Designing with Users in Mind

1. Designing with Users in Mind Usability Consulting Services INDIANA UNIVERSITY Todd Zazelenchuk, Ph.D. Chad Singer, M.I.S. Abigail Gonzales, B.A.

2. “Everyone wanted to be the first off the ground…” - anonymous American fighter pilot interview (1947) Casey, S. (1993). Set phasers on stun: And other true tales of design, technology, and human error. Aegean. Santa Barbara, CA.

3. Not all butterflies are pretty! - Florida county election ballot (November, 2000) Tognazzini, B. (2001). The butterfly ballot: Anatomy of a disaster. AskTog.com (http://www.asktog.com/columns/042ButterflyBallot.html)

4. How much user control is too much? - Cell phone etiquette (October 8, 2002, 1-3pm?) Permission granted by: Jamie McKenzie (http://phoneybusiness.com/cartoons.html)

5. What happened to designing for the user? Airplane story • Motivation for design? (ease of operation OR ease/cost of manufacturing?) • Overhauling a new website Florida ballot • Users’ goal vs. designer’s goal? • Need for arrows suggests a problem! • Online web forms Cell phones • Design Rule #1: “Do no harm” • User control vs. users’ ability to control • Feature creep / pressure to innovate

6. Outline for this presentation • User survey - “User-Centered Design in your organizations?” • About Usability Consulting Services • Integrating UCD into the software development process • Sharing the challenges • Sharing some strategies • Our usability testing methodology (Case Study: CFS) • Task development activity • Questions & Answers

7. Project Distribution and Funding External projects: contract IU projects: chargeback UITS projects: base funding • Est.1995 • a part of University Information Technology Services (UITS) • “help make systems easier to use by applying a user-centered approach to systems design, development and evaluation” • 2 FTE and 1 graduate assistant

9. UCD Methods • Contextual analysis • Task analysis • Use cases • Participatory design • Focus groups * Card Sorting * Paper prototyping * Heuristic Evaluation * Usability testing * Common methods applied at UCS User Centered Design (UCD) • A philosophy of design from the field of Human Computer Interaction that asks the question... “What is the experience like for the user?” (Norman & Draper, 1986, User-Centered System Design)

10. Requirements gathering Design Development Test Release contextual inquiry (needs / audience / context analysis…field research) focus groups task analysis use cases participatory design card sort paper prototyping heuristic evaluation usability testing Integrating UCD into the development cycle

11. Challenges • What are the challenges you face in your organization when it comes to designing with users in mind? Strategies • What ideas and strategies have you tried (successful and unsuccessful) to help overcome these challenges?

12. Integrating UCD into development cycle at UCS The challenges we face: • Awareness of service • Lack of understanding about process / timeline / scope / options • Leaving evaluation until the end (summative vs. formative) • Centralized vs. decentralized service • Location (proximity to participants & project teams) • Recruitment of users • Compensation for users • Implementation of findings

13. Integrating UCD into development cycle at UCS The strategies we use: • Organizational support (IT Strategic Plan; Project managers) • Awareness across organization • Visibility of lab and activities • Manager meetings • Campus newsletter • Word of mouth • Resources (experienced personnel, facilities) • Collaboration with design teams • task development • attendance at sessions • help develop recommendations • Promote a usability culture >>>

14. Promoting a “usability culture” Old Way Usability testing occurs at the end of cycle —validates design Large scale and attempts to cover entire application Consultants learn from and own the test Results from test are numerous and don’t always get implemented because of looming deadlines New Way More frequent testing throughout the development—drives design Smaller scale testing throughout its development Project Teams learn from and own the process Realistic, immediate fixes Fraser, J. (2002). The culture of usability: How to spend less and get more from your usability testing program. New.Architect. http://www.newarchitectmag.com/print/documentID-27073

15. 25 20 15 10 5 0 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Avg # of Weeks Engaged On Project # of Projects Completed No data No data UCS Project History (1995 - 08/2002) 1995 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 2002

16. Usability Testing Methodology (Usability Consulting Services) 20% 20% 10% 50% Planning Design & Develop Implementation Analysis & Reporting

17. Usability Testing Methodology (Usability Consulting Services) 20% 20% Planning • Project background • Goals of both user and client • Audience • Stakeholders • System involved • Client deliverables • Budget • Timeline

