User Focus and Perspective Report: Group

UFP Basics C. T. v Doesburg s089211 J. van Kampen s090798

Group Report Prototyping and Evaluating: The Better Shopping Experience

DG300 – UFP Basics Assignment J. van Kampen 0732234 C.T. van Doesburg 0674674 Professors Dr.ir. Tilde Bekker Dr.ir. Harm van Essen Dr. Elise van den Hoven Dr. Jacques Terken Wednesday, June 2, 2010 Faculty of Industrial Design Technical University Eindhoven

UFP Basics C. T. v Doesburg s089211 J. van Kampen s090798

Table of Contents Concept:........................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Scenario of use A: ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 Scenario of use B: ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 QOC Analysis: .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 The Interaction Problem: ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Options for Different Interaction Styles: ................................................................................................................. 3 Criteria: .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Scale for the QOC: ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Conclusion from the QOC Analysis: ............................................................................................................................. 5 Specific Task Description: ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Specific Task Interaction Scenario: .............................................................................................................................. 5 Interaction Description .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Design Questions: ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Goal of our prototype: ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Tasks necessary to complete the goal: ..................................................................................................................... 7 The Expert Evaluation: ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Reflection on the Design Consequences: .................................................................................................................... 8 User Evaluation:............................................................................................................................................................ 8 Results: ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Overall Evaluation: ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 Comparison of User and Expert Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 11 Redesign Suggestions: ............................................................................................................................................... 11 References.................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Appendix A .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 Appendix B .............................................................................................................................................................. 14 Appendix C .............................................................................................................................................................. 14

1|Page

UFP Basics C. T. v Doesburg s089211 J. van Kampen s090798

Concept: A child of 8-12 can pick up this device scan the food product then obtain the ingredient list along with specific information regarding to his/her allergy along with a list of substitute products or healthier options for that particular food product type.

The requirements developed during the first half of the assignment were used through the development of the interaction flow chart and the design questions. Below is the list of requirements that were followed.

• Be able to be clipped on to shopping cart/trolley/basket but also hand held.

• Have a RFID Scanner System.

• Have a big screen.

• Include visual as well as text (recognise not recall functions).

• Be lightweight (less than 500 g).

• Have a quick recharge time but long use life.

• Be aesthetically pleasing.

• Be durable.

• Be wireless.

• Be small enough to be handheld by children of 8 to 12 years old.

Scenario of use A: John is a 9-year-old boy from Rotterdam, Netherlands. He is allergic to peanuts and hates the fact that he cannot try out new food due to this. He usually goes grocery shopping with his mother, Jane since she knows what he can and cannot eat. It is a normal Saturday afternoon in the store with his mother when John notices a big signboard showing a new hand held device saying using this anyone having an allergy can easily shop for new food. Jane thinks this is a very good idea so she gets one for her son. A simple power button turns the device on. It prompts for an input asking if there are any specific food the person cannot eat (text along with pictures) simply clicking on the images and confirming that she cannot eat it sets the device. Jane thinks this is so simple, light, and easy that even her son could do it by himself. Thus hands the device over to him. The device prompts, “please scan”. Therefore, john to try it out scans a bar of chocolate the device then shows that John cannot eat this chocolate since it contains peanuts and beeps an annoying sound showing a large peanut image. It then shows pictures of other chocolates that John can eat which do not contain any peanuts. The device then prompts for another scan after 10 seconds. This makes John very happy since he can now eat chocolates and try new food products with the help of this prompting device. For the rest of the time in the store John is running around scanning food products and enjoying himself as well as helping his mother shop.

Scenario of use B: Samantha is a twelve-year-old girl from Eindhoven, Netherlands. She has an allergy to wheat and is aware of her restrictions due to this allergy. When Samantha’s mother does the grocery shopping she often stops at two different grocery stores.

