UXAD Final report by Chi Zhang

Final Report DFI / UXAD / JUNE 2016

GROUP A3 / SHARP R961 INW Chi Zhang Daniel Aguirre Broca Julia Mattaar Maurizio Filippi Pei-Chiang Lin Zixian Bao

Index

CHAPTER 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

PRODUCT INTRODUCTION

PRODUCT BUILDUP

OPERATION

MARKET RESEARCH

COOKING EXPERIENCE

USAGE PROBLEM

USER SCENARIOS

DESIGN STATEMENT

REDESIGN

FINAL DESIGN

DESIGN EVALUATION

EVOLUTION OF DESIGN ELEMENTS

TASK FLOW

FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCE

APPENDIX

CHAPTER 2

Executive summary This report focuses on the analysis, testing and subsequent redesign of the Sharp r961 INW Combi-oven. Product introduction The first chapter of the report consists of an analysis of the combi-oven: product build-up, operation, market research and cooking experience, which in term contributed to the following outputs: a detailed problem definition, three user scenarios, and the design statement, to empower the user by designing a combination oven that feels like a cooking partner, to strengthen their engagement with the food they are preparing. â&#x20AC;? The control panel of the combi-oven consists of membrane switch, which is divided into two sections, one is food based, and manual settings. In order to gain an overview on the interface structure of the combi-oven, a task flow was created. It was very apparent that there are many starting points to begin setting up a cooking process. After determining the interaction qualities, the current design is being compared to other relevant product interfaces. Furthermore, a perceptual map was created when comparing to similar products on the market, this research gave a indication of where the redesign concept should be positioned on the perceptual map, to enhance the human centred design while keeping it in the same price range. Thereafter, we conducted the first user test, when we invited 9 participants to perform a series of tasks in a home environment. The user test results, in turn, informed the context of use, and usability problems are categorized into three different severity levels, before being subjected to a second user test to evaluate the effectiveness of the new design solutions. The setup of the user tests, and the raw data which can be found in appendix. As part of the conclusion, three representative user scenarios are formulated, they represent three main needs that users have: Ease of use; Quick access; Extending skills. The main objective of the user test was to identify weaknesses in the interaction and user experience of the Sharp r961 INW, and discover patterns of use, in order to be able to subsequently redesign this cooking device. The user test results contribute to the main design guidelines, they are being referred to in different sections in the first chapter. In the second chapter of the report, the redesign solution is being presented in different stages, first starts with an overview of the final design, followed by the design evaluation, which compared second user test result with the first user test, and both the questionnaire score comparison as well as the usage issues identified indicates that the redesign was more user friendly, however, while the old usage problems is being resolved, there are many new usage issues identifies, which lead to the final redesign proposal, with the definite design elements, there is an overview of the evolution of design element to be found. The menu structure is changed to lead the user through the setting up, by reducing userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mental effort, the user could finally focus on the cooking itself. There are also some newly introduced functions, such as smart scan, favourites, Food selection, and a smartphone app which contains recipes that user can browse through. These design decisions were based on the iterations, as well as insights from the second user test. In this test, we invited 7 participants from different age groups, by making use of the physical and digital prototype, our design concept, and the interaction were simulated, and thus the participants were able to experience the user interaction despite the use of a low fidelity model. And the general feedback from the post user test interview were that they think the redesign solution is more intuitive to use. As a highlight to the comparison result of AttrakDiff questionnaires, The increase in HQ-S (Hedonic- Stimulation) values indicate that users identify the products added value. Most significant are the shift from conservative to innovative, and from ordinary to novel. This shows that the redesigns capabilities are well communicated and the users see this redesign more as a combination oven. Last but not least, a list of recommendations were suggested to the Sharp Home Appliances department. They are a collection of findings from the first stage, which were working into design goals to achieve. And in the redesign phase, some of the design elements were not able to be fully testified, such as the audio feedback, the long term use, and the data base of the smart scan. The format of how we imply the smart scan function still could be brought further in future development.

Introduction

This report documents the usability research into the Sharp R961 INW. It describes user testing with the product, and proposes a redesign of the product, where usability is optimized. First of all, the product and its build up will be introduced briefly, to give an impression of its functionalities and the interaction between product and user. A user test was conducted with the Sharp combi-oven: 9 participants performed several cooking tasks in a kitchen environment. Not only the Sharp combi-oven was analysed; other combination oven that are currently available in the market as well as other products with inspirational interfaces were looked at. All usability problems found, as well as insights from the other analyses together led to the definition of three user scenarios. The first chapter of

this report concludes with a design statement, summarizing the main goal for the redesign of the Sharp R961 INW. The second chapter introduced the final redesign. All new elements and features are described, as well as how this design fits the user, and the three user scenarios. Of course, design is a process of many iterations. The evolvement of some of the redesign aspects are described as well. A second user test provided the main insights for the iterations. This second user test had a similar setup to the first one, but its aim was to test the redesign concept that was created. This concept was was prototyped using lower fidelity prototypes, which were not able to simulate every design aspect. This still leaves a lot of room for future development of the final redesign. These recommendations are presented at the end of this report.

