User Centered design Brief Two

BA/BSC(H) Design For Interactive Media (Top Up)
Module: User Centered design
Brief: 2
By: Raymond O’Brien
Student Number: 05002100
Date: 14/11/05

The Discounted Usability Engineering method(DUE).
This method was developed by Jakob Nielsen to be a cost effective usability method that companies can use during the design process to evaluate a product design or redesign during the development of the product.

The DUE is based on simplistic tasks on thinking and conversing about a product aloud and heuristic evaluations based on a low low-fidelity prototype of the actual redesign i.e. sketches, storyboards or mock-ups. The thinking aloud section is based on a standard ‘user to interface’ usability test conducted on a small scale. Between 3 and 5 users is the recommended amount of users for the test. Each user is asked to interact with the product and evaluate a scenario task by the use of a questionnaire.
Each user is asked to rate their experience in a quantifiable manner with regards to a list of questions formulated for a scenario. There has being no time limit set for the completion of the task required by the scenario, but time required to complete the task will be recorded for further studies.

The questionnaire to be filled accompanies this paper.

The scenario decided to evaluate for this paper is:
Turning on the camera to capture a photograph using the new Digital mode and LCD Preview Screen and to save the image to a computer using the FireWire connection.
The scenario chosen has been depicted by a comic book style storyboard with dialogue/narration.


Who are the users of the product:
- Professional Photographers
- novices
- hobbiest
- anyone with a requirement to visually record a scene

What is the product to do intially:
- To take photographs
- Visually record scenes and instance, both motion and static
- To capture these images to both film and digital memory


Table Of Results Collected From Questionnaires:
Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3
Time To complete task 60 70 140
Number of errors made none None 3
Amount of assisted requests None 1 2
Attitude After Completing task Positive Positive Nuetral

The 3 users selected for the testing of the product were taken from different backgrounds with regards having used an SLR camera before. One user had never interacted with a digital camera before. This was interesting to add to the evaluation to discover how the camera would affect an unfamiliar user. The overall outlook of the test is positive. Everyone was able to complete the task. Subject 3 required 2 minor assists and encountered two errors which were revealed as human errors, i.e. pressing the wrong button by accident. The user required some assistance in utilizing the track wheel and seemed to be nervous while capturing an image. These I believe are minor human related issues that cant be prevented.

As a result, the usability test failed to report back any major faults or issues. Each user, once comfortable with the interface completed the task with minimal assistance required by an expert. The issue of the human error regarding the track wheel I feel can be let go without redesign. It has been proved to be a very effective menu navigation tool on many platforms. This incident I believe is due to unfamiliarity with similar systems and could be disregarded as a usability issue worthy of attention.

However, subject 3 made an interesting observation about connecting the camera to a computer for image transfers. The subject suggested to have a wireless system implemented. Bluetooth would be a suitable candidate for this operation. However, the issue against Bluetooth in this context is ‘transfer speeds’. FireWire is much more suitable for professional demands regarding speed and efficiency. That doesn’t mean Bluetooth could not provide other implications for the use of this product.

Conclusion
In conclusion of the User Test, I have decide that there is no major issues that warrant a further redesign. Bluetooth would be an interesting addition to this camera but is not a necessary one.

I think personally that, sometimes it is good for a company to space out redesigns and additions of new utilities. If a company that releases a product that contains everything a user needs then, that user would have no reason to upgrade for a considerable amount of time. If the company slowly releases new updates and redesigns it keeps the consumer interested and would encourage the user to upgrade to the latest product and in turn provides consistent revenue for the company. After all, business is business!



A heuristic evaluation of the camera:
“In general, heuristic evaluation is difficult for a single individual to do because one person will never be able to find all the usability problems in an interface. Luckily, experience from many different projects has shown that different people find different usability problems. Therefore, it is possible to improve the effectiveness of the method significantly by involving multiple evaluators.” Nielsen.