When she is shopping in the Albert Heijn, she does not have time to read all the labels, therefore she also shops at the organic food store in order to make sure there are wheat free items for her daughter to eat. Samantha is ready to be independent and asks her mother if she can go to the grocery store alone. Her mother is not comfortable with this so she insists that Samantha waits until she can go with her. When she and Samantha get to the Albert Heijn, they notice that there is a new product beside the shopping carts. It looks interesting so the pick one up. The sleek shape intrigues Samantha so she slips her hand into the holder and pushes the button to turn it on. When the device is powered on it asks Samantha if she has any food allergies. Samantha is excited to enter yes and then to enter wheat products. The device now prompts Samantha to scan an item. Samantha scans an apple near by and the device bleeps that apples are okay for someone with an allergy to wheat. Samantha is thrilled and runs over to her mother to show her. Her mother is interested in the device and asks Samantha to explain what it is. Samantha has no problem explaining how she entered her allergy information and how simple it was to scan an item. Samantha’s mother tries scanning a loaf of bread and a warning signal goes off, after the warning stops another item is suggested along with the shelf number. Samantha’s mother was able to easily find the replacement bread that Samantha can eat. She then hands the device back to Samantha and they continue shopping.

Samantha’s mother feels more confident now that her daughter can shop by herself.

2|Page

UFP Basics C. T. v Doesburg s089211 J. van Kampen s090798

QOC Analysis: The Interaction Problem: How can the child user effectively input his/hers food allergy information without the help of others into the device?

Options for Different Interaction Styles: • Pushing of Buttons: there is a keypad area with a centre, up, down, left and right buttons which the child can use to highlight and select his/her specific choice. This system closely resembles that found on remote controls and MP3 players so would be instantly familiar.

•

Voice Control: the child can speak into the device and the device recognises what the child is saying and stores the preference of food. Since a child of the age 8-12 can fluently speak this interaction should be easy for the child.

•

Touch Screen: the device can give options on the screen itself with the aid of pictures or a text board where the child can touch the relevant picture or letter to give input into the device of what he/she can or cannot eat. This system saves keypad space but provides the same functionality of a Computer system, which these children are already familiar with.

•

Card system: There is a card (with a chip), which is already filled/stores data with their specifications of preferred food and allergies. This card can be inserted into the device resulting in the device responding according to the food product in question.

•

Scanner: The child can scan the products he/she is allergic to as a means of telling the device that he/she is unable to eat food products that contain that particular element. This scanning is done in the beginning from a poster where all the allergic products are listed.

Criteria: • Allow for spontaneous behaviour – children aged 8-12 are unpredictable in their actions and therefore the device must be designed to withstand unlikely situations.

• Ease of Learning – it must be easy to learn because children are not going to take the time to learn something new because they are impatient at that age and get easily bored.

• Support multi-user situations – Usually the child will not be alone or with friends, therefore the device has to be able to store multiple preferences and be able to refresh for a different user every session.

• Pleasure – fun, wow-effect, pride of use because children are very easily swayed to the next coolest toy/gadget (the “I want” syndrome).

• Technical feasibility and costs (cheap, but tough and must meet previous criteria and expectations).

Scale for the QOC: For this QOC Analysis we asked three fellow students to scale the above criteria’s and options on a scale of -5 to +5 where 0 is neutral and +5 was extremely suitable and -5 extremely unsuitable. Please refer to Appendix A for the filled in tables.

Given below is the average summation to their answers again on a -5 to +5 scale.

Options

Push Buttons

Voice Controls

Touch Screen

Card System

Scanner System

Spontaneous behaviour

+3.00

-0.33

+2.66

-2.00

-0.66

Ease of Learning

+1.00

+1.66

+4.33

+1.33

-2.00

Multi Users

0.00

-2.00

+4.00

-4.33

-3.66

Pleasure

+1.33

+0.66

+2.00

-3.33

-1.66

Technical Feasibility

+4.00

-3.33

+2.33

+1.00

+3.00

+9.33

-3.34

+15.32

-7.33

-4.98

Criteria/

Sum

3|Page

UFP Basics C. T. v Doesburg s089211 J. van Kampen s090798

For the following, we have used the above matrix to justify our scoring for the following criteria: Spontaneous Behaviour: Pushing of Buttons – This is something that the children are familiar with thus involving the recognition factor. It also enables them to automatically push the buttons when they see or want something verified. It is simple and to the point and presents the child with a physical representation of their action that is why it has been scaled as the highest.

Voice Controls – Speaking comes naturally to the child and is spontaneous but it is hard to decipher what a child is saying since it is not that clear and children of that age group cannot speak well enough for present day software to recognise.