1. Product introduction In this chapter, we present an overview of our analysis on the original Sharp R961 INW, including its build-up, task flow, usage, and how people experience it. These insights are based on our own first impression, market research and a user test to evaluate the perceived usability of the product. Based on these insights, three scenarios were formulated in order to summarize the needs of users: Ease of use, Quick access and Extending skills (see 1.5). Together with a thorough analysis of usability problems found in the user test, a design statement was formulated. This statement served as a guideline to develop a redesign that would eliminate as many inconveniences from the first design as possible and give users the cooking experience they desire.

1.1 PRODUCT BUILD-UP 1.1.1 Definition & Perception This product is a cooking tool to help its users to prepare food. It has 3 main cooking functions: microwave, convection and grill. All other functionalities, such as defrost, are combinations of these 3 possibilities (see figure 1: Overview of functions). On their official website, (Sharp Home Appliances, 2015) Sharp calls the R961 INW model a microwave, when it is really a combination oven. During the first user test, 9 participants were given a few basic cooking tasks to perform with the Sharp R961 INW. After completing the test, which was carried out in a kitchen environment, the participants were asked to answer a few evaluating questions and to fill out two questionnaires regarding usability. (Appendix 1.6 Usability Assessment). It was observed that people failed to perceive the model as a combination oven.They see it as two seperate functions packed into one product. (see Figure 2: Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perception of the product, Appendix 1.1.2 First impression). Some of the positive comments about the product included the large amount of possibilities it offers, the premium look and the flat control panel.

People buy this product to save space, money and time, not to make use of the combination function. Figure 1:

Overview of functions

There is a barrier between the functions built into the product, and the way people would actually like to use this product. How people perceive it

How it is

Oven

Combi

Micro

Oven

Micro

How people use it

Oven

Figure 2:

Micro

Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perception of the product

1.1.2 Product components Hardware

The all around shape reminds people of archetypical microwave; a square shape with a control panel on the right side (see figure 3 Combi-oven Components). The graphics visualise the general layout of the combination oven and highlight the different elements there are to the product.

CASE

HANDLE

OPAQUE GLASS

INTERFACE

FEET

ROTATIN MECHANISM

CABLE OUTLET

2X BAKING TRAY

Figure 3:

Combi-oven components

HEAT DEFLECTOR, VENTILATION

CERAMIC PLATE

SUPPORT

2X METAL GRID

1.2 Operations 1.2.1 Approaches LCD DISPLAY

EXPRESS COOK

SENSOR COOK

Following the first user test, it was discovered that there users take different approaches to achieve their cooking goals. A division into two approaches are presented below: EXPRESS DEFROST

FOOD BASED

Presets READY MADE OPTIONS

SELECTION ARROWS INFO

Manual settings

MICROWAVE, GRILL, CONVECTION WEIGHT

i 10

min

10 sec

watt kg

1. 2.

1min STOP, START

Figure 4:

Control panel layout

STOP

This approach starts from the type of food a user wants to prepare. The user might have a certain amount of potatoes or chicken, without specific setting instructions. The user should still be able to prepare the food, and should feel confident that it will come out nicely. The current product allows this by providing preset settings (Red section in Figure 4). SETTING BASED This approach mainly focuses on manually entering the settings (e.g. follow the instructions from a recipe) of the power (Watt) and temperature (°C). Based on previous experiences, the user has to estimate the time (minutes) it might take to prepare the food. The user will put these settings into the machine, using the buttons in the green section in Figure 4.

Setting based VS Food based approaches

The control panel is divided into two halves that serve these two mentalities: The top half offers food based options like Express cook and food icons, while the lower half offers the necessary buttons to put in settings manually. The first user test featured both setting based tasks, and food based tasks. However, the amount of buttons and ambiguous icons discouraged the users from using the presets. (Appendix 1.6 Usability Assessment). They instead preferred to, for example, defrost bread manually or heat up chicken by guessing a “correct” temperature.

1.2.2 Task flow Sharp R961 INW

Sensor Cook

Express Defrost

Express Cook

6 modes selection

7 modes selection

3 modes selection

Food Icons

Convection

setting temperature

weight selection

Start

~cooking~

stop? Yes

open door change settings continue cooking finish cooking Figure 5:

General task flow Sharp R961 INW

change setting

This flowchart (See Figure 5) is simplified in relation to the actual task flow of the Sharp R961 INW (the complete task flow can be found in Appendix 1.1.4). The visual shows that there are many starting points to begin setting up a cooking process. These starting points are, however, not successfully highlighted on the product interface. The interface is not well organized, and the layout of the buttons does not correspond with this task flow. A striking observation here is that accessing the convection, grill, microwave and combination functionalities is only possible by first pressing the 10 min, 1 min or 10 second button.

10 Mins / 1min / 1 Sec

Information

Language

Timer

press any button

language

setting time

Grill

Microwave

setting microwave watt

Combi

ABB 1

setting microwave watt

choose language

ABB 2 setting microwave watt grill

Start process

The combination of microwave and convection can speed up the cooking process and thereby saves the user time. Unfortunately, the product does not immediately hint towards these capabilities and therefore its combination capabilities are not used, diminishing its perceived value and usability. 11

In our redesign, we strived to increase userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s understanding on the way how combi-oven could best help them during cooking, and improve their engagement with food by taking away their worries while giving input to the machine.