18. Case Study: Common File System Project background • Client: Distributed Mass Storage Group (UITS) • Mass file storage system (100 MB) for students, staff & faculty • Web accessible • Unix-based system (and terminology) Goals • Users’: Store and retrieve files from home or school without error • Clients’: Summative evaluation, design layout Users • Range of experience with CFS web application Timeline • Round 1: two weeks • Round 2: two days

19. Original home page Original feedback screens Case Study: Common File System

20. Usability Testing Methodology (Usability Consulting Services) 20% 20% Design & Develop Planning • Identify core tasks for using the system • Server logs, help desk, task analysis • Develop testing protocol • Determine recruitment & compensation for users • Develop the tasks for the test collaboratively • Design the study (# of users/tasks, length of session) • Create the pilot test materials

21. 20% 20% Usability Testing Methodology (Usability Consulting Services) 10% 50% Implementation Design & Develop Planning • Pilot test materials • Recruit and schedule users • Conduct evaluation sessions

22. Lab sessions • Number • Round 1: 6 users • Round 2: 3 users • Length • 30 to 45 min. • Demographics • 4 females, 5 males • 6 students, 3 staff • Varied experience w/ application Case Study: Common File System

23. 20% 20% Usability Testing Methodology (Usability Consulting Services) 20% 20% 10% 50% Implementation Design & Development Planning Analysis & Reporting • Analyze data • Identify and prioritize problems • Generate recommendations • Create report • Deliver/present report findings

24. Case Study: Common File System UCS Report (Format) Buckets: categories of observations based on common themes, heuristics… Entries: observed problem, evaluators’ interpretation, and associated recommendation(s) for addressing the observed problem

25. Case Study: Common File System UCS Report (Sample)

26. Case Study: Common File System Before After

27. Case Study: Common File System Before After

28. Case Study: Common File System Before After

29. Case Study: Common File System Original Recommended Current

30. Task Development for Usability Testing • Overview • Tasks explained • Identifying tasks for your test • Properties of good tasks • Providing context • Task writing activity

31. Task Development for Usability Testing Users, Goals, Tasks and Context C o n t e x t Goal Tasks User Attend wedding in Seattle Review budget Ask for time off work Book a flight to Seattle Pack suitcase Check flight times Rent a car Arrange lodging

32. Task Development for Usability Testing Users, Goals, Tasks and Context C o n t e x t Goal Tasks User Attend wedding in Seattle Review budget Ask for time off work Book a flight to Seattle Pack suitcase Check flight times Rent a car Arrange lodging

33. Task Development for Usability Testing Identifying tasks from user data • Why is careful task development important? • Your test is only as good as your tasks • Artificial tasks can yield irrelevant data • Tasks should be determined by user data • Brainstorm tasks with development team • Server logs • Help desk / phone operators • Observe users • Interview users

34. Task Development for Usability Testing Writing effective tasks • A good task is… • Authentic • Worded in users’ language, not the system’s • Unambiguous • Not unnecessarily repetitive • Written concisely • A good task also… • Has a definite solution • Provides sufficient context • Avoids system cues

35. Task Development for Usability Testing Writing effective tasks Well-written tasks simulate an actual situation by giving the participant a working context. C o n t e x t Goal Task User Attend wedding in Seattle Book a flight to Seattle Initial Task:Book a flight from Indianapolis to Seattle for the weekend. Task w/ Context:You are attending a friend’s wedding in Seattle and would like to fly there after work on Friday, October 11. You need to return before work the following Monday. Book the shortest round-trip flight that meets your needs.

36. Task Development for Usability Testing Task Generation Activity Create two tasks for either Amazon.com or Hotmail.com • Remember! • A good task is… • Authentic • Worded in users’ language, not the system’s • Unambiguous • Not unnecessarily repetitive • Written concisely • A good task also… • Has a definite solution • Provides sufficient context • Avoids system cues

37. Designing with Users in Mind: RECAP • User survey • About Usability Consulting Services • Integrating UCD into the software development process • UCD challenges shared • UCD strategies shared • UCS usability testing methodology • Task development guidelines • Questions & Answers

38. Questions and comments…? University Information Technology Services Indiana University http://www.indiana.edu/~usable