Therefore it has a negative score.

Touch Screen – Like Pushing Buttons this follows through on the same principle however since it does not have a physical representation of being pressed it did not get the highest score.

Card System – Since there is little interaction after inserting the card into the device, this then reduces the spontaneity of the child’s interaction this option and therefore scored the lowest in this criteria.

Scanner System – This action is easy to execute however, it is not a normal reaction to anything occurring spontaneously this is why it was also negatively graded.

Ease of Learning: Pushing of Buttons – This is an action the child is familiar with, and can easily recognise yet not as intuitive as other options.

Voice Controls – This action is also something the child does naturally and instinctively and conditioned to do.

Touch Screen – This action is familiar, intuitive, and easy for the child and therefore scored the highest.

Card System – It is easy to learn how to insert a card although it might give problems in figuring out the correct method and way to insert the card.

Scanner System – This option is relatively difficult to learn, either you will learn by seeing or if someone explains how to do it that is why it scored the lowest for this criteria.

Multi Users: Pushing of Buttons – This scored neutral due to the fact that it is a very straightforward method to input data in to the device no matter how many users use it after each other.

Voice Controls – It would be hard for the device to understand and distinguish the different children using the same device at the same time. This is why it has been given a negative score.

Touch Screen – Like buttons this is easy to use and since there are less physical buttons the possibility to press two or more at the same time increases thus making it ideal for multiple users.

Card System – This option scored the lowest since it is not practical to have multiple cards inserted into the device for the different users using it at the same time. Having a single card with all the combined information is also not practical since it gives problems to what the user would do if he/she were shopping alone.

Scanner System – This another option does not encourage multiple users since there would have to be multiple scanners on the device one for each or the scanner would have to memorise for each individual therefore is not ideal for this criteria.

Pleasure: Pushing of Buttons – Children like to push buttons and this is why it would gives them pleasure and the reason it is the second most liked option.

Voice Controls – Children like talking however not as much as pushing therefore it scored lower than the former option.

Touch Screen – The idea of pushing the screen buttons appeals to children and therefore scored the highest in terms of giving the child the most pleasure out of all the options.

Card System – Inserting a card has little pleasure for the children since it is a onetime action and nothing can be further done with it. This is the reason why it scored the lowest.

Scanner System – Scanning is fun but only to an extent to input data after a while it gets repetitive and not in the nice way. It is hard to control and not that pleasurable resulting in the negative score.

Technical Feasibility: Pushing of Buttons – It is a tried and tested method and cheap easy to make and thus has the highest score.

Voice Controls – It is hard to get the right software that makes the right and proper voice recognition for a child who keeps changing the way he/she speaks. It is expensive to incorporate in to a system and thus has the lowest score.

Touch Screen – It follows the same functionality as buttons but is more technologically difficult to incorporate and thus scored third.

Card System – It is simple and to an extent easy to incorporate yet it is still difficult to get the right card and card reader for every different input of data.

4|Page

UFP Basics C. T. v Doesburg s089211 J. van Kampen s090798

Scanner System – This is easy for the child and simple in technology, and is getting cheaper to make thus scored the second highest for this criteria.

Conclusion from the QOC Analysis: From the above matrix, we have concluded that the best option for effectively inputting data for a child without the aid of other elder or experienced users would be to use Touch Screens. This is due to the fact that it encourages spontaneous behaviour among the users. It is intuitive and really easy for the children to learn (highest score attained). Touch screens also facilitate the use of the device for multiple users (highest score attained) as well as gives children the pleasure aspect in regards to inputting of data using this method of interaction (highest score attained), and is relatively technologically feasible.

Since, the touch screen has obtained the highest cumulative score we have decided that the use of touch screens is the best method for the user to feed in data to the device and have chosen to follow on using this option for our prototype.

Specific Task Description: The specific task that the user can achieve while using the product is to be able to tell the device what their dietary requirements are. In order for the user to achieve this task there are a few sub tasks that need to be considered. First the user must be able to understand how to turn the device on. This will be the only physical button on the device. Based on the results from the chart above the device will also have a touch screen, the touch screen will allow the user to navigate their way through the following subtasks: Answer weather they have an allergy or not Input the specific allergy by choosing from a selection or choosing other and being able to type it in Receive confirmation from the device and continue to enter further allergies or dietary needs.

