complete events, the facilitator needs to monitor what events the participant is attempting or in the process of doing. This includes capturing time stamps of when an event is started, completed, or stopped and not completed, or resumed after being stopped previously. While observing each event, other usability metrics can be captured as well such as any observed errors, assists needed, and other usability scores.

The last piece to the Event Style Process is being flexible to add new events to record and capture in the middle of a session. When trying to replicate real world workflows, it can be nearly impossible to predict and plan for all paths and avenues that users may try to use to work through events. Also, unforeseen or unanticipated events may occur in context that would not occur in a highly structured usability test. The event style testing allows these newly observed events to be captured mid test so that they can be reported on later.

Benefits of Event Style Testing

The event style testing allows for a number of benefits and deliverables that cannot normally be obtained in a usability test. These include:

Workflow Analysis

Since the order that events take place is recorded during the study, a full task flow can be created and analyzed. This is particularly useful for systems or software where very little is known about how users setup or experience them, especially in complex systems where multiple tools or software may be needed. The resulting task flows can show where various tools and software are frequently used, in what order, and for what purpose. In the case of the telephony product we tested, the task flows highlighted at what points different software products were used for configurations and at what points users stopped to verify correct setups and troubleshoot problems.

Event Style Workflow

Event Style Workflow

Quantitative data collection

While the natural workflow analysis can be observed, quantitative data such as errors, assists, and usability ratings can still be collected and compared across users. This creates a more holistic view of the experience being evaluated from a qualitative and quantitative standpoint, the best of both worlds.

Event Style Usability Testing has become a powerful method in our user experience toolbox to bridge the usability test and ethnographic research divide. We are always looking for new takes on old methods and hope others may find this useful as well!

Rating experiences, iPhone-style

January 12th, 2010 Felix 2 comments

Happy (belated) New Year, one and all - I do hope 2010 turns out to be a smashing success for everyone.

I figured I’d start things off with a video made by my friend and colleague Etan (@Zaqintosh).  It’s a concept for what an iPhone app designed to measure experiences (any experiences, from surfing a website to hopping on BART) could look like, and even though it’s crude, I think it gets the potential across.

Can you imagine if we were able to rate experiences on the fly, all day every day? I, for one, would love to track which ones get me up, and which bring me down.  The trick, I think, will be to get people used to rating their life experiences; Yelp’s easy because it’s tied to businesses, but it might not be obvious to people that rating a bad jog, conversation, taxi ride (due to traffic, not the cabbie) or plane ride is just as valuable as rating your local Starbucks.

In any case, without further ado, voila:

iPhone experience measurement concept - EchoUser

Delightful UI

October 14th, 2009 Felix No comments

Sometimes I come across positively delightful tidbits as I trawl the web, and this one, the “coming soon” page for Hosteeo, totally got me.

Hosteeo Coming Soon

Nice look and feel? Check.

Mystery? Check.

Sense of being privy to something secret? Check.

Provides me with a way of finding out that secret? Check again.

All in all, a pretty effective way of getting my email address - but more importantly, my attention. Thanks to Chris Spooner for finding this gem.

Categories: Innovation, UI Design Tags: , , , ,

Google Gives in on Gmail

July 31st, 2009 Felix No comments

picture-51

Finally, Google has decided to remove the “On Behalf of…” message from Gmail that so many of us had to put up with when forwarding email under the guise of a work account.

I’m surprised that it took Google this long, since they make a living by being responsive to their user base. I remember emailing the Google Labs folks a suggestion to remove the offending three words almost 2 years ago, when I realized that I couldn’t rely on Gmail for my work email needs, and I’m sure I wasn’t the only one.

As Google grows up and slowly - or not so slowly - maneuvers to corner the business market, I’m guessing we should expect more of these changes.  Or at least, I’m hoping ::fingers crossed::

Philosophy of fun

July 23rd, 2009 Felix No comments

A big part of the guiding philosophy for how I work revolves around the concept of “fun”.  Sure, creativity, passion, drive and actually delivering are all part of a job well done, but if I don’t feel I have the license to have fun, good ole fashioned feel-like-I’m-a-5-year-old-again fun, then my overall motivation suffers quite a bit.

I imagine the same is true for our end users.  Fair enough, they signed up for a 2 hour usability test, but who says they can’t have fun in the process? And what of our clients - I know that it’s often a very serious affair for them, with jobs in the balance, nay, lives on the line (or it would seem, anyway), but why can’t they get to play as well? “Putting the user first” is all very well as the governing maxim of User Experience, but if it means at the expense of my team and my clients - well, I’ll have none of it.

Fun, I think, should be for everyone.

The Ford Driving Experience

July 21st, 2009 Felix No comments

ford-avatar-designDesign 101

Experience design, I thought, was a staple of the design community.  Phone design, airplane design, coffee shop design, car design, everything design - I just assumed that designers made sure to actually conduct basic user research and usability testing before investing hundreds of millions into a product potentially nobody will buy.

As it turns out, Ford is a little late to the party.

Read more…

Designing for Hope

July 20th, 2009 Felix No comments

picture-7

Design from a Distance

I spent part of the morning last Friday with the team at Architecture For   Humanity (and a South African Design Fellow on the ground), brainstorming potential design solutions for FIFA’s Football For Hope program.  As it turns out, FIFA has decided that the World Cup 2010 will be like no other: rather than just a sporting event, FIFA aims to use the Hope program to “bring together, support, advise and strengthen sustainable social and human development programmes” in areas affected by the tournament.  FIFA’s plan? To build 20 community centers and football pitches throughout Africa, part of its “2o Centres in 2010″ program, and a concerted attempt to leave a legacy beyond the World Cup 2010.

To me this sounds like a great plan but, were it not for the involvement of Architecture For Humanity, whose team brings an amazing breadth and depth of community design knowledge, I would mostly write it off as a CSR/greenwashing play.  I mean, let’s be honest, do 20 towns in Africa actually need community centers? Read more…

Hand drawn more human?

July 17th, 2009 Felix No comments

napkin-squiggle

I spent last night at a lecture organized by San Francisco BayCHI, hosted by PARC down in Palo Alto.  It was my first BayCHI event, and the group seemed lively enough - both speakers elicited quite a few laughs, and audience members weren’t afraid to shout out comments and retorts during the lectures.

First up was Ted Selker from MIT Media Lab and IBM fame.  Ted seemed like a nice enough guy, and his talk tackled the various trials and tribulations he encountered as a technology product designer over the last 15 years or so. It was definitely interesting to see how he used ‘experimental design’ extensively to explore the intersection of humans and technology - and what its future might look like.  This open approach to concept development - and their subsequent failures, many of them in fact, to reach market - resulted is dozens of inventions with varying applicability and real-world usability.  However, to be fair, Ted has come up with some interesting inventions over the years, which is certainly a testament to his perseverance, even if very few seem to have made production.  I would hazard a guess that this is because A) Ted was trapped in big organizations that resisted his avant-garde ideas, and B) he ignored one of his own “3 Principles of product design”, the use of art and aesthetics.  In short, everything I saw except for the One Laptop Per Child (for which as I understand it, he designed the keyboard and ears), was a little on the plain, boxy side.  If Steve Jobs had a less successful, less aesthetically-obsessed twin, Ted is the guy.  All in all, though, his body of work is definitely impressive.

Next up was Dan Roam, author of bestselling book The Back of the Napkin (and here).  Read more…