2
CONTENT
4. Project Brief 5. Introduction 6. Studied Interaction 8. Frictions 9. Initial Interaction Storyboard 10. Researched Meters 11. Problem Solving & 1:1 Sketches 12. Sketches of Systems and Design 14. A ‘Frequent Parking’ System 16. Sketches for First Model 18. First 1:1 Model Stress Test 19. Sketches for Second Model 20. Modelling Second Interface 22. Second 1:1 Model Stress Test 23. Sketches for Third Model 24. Creating Third 1:1 Model 26. Presented Model 31. Changes for Better or Worse?
3
Project Brief: To analyse, evaluate and critique a range of user-product interactions in order to develop a vocabulary and grammar of interactions. To then select a specific product or ‘self-service’ interaction from this evaluation. To propose and develop a redesign of this user-product interaction addressing the identified ‘points of friction’ to deliver an improved user experience.
4
Introduction The ‘Interaction Design’ project is a group project at the Glasgow School of Art. We were three people in our group: Yasir Al-Ani, Jakub Záhor and I. The project started with an introduction to interactive designs we than evaluated different interactions in the city of Glasgow. The interactions varied between photo booths and road crossings. For this project the interaction had to be a ‘self-service’. We chose the parking meter used in central Glasgow as Yasir has experience as a parking warden and we saw opportunities to develop the experience of parking on the street. Carl Wigart
5
Studied Interaction: Glasgow city parking meter
The parking meters we used in our project were the meters situated in central Glasgow. They are painted black similar to many other objects in the environment surrounding it. You pay for your parking with coins and the time you want to park is determined by the amount of money you pay. 20 p is the smallest coin you can pay by and the 60 p is the lowest fare you can pay for a ticket. After you have chosen your amount you get your ticket by pressing the green button. The red button returns your money. Pay & Display is the system they use. You take your purchased ticket and place in your car’s window. You then have to come back to your car before the ticket expires. A traffic warden checks the tickets at a regular basis and fines anyone who does not have a ticket or who’s ticket has expired.
6
1
1. Solar panel on top 2. The Pay & Display Interface. Black paint painted over yellow original colour. 3
3. Vandalism 4. Advertising on back of ticket 5. The instructions for how to use the meter.
2
4
5 7
• Observed a person studying the text for more than 15 min • Observed a person with friends impatiently waiting for ticket. The person held his hand in ticket retrieval slot • Observed person quickly using machine without text as guide
• Only coins • Do not know how long it takes for ticket • To much text compared to simplicity of machine
IO
IO
RV
ICT
AT
• Have to walk back to car after getting ticket
FR
NS
• Difficult to find
OB
SE
NS USERS
• Have to go back to car if ticket expires • Unclear parking times • Vandalism • Uninviting
• Often driver of car • Not gender specific • Person has to be physically/ mentally able to drive • Has a drivers licence
8
Storyboard of Initial Interaction 1 Gets out of car, searches for parking hours, searches for parking meter
2
If covered with stickers: peel of stickers. Carefully read instructions and parking information.
1. Pay with right amount of coins 2. Confirm 3. Collect ticket
1 2 3
3 Go back to car to place ticket in the window
Leave for activity
9
Researched meters
1 1. Pay by phone is a phone and app based payment system used in some cities to pay for parking without having to go to a parking meter.
2. A standard Swedish parking meter with card payment as an option.
2
3 3. A German parking meter with simple graphics to show the process of getting the ticket.
4. An LA, USA, parking meter that stands next to every parking spot. It is a small construction that takes card. You chose parking time first. 4 5. This is PARKd by DCA Design, a parking meter that uses contactless payment methods and touchscreen technology.
5 10
Problem Solving & 1:1 Sketches
Height?, Graphics?, Text?, Orientation?, Payment types? In the first stage of sketching we made 1:1 sketches on wall mounted paper. First of all it was to understand why self-service machines have elements at different heights. We compared our observations with what we experienced as comfortable heights for interactions. The types of interactions we were
looking at, among others, were card readers, coin slots, and displays. In this we discussed our experience from different ‘self-service meters we had encountered
11
Sketches of Systems and Design
To gain some preliminary ideas we looked thought of different parking interactions we had encountered. In some Scandinavian parking garages there are systems that show which spaces are occupied. There are also other systems of dividing the spaces apart from just a line. T채by, Sweden uses coloured spaces between the spaces to instead indicate what the distance should be to the other car. We also discussed if a system of sensors could be put in place to sense which car is standing in the spot and have a system that simply charged the car without interaction with anything. A similar system could be, or already is, implemented to electric cars as they have to pay for the charging station they are charging from.
12
The Glasgow City Council uses the colours dark green and yellow. What we saw as colours that indicate a parking meter were blue and white. Utilities in Glasgow are also often painted black, the same as the parking meter. Whether this is to make the utilities blend in more or for some other reason we do not know. After scrutinising the chipped paint we saw that the meter’s original colour probably was yellow. We took these colour schemes in account when designing the appearance of the parking meter. To acknowledge the friction where a user did not know when the ticket would come out we sketched using buttons to indicate a countdown for the ticket.
13
A ‘Frequent Parker’ System The main change to the interaction is such that the costumer uses a check in check out system for parking. This system is similar both to the road tolls that you pay monthly and parking garages where you pay on the way out. In this system the customer will park their car, get out, go to a parking meter and check in at a parking meter. The customer is then charged from the time they check in. The parking warden can then scan a card in the window of the car to see that the customer is paying for the parking. The customer can then come back when they need, pass a parking meter to check out, and then drive off. The customer would then be billed for all the parking that month. This system solves some of
14
the friction points observed. First it solves the problem that if the users time is about to expire they would have to go back and pay for another ticket. The user might also be paying to much or to little if they are unsure of the time their car will be standing there. The initial interaction requires that the customer goes back to the car to place the ticket in the windscreen. In this system the customer would not have to go back to the car they would be able to go straight to the activity. The card in the car and in your pocket is a
contactless card, the same that are used for some transport barriers and doors. The reasoning behind this is that the parking warden could read the card through the windscreen and the customer could simply place their card on the meter to check in. The system is widely used and many have adapted to contactless systems as the norm for quick interactions.