Specific Task Interaction Scenario: The user in this scenario is allergic to dairy. They also stay away from garlic and any food that contains garlic because they feel very ill when they consume garlic.

The user turns on the device and is asked what they are allergic to. The user presses on the category of “Dairy”. The device then moves to the “Dairy” screen whereby the user is presented with more specific options within the category of dairy allergies. The categories are as follows, “All milk products”, “Lactose intolerance”, “specific milk products”, “Go back”, and “Other”. The user chooses “All milk products”. The device moves to a screen asking the user to confirm their answer. The user does so. The next screen asks the user weather they have any other allergies. The user chooses “YES” and the device moves back to the opening screen. The user then clicks on vegetables. Because there are so many different vegetables, that 5|Page

UFP Basics C. T. v Doesburg s089211 J. van Kampen s090798

one can be allergic to the device shows the same screen as the one that would appear when “Other” is chosen. It is a screen that asks the user to “Please enter specifically what you can not consume”, below that there is a keyboard. The user begins to type “G-A-R…” as they type the device fills out possible foods that begin with those letters. The user is able to enter garlic and chooses “Select”. The confirmation screen appears again, this time it reads: “Please confirm that you can not consume: All milk products AND Garlic”. The user selects yes and the screen asking if there are any other allergies appears again. The user now enters “NO”. The device has now stored all the user’s information and is ready to begin. The device prompts the user to scan a product. The interaction of the user entering all their allergies is now complete.

Interaction Description The interaction is described through the following descriptive model. When the device is turned on, it will show screen shot 1. The user can push on any of the black squares in order to select that category and move forward. When the user clicks on Dairy they come to screen shot 2 and are able to do the same action. If they choose, other they will come to screen shot 4 where they will have the option to enter the specific allergy. When a final selection has been made, the device will ask to confirm the allergy. When the user clicks yes they will get to screen shot 5 where they have the choice to enter other allergies. If they select yes they will come to screen shot 1 again and if they choose no they will come to screen shot 6 which prompts the user to move on to the next interaction which will be to scan the food item.

Design Questions: Role Aspect: What if the user has no specific food allergy and still wants to use the device? This can also be phrased as: What is the default setting if there is no input?

We explored this during the paper prototyping by adding a new dimension in the beginning when it asks if you have any allergies or not. If you do not have any, it goes automatically to asking to scan the product. After which it will only tell you what the food item contains and give you substitutes.

6|Page

UFP Basics C. T. v Doesburg s089211 J. van Kampen s090798

Look and feel Aspect: How is the device held during the input of information (input interaction phase)? Does it fit in the hands of the child? Does it weigh too much? Can the child hold it and at the same time input the details?

We decided to make the device easily handheld but at the same time able to be hooked on to the shopping cart / basket / trolley. This we have portrayed by it being attached by Velcro to show that it is easy to adjust, put on, and take off.

Role Aspect: What needs to happen in order to scan a product? Would the user really use the product for scanning and finding out what a food item contains?

Since our prototype has a very clear and easily recognizable scanner, there should be no mistaking it for anything else. We have also developed an easy to follow menu system to take the user through the steps and guide him/her through the steps before reaching the scanning phase.

Goal of our prototype: The goal of this prototype is to allow the user to find out if they can eat a specific food or not according to their allergy.

Tasks necessary to complete the goal: Task1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4

input the details of the users allergies scan the food item the user wants to check receive information from the device as to what that food item contains receive other suggestions from the device as a substitute to that food item

The Expert Evaluation: For this part we acted as experts and keeping Nielsen’s usability heuristic values in mind we walked through the steps to complete the goal of finding out if a particular food is healthy for us or not. We walked through the task scenarios keeping the various heuristics in mind. Our results are stated as follows: 1. Visibility of system status: is not violated because the device states that the product is being scanned and also allows for time to change between the various screens for inputting the data therefore allowing the user to see what the device is doing at that particular time.

2. Match between system and real world: is not violated because the device follows a simple, logical pattern with continuous cross connections between different portions of the menu with no jumps from one menu to another without confirmation like a normal interactive device would do and that is carried out in everyday activities.

