User Testing: Implementing Evaluation Plan
Generating Prototypes and Testing on Participants
Prototypes
For the past week, I have been focusing on generating prototypes intended to be used for user testing. The prototypes for testing are intended to figure out things that may be unknown or require user feedback to determine. The prototypes included physical mockups, sketches and paper prototypes. Utilizing the evaluation plan, I was able to establish common patterns and key themes that started to arise as user testing progressed.
Testing Information
When: January 23nd and 24th, 2018
Who: 5 individuals ranging from students at Carleton University (journalism and industrial design) as well as experts (in the field of work)
Where: Indoors, on Carleton campus.
Duration: 30–45 minutes
During Testing
To help the test run smoothly within the time frame, I prepared a script beforehand with interview questions and prompts for the participants to follow. Some challenges included the finding an appropriate location for testing. One thing I would do for any future testing is to look for an available space a few days before the testing date.
In terms of the actual testing itself, all the of the participants understood the tasks given to them and were able to share their feedback through conversational, open ended questions. I realized that as testing progressed, similar themes were arising in relation to their feedback on the subject matter and requested improvements.
Testing Methods
Some of the observational methods I used for testing included note taking, video recording, audio recording and taking photos. As for the tasks, I had users interact with various elements of my physical prototype and I conducted a task analysis. Ergonomics, functionality, accessibility, comfort and style were some things that I tested with the physical prototype. I also prepared a user journey map and UI paper mockups to test various things such as resonance, understanding, and acceptability.
Testing Results
In general, the participants were very enthusiastic on the subject of immersive storytelling. Some had experience with creating and viewing content whereas some knew what is was, however had not engaged in the related activities.
Some of the key findings centred around the general ergonomics of the wearable kit. Many agreed that it was very comfortable to wear and operate. Some also pointed out the great functional, portable, and accessibility aspects of it. Comments were made on the comfort of the strap, where some participants didn’t mind it without padding and some preferred some padding to counteract the weight on their shoulder.
For the paper prototypes for the UI and user journey map, many of the participants felt that it resonated with them and their opinions were very positive. First impressions of the UI features were that they added tremendous value at an educational perspective.
The benefit of testing various participants in different professions allowed for me to gather information from the potential users of my product. The journalism students were very interested and intrigued about this concept and they had many positive comments as well as constructive criticism. The expert that I tested had a lot of constructive criticism about the design direction and was able to give his perspective on how this entry level kit should be designed to thoroughly inform how to use it. The participant in the industrial design program had insights into the ergonomics of the physical prototype which brought light to aspects that I hadn’t thought about before. Overall, having the opportunity to recruit users from different areas garnered great results in terms of a breadth of opinions and improvements. Each participant had unique opinions about the project which will help greatly with the developmental process.
Next Steps
For the next couple weeks, I will be heavily focusing on generating iterations on the design of the wearable kit as well as the UI prototype. In February, I will be conducting additional user testing on an updated concept to test the robustness and to see if results are consistent or even improved upon in relation to the first round of testing