1.3 Market research 1.3.1 Inspiration for similar user interface According to webopedia (2016), a User Interface (UI), is the junction between a user and a computer program. Participants expressed their impression of the UI of the combi-oven to be overly complex, and the design of the product does not support their needs. In order to improve the current UI, we researched modern user interfaces on the market.

Figure 6:

Similar user interfaces

FEEL THE CHANGE - THE BMW IDRIVE CONTROLLER

Inspired by biometric principles, the Controller’s rotate-and-press mechanism enables intuitive, one-handed operation: right means ‘continue’, left means ‘back’, turning the button allows you to scroll through a list and pressing it selects an option. Frequently used functions like multimedia, radio or navigation have direct access keys (BMW, 2015).

TURN THE WHEEL / FOLLOW THE FLOW - IPOD

A portable media player and multi- purpose pocket computer. The iPod changed many users’ idea on how a well-designed product should look and feel like. The feeling of rotating the centre wheel and the little ticking sound give you feedback while scrolling through the menus. The hierarchy in the menus feels natural to follow and guides you through itself, meaning the user doesn’t have to remember where everything is.

OPEN THE DOOR - KITCHEN INTEGRATED HANDLES

Nowadays, many kitchen cabinets are equipped with integrated handles. This creates a sleek and modern look. It would make sense to respond to this trend and to make the redesign fit with the modern kitchen. Participants of the first user test (APPENDIX XXX) expressed they perceived the Sharp R961 INW as more ‘ordinary’ than ‘novel’ (on the AttrakDiff questionnaire). This shows that there is room for improvement in terms of aesthetics.

FAST INTERACTIONS WITH TECHNOLOGY - NFC PAYMENT

For a redesign, it is important to consider current developments in technology. Many devices are becoming wireless, and everything is getting connected to the internet of things. Quick interactions such as paying with NFC will become more ubiquitous.

Conclusion These products owe their success to their innovative user interfaces. Their use cues are easy to understand and, they provide a pleasant interaction and their menus have a clear hierarchy. These design choices help the users to achieve their goals without complications. These elements were taken into consideration for our redesign.

1.3.2 SHARP AMONG ITS COMPETITORS

9 6

3 2 1 Figure 7:

Perceptual map of combi- oven market

During the redesign process, the market of combination ovens was explored to see whether competing products are doing better in terms of usability, or if there is a unique opportunity within this market segment. This helped define more solid goals for our redesign. The perceptual map (see figure 7) shows how the Sharp R961 INW (Product 9) is positioned in the market. Competing products from a wide variety of brands are included in this overview for comparison. All other products are combination-ovens; they have both microwave and convection functionalities (The list of the products and their price can be found in Appendix 1.5). During the first user test (Appendix 1.6), participants were asked to express their perception of the Sharp R961 INW by means of the AttrakDiff questionnaire. The terms that were most frequently used to describe the product were: technical, complicated and confusing. ‘technical’ can be found on one of the axis. On the opposite end of the scale, we used ‘human centred’. This is one of the desired qualities for the redesign. Through a questionnaire (Appendix 1.6.1 Questionaire) came forward that users would appreciate more human interaction with the product (as an example, for the ‘combi-oven of the future’ was to have a product that would talk to you as a user). On the vertical axis, the products are arranged based on price. 14

Conclusion The Sharp combination oven price is slightly above average. This implies that one might expect more from it than the average product in this segment. The redesign should remain within this same price range, but it is desired to shift more to the right along the horizontal axis, towards ‘human-centred’. - The ellipse in the diagram shows where we aimed to position the redesign. At this moment, there is no product that could be considered the perfect examples of a human centered combination oven. This leaves an opportunity for the Sharp redesign. Products 4 and 6 are positioned slightly more to the right. These interfaces are more simplified, and laid out in a more structured way. This clear overview suggests that the product could guide the user more through the process of putting in settings.

We aim to create added value by introducing a more human centered design on the combioven market.

1.4 Cooking experience 1.4.1 General insights The insights presented earlier, were based on the product’s functionalities, and how people use this combination oven. Another important aspect to consider is how the user experiecen this use. At the experience level, inspirational insights were collected when doing a focus group interview with 3 participants, they described what is the ideal cooking tool to them, figure 8 gives an overview of their quotes (See Appendix1.6.2 Focus group). 1.4.2 Cooking experience framework As a part of mapping out the cooking experience, we collected 8 representable recipes that participants often prepare when using a combi-oven. For each task, the recipe, goal, pains, process, and rationale are listed. (See the complete cooking experience framework in Appendix 1.4 ) The recipes were separated into two categories: high level tasks, requiring a complex preparation process; and basic tasks that do not require a lot of time and effort to prepare. (See figure 9) From our research, we found that most tasks people perform with combi-ovens are the latter, low level tasks. This suggest that there is room for improvement to emphasize the more advanced capabilities of a combi-oven, and inspire users to make the most out of those functions in order to make higher quality food and reduce energy consumption by using combination settings. ( Jrank, 2016) With the Cooking experience framework, most attention should be given to the pain points that users experience. Each recipe was stated in the red row. Different recipes contains different ingredients, meaning that the desired outcomes, and thus possible pain points, are different. These insights dictate what combination functions would help the pain points. Rationale gives insights in different user contexts. There can be different scenarios for which the food is prepared: Be it to celebrate, to enjoy slow food, or to eat on your own. With each context, the user expects different interaction experiences with the combi-oven, and our redesign concept should assist the user at all these moments.