3. User control and freedom: is not violated because there is a very clear go back button and the device gives the user options to choose and to reconfirm this is where the user can again change his/her answers if needed giving the user ample freedom to change his/her answers and control of the situation.

4. Consistency and standards: is not violated because throughout the menu the directions are clear with no mistaking it for another options or menu screens, it does not seem repetitive and uses easy to understand language and symbols and is consistent throughout the whole setup process.

5. Error prevention: is not violated because we have clear confirmation boxes, which asks if that is the case, which avoids and prevents errors from happening without the user being aware of it.

6. Recognition rather than recall: is not violated because the instructions are straight forward with the use of visuals and text and the user to having remember the minimal amount of information to go on to the next step. The functionality of the prompts and buttons are obvious and rely more on recognizing its functions than recalling what it stood for.

7. Flexibility and efficiency of use: is violated.

Description of problem: There is no clear distinction between an experienced user and that of a novice or first time user during the use of this device. If an experienced user, wants to take shortcuts there are no buttons to enable this aspect.

Possible causes of problem: There is no clear button that skips all the procedure for an expert user or a memory that enables the device to remember that particular person.

Expected consequences of problem: Users who will continuously use this product might find it annoying that they have to enter the details every time they use the product and therefore use it less.

7|Page

UFP Basics C. T. v Doesburg s089211 J. van Kampen s090798

8 Aesthetic and minimalist design: is not violated because all the prompts are to the point without any extra useless information given and are only relevant. The use of visuals also makes it easier on the eye and thus fits this heuristic.

9. Help users recognize, diagnose, recover from errors: is violated.

Description of problem: There is no clear error message given during the whole use of the device. If someone were to input an allergy that the device does not recognise then what happens is uncertain, or if the machine just suddenly stops working.

Possible causes of problem: There is no clear button or messages that state what to do when an error occurs. Because we had not thought of this possibility we went under the assumption that everything would work without any glitches.

Expected consequences of problem: 99% of the people will get irritated when the device does not work and they do not have a clue as to why and what is going on.

10. Help and documentation: is violated.

Description of problem: There is no help button or screen that explains how to use the device or help in times of need.

Possible causes of problem: There is no clear button or messages that states what to do when you do not understand what is happening or to get you out of a situation you do not fully understand.

Expected consequences of problem: 99% of the people will get irritated when they do not have access to a helping hand system when the device does not function properly or when they have no idea as to what to do next.

Reflection on the Design Consequences: When we were designing our prototype and product, we forgot to think of the aspects of providing a help menu or error menu simply because we assumed that our product would work and would be straightforward to understand and use. We never thought of the possibility that it might be hard for another user or that an error might occur. The heuristic expert evaluation made us realise that although we are the designers there are many things that can go wrong when real users use it and that we should be prepared for them. We should not think that like us the real users will also have the pre knowledge as to how it functions and not have the aspect of needing help or in case of errors steps telling you what to do.

This evaluation also made us recognise the importance of designing a sort of memory for the device so that it can remember it’s most frequent or recent users, in order to facilitate and make the experience easier for the regular customers of the device. Children like to feel as if they are important and enjoy when a device remembers them, if we want to really attract our user group to use our product this aspect of the interaction has to be changed and integrated in to our present design.

From a simple point of view, our design was well made except for some aspects which should have been obvious to us but because we were working under unrealistic assumptions like the device would not break down and the user would not need help it did not really dawn on us to focus on these aspects. The fact that we also did not distinguish between the experienced and novice users was also nearsighted of us.

We learnt that such expert evaluations do help in bettering your product. They help you see, recognise, and appreciate various aspects of a design and you can find methods to better your own design from them.

User Evaluation: The following is the description of the user test to be conducted according to the DECIDE format. The user will be observed during the process of the test, therefore the evaluation will mainly result in objective measurements as apposed to subjective measurements.

Please refer to Appendices B and C for the consent and the introduction forms.

Determine: The formative goals of the user test are to see whether the user is able to understand how to start the interaction and navigate through the interface. The user will be observed as they input their specific dietary needs into the device.

Considering that the prototype is of low fidelity the summative goal of the user test will refer to the design requirements as described in the first report of the assignment. It will be observed whether or not the tactile features of the device are desirable, including where the handle is placed and the location of the scanner. The ease of use and learning requirements will be considered through asking if the symbols are recognizable.