A heuristic evaluation of a product is preformed, by having each individual user/evaluator inspect the interface by performing a particular task. The thoughts and comments from each user are then composed on paper, in a questionnaire for example. After which, the findings and results are then aggregated together to create an overall view on the usability of the product.


In heuristic evaluation there are ten main principles or “heuristics” to be considered when evaluating a product.
1. Visibility of system status
There are two feedback screens on the camera. One on the top left and one on the back(the LCD Preview Display). Both give an indication of what is happening with the camera, for example, the level of battery life, what mode the camera is in (digital or analogue), what settings are selected and at what level, etc. The LCD Screen provides a much more effective a vast degree of feedback to the user. It allows the user to view the scene and sample how different settings affect the result of the photograph.

2. Match between system and the real world +
3. Aesthetic and minimalist design
The User interface is designed to be metaphorical and as close to real life as possible to limit the level of confusion with regards to the interaction between the user and the camera. Buttons, symbols, texts menus, etc are designed for even the most novice of users to be capable of utilizing the camera without any great difficulty or confusion. The digital menu interface I designed around the popular “Apple iPod”, said to be the user-friendliest interface in existence. The simplicity of the interface I personally think is a key point for the great success of the iPod. Menus are titled with basic word descriptions such as: Digital mode on/off
Aperture Settings
Shutter Speed
Film Speed
Etc,
The titles are self-explanatory and for further information each, a manual will be available, however the target audience desired for this product are expected to have a simple prior knowledge in Photography and would be aware of these titles and their meanings.

4. User control and freedom
In my new user interface designed to be as user-friendly as possible I have designed an easy fix option. It allows the user to reset an individual menu, for example “Aperture Settings” to its factory settings. However, in this interface there isn’t really a lot of damage that can be caused to the usability of the product by the user. The system behind the user interface is shielded by the interface itself. The only options the user has to alter are those settings required to take a photograph and where to save it.

5. Error prevention
The only possible error that can occur when using the camera is burning the photograph to film when not desired. So to reduce the risk of this happening there is a series of confirmation screens asking the user are they sure they wish to complete this task. The user initially is given the choice of operating in digital or analogue mode as is again ask to confirm the mode the select. Confirmation menus are a strong medium for preventing user errors. If the user accidentally chooses to burn the image to burn the image to film, there is no return. It is a permanent process that cannot be undone

6. Consistency and standards
In the redesign of the interface I made careful considerations to keeping the visual aspects consistent and the same as all canon camera, i.e. the previous model previous to this redesign. This will ensure that at least, previous canon users would benefit from the consistency. “Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions.”

7. Recognition rather than recall
The camera itself remembers settings that the user chooses and alters even when the camera is powered off.

8. Flexibility and efficiency of use
Carried over from the previous design are certain preset environment scenarios such as, “sports mode”, “portrait”, “automatic”, etc. This allows the user to have saved scenarios for faster activity.

9. Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors
The error messages designed for this redesign include:
Battery Level Low
Battery Empty – Charge Battery
Flash Memory Card Full – Erase – Cancel
Insert Flash Memory – Cancel
Insert 35mm Film - Cancel
Film Door open – Close Film Door
“Error messages should be expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.”

10. Help and documentation
It was thought that the redesign of this product was considered user friendly and hence there is no manual included in the consumer product. However, there will be user-friendly manual composed of Technical descriptions and scenarios and human centered stories to exemplify any usability issues a user may have with the camera.

Bibliography:

1. Jakob Nielsen, “How to Conduct a Heuristic Evaluation,”
http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/
http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html
http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_evaluation.html

2. Norman, D.A., 2001. The Design of Everyday Things. MIT Press.

3. Norman, May 1999. Affordance, Conventions and Design
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordance_conventi.html

4. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston: AP Professional.

5. Georg Strøm, The Reader Creates a Personal Meaning, British HCI Conference 2005