“Built with easy to clean materials”

“Cooling system for the metal cooking plate” “Communicate with the other electronic” “Vacuum cooking”

“Freeze-drying and other way around”

“Connected with my iphone”

“Notify about the status of the food”

“Energy saving”

“Faster cooking time” “Mixing pasta”

“Talking to me”

“Integrated scale, automatic regulation of time and temperature according to the weight” “When defrosting it would stop it self before the food starts cooking already” Figure 8:

User ’s view on their ideal cooking appliance

High level task

Recipe

Pains

Rationale

Figure 9:

Chicken The turkey is not cooked evenly Inefficient cooking time Not knowing what each function does with the turkey

Pizza

Left over

The pizza often become too dry when it’s done. The pizza is not crispy enough. The pizza is not done in the pointed time.

The turkey is not cooked Comfort fast food - cheap evenly solution for hunger Inefficient cooking time Delicious calorie bomb Not knowing what each function does with the turkey

Cooking experience framework

Take aways

1) The less effort the user needs for putting settings into the combi-oven, the more the user can concentrate on their food. 2) The redesign of the combi-oven should assist the user to better understand the nuances in controlling the functions and enable the user to cook better quality food. 3) By experimenting more with the combi-oven, the users are able to have a complete image of the capabilities of the device, and they are more inspired to use it in their daily life.

Low level tasks

The food doesn’t warm up evenly Safety issues (Never put metal in microwave) Occasional popping tupperware.

Low effort in cooking, saving money and reducing waste.

“There can be different scenarios for which the food is prepared: Be it to celebrate, to enjoy slow food, or to eat on your own. In different context of use, our redesign concept should assist the user in all these moments. “

1.5 Usage problems 1.5.1 Complaint letter To illustrate our findings on the usage issues with the combi-oven in a more immersive way, a short story was written in the form of a complaint letter to Sharp.

Dear Sharp Customer Service, My name is Tom van der Stratenhuijs. I recently received your Sharp R-961-961 Combination Oven as a house warming gift. I would like to inform you about my first experience with your product. My first impression about this combi-oven: the look and feel of this product are quite solid, but I think it looks like a conventional microwave with its side opening and the lay-out of the buttons. Somehow, it looks a lot more complex than a standard microwave. For my first meal with this product, I prepared a pizza I made myself, all the way from scratch. I realized I didn’t know for certain what settings I had to put into the combi-oven. Based on previous experiences, I decided to use the convection oven function to prepare the pizza. I didn’t want to risk ruining my meal and waste my time and ingredients, which is why I didn’t even bother to discover the functions that were still unknown to me. After looking up the ideal settings to prepare the pizza, I tried entering the settings. However, I could not figure out how to enter them. I tried different express settings, but I don’t know what these do to my food. When I pressed an image that seemed to represent a pizza, the product started cooking something all by itself! I chose the convection function, but I missed the temperature I wanted to set and had to keep pressing the button over and over again. The way in which you program the settings is too linear and counter-intuitive. I struggled for 10 minutes and got very hungry and impatient. This dumb system did not assist me in any way! When I finally managed to put in the instructions, I noticed some lack of feedback from the product. Firstly, when pressing the buttons, I did not feel any tactual feedback. Secondly, when my food was cooking, I could not see inside, to check whether my food was cooked already. Lastly, when the cooking time ran out, the combi-oven beeped very aggressively, almost like a fire alarm. I felt like the door separated me from my food. My engagement with the food got lost during the process. All in all, I would rate this combi-microwave a 5 out of 10. I appreciate the effort that went into designing this appliance, but I feel there is still a lot of room for improvement. Sincerely, Tom van der Stratenhuijs

This e-mail illustrates the main problems that were defined in our research. What we want to strive for with our redesign is to not disappoint users like Tom. For this, we should explicitly address the complaints and turn them into opportunities for improvement to make the new user interaction as easy and intuitive as possible. 17

1.5.2 Overview usability problems 2

Figure 10:

The sound feedback is the same in different conditions. (6/9)

Not able to check the current settings during the cooking process (5/9)

Error is only feedback for mistakes without instructions. (9/9)

Overview of usability problems

Light is too dim to see inside during the cooking process. (7/9)

Critical problem Serious problem Cosmetic problem

5 6

This visual provides an overview of the most significant usability problems that were discovered in the first user test. Some of these have briefly been discussed before. This overview adds the level of severity to each of the issues. The most critical problems are marked in a darker colour. The most critical problems were the ones that could possibly hinder the user in completing their cooking task. Appendix 1.6.4 provides a full list of usability problems that were found.