8|Page

UFP Basics C. T. v Doesburg s089211 J. van Kampen s090798

Explore: The specific questions to be answered through this user test are as follows: How does the user hold the device, is it comfortable?

Is the user aware of where the scanner is located, do they find that to be an optimal location?

Does the user know how to turn the device on?

Does the user understand the interface or do they get lost easily?

What does the user do when they get stuck or lost while navigating?

Does the user understand and recognize the symbols that are used?

Choose: The evaluation approach that will be used is a ‘quick and dirty evaluation’. This method of evaluation is optimal at this stage in the design process because it will allow for answers to the proceeding questions in a timely manner. The paper prototype created supports the quick and dirty approach.

Identify: The prototype that is being used does not have screen shots for every option; therefore a practical issue may arise when the user is not able to see the results they want. There may be a level of dissatisfaction due to the fact that the prototype is very low fidelity.

Decide: An ethical issue that may arise during the user test could be that the user does not eat a certain food because of religious reasons. The may want to have an option to choose meat that has not been ‘halaled’ (for Muslim users) or food that does not contain any beef (for Hindu practitioners).

Evaluate: The overall task is that the user will be handed the device and observed as they navigate through the interface. After they complete the interaction they will be asked the questions that appear in the ‘explore’ section above.

The goal of this user evaluation as stated in the ‘determine’ section above relates to the following tasks, as outlined in the expert evaluation. The user control and freedom will be observed in order to see if it is true that this heuristic has in fact not been violated. The recognition rather than recall will be tested to see if the use of symbols does in fact trigger recognition.

Finally the Help and documentation will be addressed through the user test to see when it occurs and how it can be solved.

9|Page

UFP Basics C. T. v Doesburg s089211 J. van Kampen s090798

Results: Evaluations one and two were conducted by using the actual prototype, where as evaluations three and four were conducted using the screen shots based on the flow chart in the section interaction description.

Evaluation 1 - The user picked up the device with both hands and had no problem identifying where the on button was located.

- There should be a back function on the final screen - The chosen location of the scanner is not optimal. It may block the screen - What exactly do they need to scan eg, the barcode - There is no sense of where the user is in the menu, numbered steps may be helpful Evaluation 2 - The user did not pick up the device until prompted to do so. When they did the held it with one hand and had no problem identifying where the on button was located.

- The location of “yes” button is a bit odd because it is more natural to have it on the right side of the screen - How would a user be able to change the first entry if they have multiple allergies. There is no clear way to do this.

- The scanner is more natural if placed in the front of the device “like a remote control” - The device should show the user in what position the device should be held in order to scan with it Evaluation 3 – After the “scan” screen shot it would be helpful to have a screen showing what the food item contains and possible substitutions or comparisons - It is clear from the flow chart that the device is meant to be hand held - The instructions are clear and there is a clear flow through the menu Evaluation 4 - Where does the device go after screen shot 5 where does it go? (have it like a circle and an ear to follow it more easily visually) - If someone has an allergy that is not programmed in the device what happens?

- The concept is ideally formed for someone with a specific allergy but usually children are not aware what they are allergic to? Eg the child can be lactose intolerant this does not mean he can not drink milk at all just means it needs to be a small amount - It is not sure if you can choose multiple products ie within milk lactose and fat or in the beginning meat and fruit and milk etc.

- When going from screen 1 to 7 there is no confirmation for someone with no allergies - It is not clear what exactly the scanner detects, meaning what it can and can not find in the ingredients of a food item -What happens if the device can not identify the product? Error message stating it does not know and that purchase of it is not guaranteed to not contain allergic ingredient

10 | P a g e

UFP Basics C. T. v Doesburg s089211 J. van Kampen s090798

Overall Evaluation: Based upon the above results and observations from our quick and dirty evaluation we have been made aware of the fact that for our device to work properly we need an pre - prepared database with all the information in regards to the various food items and the list of ingredients, based upon which our scanner can work on. In general all the actions were carried out to the satisfaction of the users, time was used effectively and the process was to the point and clear.

The placement of the scanner was not clear to the user. The menu was straight forward and without confusion. The symbols and text used were easily recognizable, to the point and simple. All of the test users said they found the device to be pleasing and thought it would enhance their shopping experience.

