Analyze summary from usability tests

Analyze of the usability tests. Questions 2 – 6 in the questionnaire

2. Testing the warning area in front

a) Ask the user what he/she thinks is happening when the yellow light is moving towards the car

• Five thought as we expected that something was closing towards the car. One of them thought that the object was exact in the area in front of the car.
• However...
• One said that he could not make out what it was, he did not recognize it as a known traffic sign, but he would reduce speed because he felt that the yellow color as a warning color.
• Two persons felt as it could mean some kind of danger and that they would reduce speed directly.
• Three testers said that the yellow light could be oncoming traffic, two of them pointed out that the yellow light looked like the headlights of another car.
• One test person mentioned that the object closing ahead could be a static object.
• One person mentioned that the yellow color could mean that they where driving in the dark

b) Ask the user what he/she thinks is happening when the complete area is filled with the yellow light

• None of the testers had a spontaneous answer that was expected and they all speculated differently on what it could mean.
• One of the testers thought that the yellow area was the area where danger could occur or that something is within the exact spot corresponding to the area in front of the car.
• One thought that it could be that the lit area is monitored by the system and provided an overview.
• Another tester thought that yellow meant highway and therefore that he could be driving on a highway or that there could be some kind of road construction up ahead.
• Another was very confused and felt being in a place that you should not be in.
• Two test persons interpreted it as their own headlights and one of them mentioned that it could be that the full beam was on.

c) Ask the user what he/she thinks is happening when the yellow light is moving away from the car

• Five test persons interpret as expected that the objects is moving away from the car. Two testers mention specifically that the danger is going away and that it is safer to drive.
• However...
• One thought that the system is loosing focus on this area and that it means that the system has less control in some way.

3. Testing the Warning area behind the car

a) Ask the user what he/she thinks is happening when the yellow light is moving towards the car

• All six users experience that there is something closing in on them from behind just as expected.
• However…
• Two of these believed that the yellow lights represented the headlights of the other car.

b) Ask the user what he/she thinks is happening when the complete area is filled with the yellow light

• Three out of the six test persons experienced that the closing in object is very close right now, just as expected.
• However…
• Two of the persons think that it may have something to do when you’re in reverse, for instance some kind of parking aid.
• One person thinks that it indicates that the object has hit him/her from behind.
• One person feels like as if he or she has run over something; passed a boundary that should not have passed.

c) Ask the user what he/she thinks is happening when the yellow light is moving away from the car

• All six test persons experienced that the object (car) was disappearing again, increasing the distance to you; just as expected.
• However…
• One believed that it also could mean that the distance between their car and some sort of static object increased for instance while parking the vehicle.
• One person believed that the yellow light is referring to the headlights of another car, and since they’re disappearing the distance also increases.

4. Testing the warning area on the side (blind spot)

a) Ask the user what he/she thinks is happening when the yellow light is moving towards the car

• Four out of the six test persons experienced that there was a car closing up on them from the side (or blindspot) just as expected.
• However…
• One person has trouble interpret this information since the yellow light is coming in from that angle, he/she believes that this is a way of showing that the current road holds more than one lane.
• Two persons experience this as the headlights of other cars or oncoming traffic from the side, whereas one of these doesn’t experience this as a real warning or less important compared to the other ones. This is mainly since he/she interprets this as ordinary traffic in their surroundings which happens constantly since it is moving towards the car from a diagonal angle.

b) Ask the user what he/she thinks is happening when the complete area is filled with the yellow light

• Three out of the six test persons experienced that the other car was very up-close to them on the side (or was trying to overtake them) just as expected.
• However…
• Two persons interpret this information as if they’ve been hit.
• Two persons thought that the yellow light referred to the headlights of another car and therefore they thought that another car was heading straight towards them from the side due to the angle
• Another person believed that it might look like this when he/she is traveling on a main (country) road and is passing an intersection where you have just passed a car standing still.

c) Ask the user what he/she thinks is happening when the yellow light is moving away from the car

• All six test persons experienced that the object (car) was disappearing again, increasing the distance to you; and therefore also the threat or hazard is disappearing, just as expected.
• However…
• One person thought that it also might mean that he/she has accelerated away from a car standing still in an intersection and that the yellow lights represents the headlights of that car. The distance is therefore increasing since the yellow light is fading out or disappearing.
• Another person also thought that it could mean that you’re driving in the dark.

5. Test the other ways of illustrating the information (bar with boundaries and slider)

5 a) Show the slider and ask for his/hers opinion(s) of this way of showing the information

• Four test persons described it as an object moving towards the car.
• However...
• None of the test persons felt that it was clear what was closing.
• One mentioned that it could either be an obstacle on the road another mentioned that it looked more like a traffic sign and that it could be a crossing road or train tracks up ahead. A third mentioned that it looked more like a static object a wall rather than a car. This because of the black parts on the sides makes it look more like an obstacle.
• Two test persons thought that it was less clear than bar without boundaries and that it was less noticeable.
• One person felt that the size or shape of the indicator did not matter, thin or wide that it started in the same place it still meant you had to pass it.