8 9 10

The input sequence between 8 different functions are not consistent with one another. (9/9)

When something is selected, other functions donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t work anymore. (9/9)

No overview of all settings contained in one button. (7/9)

Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s impossible to change the power/time while cooking (7/9)

Strict sequence of entering Settings (time, temperature, power and then mode) (9/9)

The combination function is seldom used (7/9)

1.6 User scenarios Three main needs of the users Bridging from the conclusion of cooking experiences (See chapter 1.4), the results of the first user test and insights from the market research, three use scenarios were generated. At this stage, the three scenarios are formulated with specific context of use in mind, thus, the images in figure 11 show the type of person that would have this need. These served as the main guidelines for our redesign, and are further developed in Chapter 2.

Ease of Use

Quick Access

Extending Skills

For this scenario, one could think of elderly or disabled people who have less energy or concentration. These people would like to prepare the food they are familiar with, with the least amount of mental and physical effort.

The product should provide quick access to any functionality. A tourist in an unfamiliar kitchen with a limited amount of ingredients, utensils and time, for example, wants to prepare something as quick and easy as possible.

An amateur chef who would like to experiment with new recipes and learn more about cooking should feel inspired to try out new things with the product. Thus, one should feel confident about the products capabilities.

Figure 11:

Three use scenarions

1.7 Design Statement Following our research and the goals that we defined, we formulated our design statement:

“We would like to empower the user by designing a combination oven that feels like a cooking partner, to strengthen their engagement with the food they are preparing. ”

Current situation Based on the previous analysis of the cooking experience, both the current situation and the ideal situation for future usage were determined (See figure 14, 15). The current situation between the user and the combi-oven is: the input and feedback loop is not very obvious. Because of this, the user has to put a lot of effort into operating the combi-oven. The combi-oven heats up the food that is placed inside, without engaging the user in this process. In this situation, the combi-oven works as a barrier between the user and the food. Ideal situation For the future situation, it is desired to rearrange the relations between the three elements. By placing the combi-oven closer to the user, the product becomes more of a cooking partner. It is aimed at tuning the usage into an intuitive and delightful experience, so that the user can really focus on the cooking progress of the food itself.The user will feel more enjoyable when interacting with the combi oven,which contributes to a more engaging cooking experience.

COMBI-OVEN

Heat

Input

Feedback Sensory feedack

FOOD Conﬁrmation

USER

Figure 12:

Current situation

Figure 13:

Ideal situation

1.7.1 Design goal & Design requirements In Figure 14, the three captions mean the following: Experience: What it makes people feel. Interaction: What happens between the user and the product. Product: What product feature should be there to support

Experience Engaging -> (Personal)

the interaction? On the left, four of the main design goals are stated: 1) \ Engaging; 2) Fluent; 3) Intuitive; 4) Supportive And by working from left to right, at the product level, are the specific design requirements that the redesign should suffice.

Interaction Dialogue between user and the product Involved in different stages of cooking

Fluent

There should always be digital/physical feedback in the input-feedback loop.

Guided in their actions

Provide feed forward.

Increase findability

The way how the function/feature is presented should be recognisable by users

Interpretative

A consistent task flow.

Interpretative

A logical task-flow.

Food based setting

The system should be able to recognise the food that is put inside.

Setting based

There should be a logical lead through different hierarchy within the product.

Guiding/ assisting

The combi-oven should be able to recognise food, and give instructions consequently.

User have authority in giving instruction to the combi-oven

The combi-oven should be able to carry out the work unmistakably.

Encourage to be more adventitious in cooking.

Context awareness, so that the Combi-oven will remember the frequently used settings in conjunction to the specific food and they will be presented as presets.

Encourage to be more adventitious in cooking.

Allowing the user to try different advanced settings while feeling assured.

Figure 14:

When an error is made, the system should show a clear instruction on how the user can continue from that point onwards. The software has a consistent layout/ appearance in different stages of cooking.

Give & Get (sensory) feedback

Intuitive

Supportive

Product

Experience, Interaction, Product requirements

2.Redesign This chapter describes how the combiÂ-oven was redesigned, based on the findings from the first and second user tests and all other aspects of the initial analysis. Several brainstorm sessions led to many ideas for an improved design (See appendix 2.1 redesign sketches). Out of this, several concept proposals were created. All these ideation iterations led to the redesign which is presented in 2.1, Final Design. In the second part the design is evaluated, to establish to what extent the redesign has improved in terms of usability. Since this final redesign is the result of several iterations, these will be described in 2.2 Design Evaluation. The second user test provided the most important insights for this. The report concludes with several recommendations that are to be taken into account for future development.