P
Check In
P
OK
Activity
Activity OK
P
Check Out
15
Sketches for First Model
From our discussions we understood that we wanted to create a parking meter with a form of storyboard to replace the small text used on the machines today. Using the heights we had measured out we planed a some options. One of the options was to make the whole machine horizontally oriented so the user travels through the interface in reading direction. The reason this was discarded was first it went far from the archetype and it looses its point it there are several options. We also sketched making the machines angle adjustable for users. This was also discarded as we found that a set height, adapted for a norm would suit most people. Also moving parts on a public machine could cause unnecessary problems.
16
17
First 1:1 Model Stress Test This first trial model was made to try one of our first designs. It was very similar to the metal boxes for parking meters you can find in many places. The first idea for this model the interface was different on both sides. On one there would be the Pay & Display system whereas the other side would have the check in check out system. An argument against this was that the customer would not instantly know what options they have. An example of this problem is when you study standing city maps where you have to go to both sides to see all the information. This model does acknowledge some of the issues we observed. The interface has a storyboard instead of small text to show the interaction. Its functions are also clear, and now gives you the option of paying by card. All of the information collectively shown on the display instead of on a display and a panel. For this system we chose to have the user chose the time the wanted to stay and than pay for the amount. If the customer pays with big coins they will get money back.
Problems: • Vandalism • Unattractive • Ticket & money return • Unstable
18
Sketches for second model
19
Modelling Second Interface
We started with 2d graphic of the interface we wanted to try.
20
Then we created sketch models of the details of the interaction to see how they work.
It was then worked as a CGI model to gain an overview of how the meter would look.
A model was then constructed with details of the interaction.
21
Second 1:1 Model Stress Test The box-like shape that we started of with was redesigned to this compact, oval version. Some key elements were changed or adjusted. The card reader, ticket collection and ‘Frequent Parking’ reader all gained lights indication the process of the transaction. We added this element to acknowledge that you might be waiting impatiently for your ticket and want to see that the machine is working. The ‘Frequent Parking’ system has process lights so that when you do not accidently check in. The customer would hold their card on it for a few seconds and than a short sound will indicate that it has gone through. The ticket is placed above the receipt dispenser so that the customer can grab both the ticket and receipt at the same time. They are far enough apart so the customer can grab only one if they like. The contactless reader is extruded and placed below to indicate that it is separate from the Pay & Display system.
Feedback: • Might be hard to find • Is the shortened FD understandable? • Card reader looks like button • Card reader in the way • Wrong height • Try in situation
22
Sketches for Third Model
What we were aiming for was to find a was of making the meter easy to find without making it clumsy and in the way. We wanted as little flat surfaces as possible so there is less places to put stickers. By keeping the design low it might also stop graffiti vandalism on the meter. A person making a ‘tag’ or picture would want it to be visible. If the only surface is low and curved it would not display well at all. The shape should be familiar enough so a person understands it is a parking meter, but we also wanted the form to reflect the interface.
23
Creating Third 1:1 Model
We started with 2d graphic of the new interface we wanted for this model.
24
Working buttons were created as well as a base to support the construction.
The model was coloured to resemble the intended materials.
It was then put together and some final details were adjusted.
25
26
The user experience we aimed to create and a large amount of black and white text. was one that was intuitive, comfortable Apart from the graphics showing the interaction and quick. all information is gathered to the LCD Screen. It shows time and date, price, minimum coin Much thought was put into the details of the value and parking times. You add the time you interaction of the meter we produced. All want to park with the plus and minus buttons the small parts were tested to see how they and than pay by cash or card. It will then give felt to use. Even the buttons were hacked back access coins and print a ticket. The LCD from a computer keyboard so that we could experience the button’s tactility. The detail also screen is familiar, resistent and uses minimum means that when we field test it a stranger can electricity. understand the experience without having to The height and angle of the meter we based ask how it is meant to be. on our tests on what we thought would be The ‘P’ on the small sign that projects from the the most comfortable position to intact from. top back of the meter would be illuminated from It was then changed because we did not get it completely right in the second model. It is within. This would make the sign visible from afar at night. We found that the already existing suitable for both tall and short users and even wheelchair bound users who drive. sign was difficult to see as it is a small symbol
28/2/2014 2:31PM PLEASE SELECT TIME YOU SELECTED 60MIN/£1.60 2:31 PM > 3:31 PM
LCD screen with transaction information. Contactless payment. Storyboard graphics. Lights indicating process. Ticket and Receipt close so that you can take both at once. ‘Frequent Parking’ contactless reader.
COINS TICKET
RECEIPT
FREQUENT PARKING.co.uk
27
28
29
30
Changes For Better or Worse? Personal thoughts on approach to project
One of the key issues with the meter is that it has not been tested in the field. Getting feedback from both parking wardens and customers would be the next step in developing this self-service product. Also testing how the meter is perceived in the environment it will stand in will clarify how the semantics suit the environment. Would it be perceived as unattractive or difficult to find when on the street? If I were to approach this project again I would argue that greater emphasis should be placed in getting early feedback on whether or not a new system is comfortable or good. Also we should have gone further with developing completely different systems if only to have more to compare with.
31