5 b) Show the bar with boundaries and ask for his/hers opinion(s) of this way of showing the information

• Five test persons felt that it was an indicator for distance or levels and One of them suggested that it could be connected with the three second rule.
• However
• One felt that it was hard to judge distance in meters or distance in general. Two other testers felt that it was easier and more natural to determine actual distance after learning how many meters each step represents in meters.
• One test person felt that it was unnatural and confusing. Another felt that it could be markings on the road or reflectors reflecting the head lights of the car.
• Two test persons would have decreased speed and react in the same way as before because they see the yellow as a danger.

6) Ask the user what he/she thinks about showing the actual car in the interface

• Five felt that the car was good. Two people mention that it is facing forward and that they like that.
• Four interpreted as their car, One person mentions that it makes it easier to understand where the front, back and sides are. Another mentions the cut out parts of the paper prototype as the reach of the sensors.
• However
• One questioned whether it was necessary and that it was could be redundant information since you are sitting in a car and that it maybe uses more space than is needed.
• One person did not like the color and felt that it was hard to see.

Abstraction Hierarchy

We have now carried out the abstraction hierarchy for our display/interface.

The abstraction hierarchy is one of the core foundations of the ecological interface design principle. It consists of a tree-like diagram and is used for describing a specific work domain. The diagram is structured in a top down perspective whereas each level describes various elements in that specific work domain. This top down approach is used during the entire process of identifying the hierarchy, so you start by describing the purposes of the design and then you work your way down to the more technical details and their parts. The structure of the hierarchy consists of five levels namely, the functional-, the abstract-, the generalized- and the physical function; and finally the physical form.

Below is a picture showing the final result of the description of our work domain, or in other words, our Abstraction Hierarchy.

User tests completed!

During this week the user tests has been conducted. The user test had the purpose of examining different ways of illustrating some of the information (design proposals), namely the distance to adjacent traffic. But the test also has the intention of measuring the users’ subjective satisfaction regarding the different design proposals.

The test itself is structured in three main parts; first an Introductory part which has the purpose of informing the user about the test and provide a little background as well. The second part contains all the different questions which will be asked to the user during the test where he/she will answer loud out in order for observations to be made. Finally the third and last part is a questionnaire which has the purpose of measuring the user’s subjective satisfaction.

This test has been carried out on a total of six persons, three males and three females. The age of the test persons has varied between the ages of 21 to 48 years old. The main reason to why we chosen six persons to perform the test on is mainly that the test itself is quite small it is mainly only for determining which design proposal that is the most intuitive and preferred by the users. Another aspect to this decision is that according to Nielsen there is really no need to test more than five users, because the best results come from testing few users and perform as many small tests as possible.

Since the test consisted of a think aloud part and a questionnaire the results therefore also consists of qualitative- as well as quantitative data. The tests were completed earlier today so therefore only the quantitative data has been analyzed and recorded. The table below shows these results.
The qualitative data though, such as the user’s thoughts and opinions etc. will be derived during the remainder of this week.

Report Template

During the last days we have planned on how to structure our report. We have therefore now created a template which we have based on another report template from IDC (Interaction Design Collegium).

The report will be divided into three main parts, namely:

• …an introductory section

• …a report section

• …a closing section

The introductory section should contain the following:

• FrontPage
• Title
• Author
• University
• Publish date
• Report number etc.
  

• Acknowledgements

• Abstract
• Important section since it is here the reader decides whether to continue reading the report.
• Approximately a half page (max one page)
  
• The summary must be informative and include:
• The most important results
• The conclusions drawn
• Enlighten the purpose, the method and the problem definition
• It shall not contain any fact that is not included in the report
• Is to be written last, when the report is already finished.

• Table of contents
• This section shall include both references to page numbers as well as figures.
• Table of contents
• List of figures

The report section should contain the following:

1. Introduction

• Introduce the reader to the subject at hand
• Try to capture the reader’s interest

1.1 Purpose

• Problem definition
• What does the report include, in general
• What results do we hope to achieve
• The stated problem definition must be answered in the report

1.2 Delimitations

• What delimitations have we made
• How did we do them, on what basis

1.3 Targeted Readers

• Who are the intended readers?

1.4 Report Overview

• Provide reading instructions and describe how the report is structured

2. Background

• Provide facts about the different parts that are involved in our project such as ADAS, situation awareness and ecological user interface etc.