2.1 Final Design 2.1.1 Hardware

Figure 15:

Hardware of the redesign

A. The overall shape and dimensions of the redesign remain the same B. A barcode scanner has been added to the control panel C.The amount of physical controls has been reduced to one knob and two buttons D.The control panel width has been reduced E.The gap between the panel and the door is the integrated handle to open the product F. A transparent screen is embedded in the door to display the digital menu G.A built-in scale that automatically measures the weight of the food inside has been implemented for ease of use 23

2.1.2 Interface and Display The design statement read that the product should make people more engaged with the cooking process by simplifying and streamlining the interface. To achieve this, a new flowchart was created (Figure 31)alongside the new user interface to map out how the user would navigate through the menu. What mostly differentiates the redesign from the original product is the interface and display.The screen on the Sharp R961 INW has a very limited display area for showing information. The new design extends the area of display to present the embedded digital menu of all the functions, with only three physical buttons as the operational controls. In paragraph 1.2, a distinction between setting based and food based cooking was made. To accomodate the setting based approach, the menu structure was simplified.The image below shows the main menu of the combi-oven. The user navigates through this menu using the Ok turning knob. Displaying the menu on the right part of the door serves as a connection between the glass door (food) and the control panel. The user can scroll to the desired setting and clicks OK to confirm. For each main menu option, the required settings like time and power are presented sequentially. This way the user is guided to the setup process and avoids feelings of frustration and eliminate the possibility of pressing “wrong” buttons in the process. When all required settings are put in, the display shows: ‘Press OK to start’.

Figure 16:

Interface and Display

Scanning food packaging Easily cooking with a food based approach (Paragraph 1.2.2) is facilitated by a new functionality in the product: Smart Scan. A barcode scanner is featured on the top part of the control panel (image X front view of redesign). Once the Next is on (once the door is opened or any button is pressed), the scanner will be active. The user holds the barcode on a food package in front of the scan area, and the combi-oven sets the right settings accordingly. These are displayed on the screen in the door, and are confirmed by the user by clicking OK.

Figure 17:

Scanning scenario

Recipes to extend your cooking skills Another extra feature was added to contribute to a more rich cooking experience, and allowing users to extend their cooking skills: the Sharp App (Fig 19 app Main menu). This app serves three main functions: First, it is an alternative way to scan barcodes. Second, there is a section called ‘Favourites’, which is synchronized with the Favourites feature on the Sharp Next. This gives the user an overview of his/her favourite dishes and/or recipes, and allows editing (Fig 19 recipe browser). More on this will follow later in the report . Lastly, the app offers users a wide selection of recipes to browse from. The settings to prepare this recipe can be edited to acomodate a set amount of people and can be then sent to the Sharp Next via the Upload button. (Fig x upload screen)

Figure 18:

Recipes on the app

Why an app? To humanize the combi-oven into a cooking partner, recipes can play a key role in food preparation process. However, considering it is not pleasant for users to stand in front of the combi oven reading text from the door, a mobile app would be the perfect media for them to search, read, compare, decide on and upload a recipe. Puttin in the right settings in no longer the user’s primary concern. Being able to concentrate more on trying out anew recipe allows them to be more engaged with their food. Saving your favourite settings for later After choosing a recipe, users can choose to upload their recipes to the Favorites menu on the combi-oven in order to access it more efficiently. The app also sends users a notification half an hour after the food they’ve prepared has been cooked to ask them if they would like to add the recipe to favorites. 26

2.2 Design Evaluation In order to compare the usability of the our Sharp Next redesign to the original design, both user tests were set up in a similar fashion (See appendix 1.6.3 user test 1 setup and appendix 2.2.1 user test 2 setup). In both user tests, both cooking and setting based tasks were covered . 9 people participated in the first user test, and 7 in the redesign evaluation. For the first test, the original Sharp R961INW was used, and for the second test, both a physical and a digital prototype were used. After the tasks were finished, the participants were asked to fill in both an SUS (System Usablity Scale) and AttrakDiff questionnaires. (for the explanation of these two methods, please refer to Appendix 1.6 Usability assesment). Both of these serve to evaluate the perceived usability of a product. What follows here is the comparison of the SUS and Attrakdiff results.

Figure 19:

Second user test

2.2.1 SUS (perceived usability) Score

Figure 20:

SUS score user test 1

Figure 21:

SUS score user test 2

The average score that was a result of the first user test was 58 (out of 100), with widely scattered scores; ranging from 20 to 77.5. The second user test was carried out using lower fidelity prototypes, which did not allow the users to interact with model that fully represented every aspect and feature of the final design. Even though one might expect the usability score to be lower for a simplified model, this appears to not be of (a significant) influence. The average score after the second user test was 70; an average increase of 12 points. Moreover, the scores are closer to each other: many lie around or above 75. Overall it can be concluded that the perceived usability has improved in the Sharp Next. 2.2.2 Attrakdiff Score In the first user test, the Sharp R961 INW appeared to be perceived as ‘complicated’, ‘confusing’ and ‘technical’. Moreover it was seen as quite an ordinary design; the product looked very much like a traditional microwave and its aesthetics did not communicate its added value. 27

In terms of ‘complicated’ and ‘confusing’, it can be seen that the scores have improved slightly; they are on the positive end of the scale. As for ‘technical’, no significant improvement can be noticed. However, the AttrakDiff questionnaire is mainly focussed on the appearance of the redesign. In terms of interaction, the Sharp Next is more human centered than before(since it is guiding the user through the process of setting up a cooking process), but it can be improved on in terms of appearance. The increase in HQS (HedonicStimulation) values indicate that users identify the products added value. Most significant are the shift from conservative to innovative, and from ordinary to novel. This shows that the redesigns capabilities are well communicated and the users see this redesign more as a combination oven. Finally, it can be remarked that all of the ATT (attractiveness) scores has vastly improved, meaning that the redesign is perceived as more attractive and desirable. Figure 22:

Comparison of two user tests

2.3 Evolution of design elements Many elements were elaborated on and changed after the second user test. What follows is an overview of how the main design elements evolved from the original redesign concept into the final design (which was presented in 2.1). Figure 23 visually presents the iterations of the major elements to the design. 2.3.1 Main design elements Presets

Combinations

The Sharp R961 INW had several preset functionalities; Express buttons and food icon buttons. However, it was discovered that these functions were not used since they were not understood. In order to make these settings manageable for users, they were reduced to “Auto cook” and “Auto defrost” in the redesign concept. They were put under the main menu option “presets”. The function “auto cook” was difficult to understand, but defrost was still a desired function.Therefore, “defrost” was kept, and the food icons from the original design were left out from the control panel.

The Sharp R961 INW had combination capabilities, but the button to access these functions was not prominent enough (see chapter 1, figure X Control panel). Most people did not even know combinations of oven, microwave and grill were possible. The combination function was arranged on the very top of the main menu. In the second user test, people expressed that they did not understand what “combination” meant. This was then changed to “food selection”. Here, preset combination functions can be found to cook different types of food.

Quick start

2.3.2 Physical Elements

During the first user test, participants expressed that sometimes they want to press one button to quickly start the machine. For this, we decided to have a quick start button on the control panel. However, the notion of “quick start” was not used properly by participants. Therefore it was decided to replace Quick start with Favorites. Smart scan During the second user test, it was discovered that people did not understand how to scan food packaging barcodes. Users thought that the camera was a button. In order to make people understand that it was a scanner, the shape was changed from a circle to a elongated ellipse with Smart Scan written on it.

Physical control During the first user test, people expressed that they missed the tactile feedback of a pysical button and did not like the quasi-touchscreen buttons. Taking inspiration from the BMW i-Drive knob presented in chapter 1.3, similar operations were merged into one unified physical control. The outer ring of the central knob serves the purpose of navigating menus and editing parameters, with the middle part serving as the confirmation button. The other two buttons are “favourites”, which lets you quickly access your favorites list, and a return/stop cook button.

Favorites

Door and integrated display

First, favorites was going to be a menu option where the most recently used settings could be recalled, including uploaded and scanned settings. However, participants mentioned that it would be ideal if they could save frequently used settings to the combi-oven. To meet that need, we changed favorites to an option where users themselves could save and personalize the settings they wanted via the Sharp App. The Favourites catogory is put on top of the main menu. It can be accessed either from the main menu or by pressing the dedicate Favorites button.

The screen in the original design was very small and awkward to read (Appendix 1.6.3 user test 1). In order to make the screen more attractive and fit more data on it, it was decided to use a third of the door itself as a screen. The hinge between the door and the knobs is used as the door handle.

Figure 23:

Elements of physical part

Figure 24:

Evolution of design elements 1

Figure 25:

Evolution of design elements 2

Figure 26:

Menu Structure

Menu structure The sequence of entering settings was a critical problem for users during the first user test, especially because of the inconsistensy between different functions. To deal with this, it was aimed to let the digital menu lead users through the settings, the same way the iPod structured its menus (see chapter 1.3). This reduced the unnecessary mental effort required from users and enabled them to put more attention on the food itself.

throughout the cooking process to provide the user with continuous insight in the cooking process. These settings can also be adjusted. Rotating the large knob during a cook in process lets the user select the variable to change. Pressing OK selects the variable, then rotate the knob to adjust it, and press OK again to confirm. Since the Sharp R961INW was targeted to the European market, yet did not include English as a language, the Sharp Next will have English.

Feedback All chosen settings will be displayed on the screen

Figure 27:

Feedback

In 1.6 User scenarios, three scenarios were presented, describing different needs of potential users. The final redesign should of course support each of these three scenarios.The image below visualises how the newly designed elements all fit within the three scenarios. There is some overlap in this, but in general, it can be described as follows: Ease of Use First of all, ‘Ease of use’ was defined: letting users prepare the food they are familiar with, with the least amount of effort. The main way this scenario was addressed was not by adding new features to the design, but by simplifying the menu structure and the task flow. When selecting a certain function, the display will show what other settings the user will need to enter. There is almost no room for making errors, since the user is guided through the process of entering the settings. The feedback provided during the process also contributes here, since the Sharp Next makes it easy to understand what is happening during the cooking process. The addition of English language also makes for easy use, for a wide target audience.