3. Theoretical Framework

• Discuss the area based on previously studies
• Very important to provide references
• Only include subjects that are relevant for our study
  
  

4. Method

• This section shall describe our procedure throughout the project to explain our course of action
• Another important factor here is to motivate our choice of methods

5. Result

• Show and describe the results we've reached in our study
• Must be objective, no personal opinions
• Round up the “Results” section with a summary of the results
  

6. Method Critique

• Discuss the methods and material used in the study
• Could it have been performed differently to improve our methodological work?
• How generalizable are your results?
  
  

7. Discussion

• Discuss our results based on...
• Our purpose and problem definition
• Our references in our theoretical framework
• If we are presenting suggestions of improvements it’s important that we have support for these ideas and suggestions based on previously made studies (from our theoretical framework)
• If we are presenting our own thoughts without references etc. it is extremely important that we emerge that in some way

8. Conclusions

• This section should be short, concise and informative
• Try to connect the conclusions with the purpose and problem definition
  

9. Future Work

• Provide examples of future work

The closing section should contain the following:

10. List of references

• Important to list all sources in a standardized manner

• Appendix

Paper Prototyping

We have now been working with our paper prototyping which is to be used during our user tests. We started out by first making rough sketches of how the basic layout of the interface could look like and what it should contain.














Next we developed our paper prototypes to test our three different proximity ideas: Slider, Bar without boundaries and Bar with boundaries based on our sketches.




























Then we made lines which are going to illustrate the lane in the display by attaching them to a transparent plastic folder so that they can be moved (in sideway).















Here is a demonstration of our final prototype which will be used in the user tests.

Brainstorming!

We have now started sketching on possible layouts for our ecological interface. The work started with first defining all the requirements we have received from Anders (our supervisor) which the interface must fulfill, namely that:

• …it shall be dynamic
• …the information shall be analog rather than digital
• …it shall be integrated
• …it shall be ecological
• …it shall provide a good overview
• …it shall include basic usability aspects; such as ease of- understanding, and remembering etc.
  

In the next step we drew one sketch individually of a possible layout for the interface so that we later on could compare our ideas and thoughts. Some similarities were discovered right away which lead on to further discussions and collaborative work in order to find one, joint interface concept.

Brainstorming became the method we used in order to find new possible and innovative ways of showing the information. So first we performed brainstorming for determining design proposals on how to illustrate the distance of adjacent traffic. As soon as we had a fair amount of different proposals we then examined how well each one of them fulfilled the stated requirements.


















This was carried out by attaching post-its tags with the name of each requirement they fulfilled so that we easily could omit the inadequate proposals. The three best proposals will later on be included in the user tests.


















We also performed a brainstorm together with the post-its afterwards for determining how to visually illustrate the last warning before the auditory warning system take over.

First joint meeting held at SAFER

Today we had our first joint meeting together with the supervisors and the other students who are also conducting their thesis at SAFER. Here we first present to the rest of the group what we’ve done so far and what we will focus on in the next step so they can provide us with feedback. This type of meeting will reoccur every other Friday at 10.

So far most of our work has consisted of reading, to get more and deeper knowledge about the different areas involved. We’ve also made a rough time estimation for our complete thesis work which we feel is quite realistic.

Our preliminary schedule:

• Week 6 - 8 : Divergence phase / document all the used methods
• Week 9 : Preparations for the Heuristics evaluations / have the expert evaluation / write down results in the method chapter
• Week 10 - 11 : (Eventually redesign after findings made in the expert evaluation week 10) / Write down in method chapter and start with the introduction / Start with GUI in Flash
• Week 12 - 13 : Continue with flash GUI, deadline by Friday week 13
• Week 14 - 15 : Preparations for simulator testing
• Week 16 : Simulation testing / Write down in method part
• Week 17 - 18 : Writing week, write down results, finish method, introduction etc.
• Week 19 - 20 : Write analysis and discussion
• Week 21 - 23 : Write, rewrite and finish the Thesis.

So the next step for us now will be to start working on our divergence phase; to start making sketches of different design proposals and therefore we have to dig deeper into the ecological design method, and practices for how it can be applied. This information is vital for us to start working on our design sketches which we are planning to begin with sometime during next week. And of course we will continue reading as well.

Our blog is now up and running!

Ok, so today after having received a tip at our first supervision meeting (which was held earlier this morning) we sat up a blog for our master thesis. The purpose of this blog is for us to easily communicate our work and the progress of it. This is mainly so our supervisors can follow the progress of our work in an easy and efficient manner but also for ourselves to keep track of what has been done and what is to be done in the next step.

We, me and Paul will try and post new blogs as soon as we’ve got any new important information or results etc.

Well, I guess that’s it for now! =)