Figure 28:

Quick Access For the ‘quick access’, the main requirement was to provide quick access to any functionality. Preparing food needs to be possible in the quickest and easiest way possible. The newly implemented elements that facilitate this are and Smart scan, favorites and defrost. The barcode scanner on the control panel of the Sharp Next is activated as soon as the door is opened or one of the other controls is activated. Packaged food can then immediately be scanned, entering the settings into the combi-oven instantly. This makes for a fluent and efficient interaction. Recalling these settings quickly is possible by pressing the ‘Favorites’ button. Finally, the option to defrost is placed in the main menu, for quick access to this function that many people use daily. Extending Skills The last scenario that was described was aimed at giving users the opportunity to extend their skills. In the Sharp R961 INW, some presets were included for different types of food, but they were not trusted so much. Mainly because

Overview of design elements on the senario map

the presets did not provide them with enough insight into what the product would be doing to their food and the buttons to access these functions were unclear. The smartphone application provide the user with some recipes. This contemporary way to present recipes has the advantage that settings can now directly be sent to the combi-oven (hence the overlap with quick access). The user learns about what settings are required to cook certain dishes, extending their existing cooking skills in a quick and easy way. The same holds for food selection. Here the combi-oven automatically generates settings for certain types of food. Displaying these settings on the wider display gives the user insight into the cooking process. The user learns how to cook these types of food and is hereby extending his or her cooking skills.

Figure 29:

User senario 1

Figure 30:

User scenario 2

2.4 Taskflow

Figure 31:

Taskflow of the final concept

The taskflow demonstrates how users will travel through the system structure when performing different tasks. It illustrates the connection between the app and the machine, in which they cooperate to achieve the unified mission --to enhance the overall experience of usage.The most prominent innovation of the Sharp Next is that the entry of starting the combination oven is extended from the traditional manual setting up to various options, such as scanning the package, sending receipes from the app to the machine and recalling favorites. These functions aim at reducing time and effort people spend on operating the combi oven.

Integrated recipes From the interviews of potential users, it was found that not knowing how to cook the food in the right way is a more serious problem for users than not knowing how to use a devic (Appendix User test I & II). This way, building a direct link between receipe and the combination oven with the app will highly increase peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ease of use.

Directed process Once users choose from any entry to start the combi oven, the following steps will be directed automatically by the system. The transition between steps will be seamless, leading users to follow the sequence smoothly. This serves as a significant improvement of the original Sharp model, of which the inconsistancy of settingsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sequence was one of the main critical usability problems (appendix.rank of usability problems from the first user test). 41

2.5 Future Recommendations

Research on combi oven

However promising the Sharp Next is, some limitations have to be adressed in order to avoid overconfidence to strive for an even better product. Here are the most essential limitations and thus the recommendations that should be followed.

In order to better understand the ins and outs of combination oven technology, we would have wanted to disasemble the Sharp R961INW. However, in this course we were limited to study the product as it is. No long-term user test

Auditory feedback was not tested Sound is an important part of the overall feedback. Research was conducted on different types of sounds, comparing the embodied meanings and feelings brought to the users. Pleasant sound effects were created to accompany the product interaction when confirming, pressing back, waiting, uploading and when a cook is done. However, due to the limited time of the project, we did not manage to integrate the audio feedback to the digital prototype that was made for the second user test. Smart scan Database In the final design, the scanning function is dependent of the information contained in the barcode of the food package. However, different brands may use the same codes to classify the information for their own products. A new, dedicated database might be needed for the refinement of the smart scan function. Screen on the door Since the display is integrated in the door of the combi oven, the heat emitted might have an effect on it, which could possibly cause safety issues during usage. More research should be done into the limitations of this technology in order to implement it.

We observed that through repeated use of both the original product and the redesign, people would find it easier to use them. It was not possible to test long-term use with the redesign because of prototype constrains and therefore we missed valuable information on how people would accomodate to the new features. Low fidelity models The digital interface and the physical body were not integrated well with each other. We were concerned that participants would not be able to imagine both prototypes as an integrated whole. After consulting with professionals from van Berlo, we still managed to test the interactions we wanted well enough to draw conclusions. It still would have been nice to test with a high fidelity prototype in order to gain better insights and not be limited by the imagination of participants. . Gender differences Some researches suggest that different genders have different opinions toward the same thing, with both of males and females have different preferences. There was a shortage of female participants in our second user test, and we believe that might have influenced our result to a certain degree.

Reference

BMW Technology Guide: iDrive. (n.d.). Retrieved March 26, 2016, from http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/technology_ guide/articles/idrive.html Combi Oven Questions, Combi Oven Answers from Hobart. (n.d.). Retrieved March 25, 2016, from http:// www.starchefs.com/product_ education/hobart/combi_oven/html/ Jrank. (2016). Convection Microwave Ovens - The Bene ts of Convection Microwave Ovens. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from http:// encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/coeayusjuc/The-Bene ts-of-Convection-Microwave-Ovens.html Kjeldskov, J., Skov, M. B., & Stage, J. (2004). Instant data analysis: conducting usability evaluations in a day. Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 233â&#x20AC;&#x201C;240. http://doi. org/10.1145/1028014.1028050 What is User Interface (UI)? Webopedia. (n.d.). Retrieved March 26, 2016, from http://www.webopedia. com/TERM/U/user_interface. html Roto, V., Law, E., Vermeeren, A. P. O. S., & Hoonhout, J. (2011). User Experience White Paper: Bringing clarity to the concept of user experience (Result from Dagstuhl Seminar on Demarcating User Experience, Sept. 15-18, 2010). SharpHomeAppliances. (2016) 40L combination microwave (silver) Retrieved on June 20, 2016. http:// www.sharphomeappliances.com/products/cooking/microwaves/r959slmaa