Comparison of User and Expert Evaluation The user test allowed for the practical issues of the device to be noticed. The user was able to comment on form and give advice on where the scanner should be located based on their natural interactions. The tests done with users resulted in results that could not be predicted before hand, such as how the user naturally holds the device. The expert was more concerned with the navigational system of the device, where the user may get stuck or encounter problems. The expert evaluation resulted in many non-violations of the heuristics according to the navigation of the device but did not consider violations according to the form. The user evaluation and the expert evaluation were similar in that they both found a problem with help and documentation, however the user was able to give feedback on how that could be improved in their opinion. The expert evaluation stated the problem where the user evaluation reinforced that problem and presented possible solutions.

Redesign Suggestions: - The scanner should be placed in the front tip of the device to optimise the natural action the users would use when scanning a product - A help and error system should be incorporated in the navigation system throughout the menu and action procedures.

- The device should have a limited memory in order to facilitate frequent and regular users.

11 | P a g e

UFP Basics C. T. v Doesburg s089211 J. van Kampen s090798

References J. Nielsen(2005). Ten Usability Heuristics http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html nd

J. Preece, Y. Rogers and H. Sharp (2007). Interaction Design – beyond human-computer interaction 2 ed.

Design Brief, Assignment description and Power point presentations

12 | P a g e

UFP Basics C. T. v Doesburg s089211 J. van Kampen s090798

Appendix Appendix A Expert: Geert van den Boogaart

Options

Push Buttons

Voice Controls

Touch Screen

Card System

Scanner System

Spontaneous behaviour

+2

-3

+5

+1

-5

Ease of Learning

0

-3

+5

+2

-3

Multi Users

+1

-4

+3

-5

-3

Pleasure

+1

+2

+4

-2

-3

Technical Feasibility

+3

-4

+4

+5

+3

+7

-12

+21

+1

-11

Push Buttons

Voice Controls

Touch Screen

Card System

Scanner System

Spontaneous behaviour

+2

+5

+3

-2

0

Ease of Learning

+3

+3

+5

+5

+2

Multi Users

-1

-5

+4

-5

-3

Pleasure

-2

+3

-1

-3

-2

Technical Feasibility

+4

-3

+3

+3

+3

+6

+3

+14

-2

0

Push Buttons

Voice Controls

Touch Screen

Card System

Scanner System

Spontaneous behaviour

+5

-3

0

-5

+3

Ease of Learning

0

+5

+3

-3

-5

Multi Users

0

+3

+5

-3

-5

Pleasure

+5

-3

+3

-5

0

Technical Feasibility

+5

-3

0

-5

+3

+15

-1

+11

-21

-4

Criteria/

Sum

Expert: Pieter Oosterwijk

Options Criteria/

Sum

Expert: Dounia Bourjila

Options Criteria/

Sum

13 | P a g e

UFP Basics C. T. v Doesburg s089211 J. van Kampen s090798

Appendix B Informed Consent Form: I, ___________________________hereby give consent to have my verbal answers given to this interview recorded. Only Jacquelyn van Kampen and C. Tessa van Doesburg from the Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (University of Technology Eindhoven) in the Netherlands may use these answers. I also allow Jacquelyn van Kampen and C. Tessa van Doesburg to disclose this information within the University of Technology Eindhoven (TU/e). However I do not consent to having my information used outside of the afore mentioned institution.

Signed: ________________________________________ (Signature) Date:

Appendix C User Introduction: Dear Sir/Madam, We are Jacquelyn van Kampen and C. Tessa van Doesburg from the Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (University of Technology Eindhoven) in the Netherlands. We are currently developing a prototype for a new product, which can be used in the supermarkets to enable and enhance the shopping experience of children aged 8 to 12 years. For the further development of our ideas and feedback on what we have developed so far, we would like to get some honest answers in regards to your opinions, ideas, and feelings when using the product we have developed so far.

Our design is still in the early stages; therefore, any feedback received is highly appreciated. The information gathered from this user test would help us to design a product that children, such as your-self, will be able to use when searching for specific food in the supermarket. Through this test we hope to gain insight into the wants and needs of our user group as well as their knowledge level, attitude and motivation in relation to the current situation in the supermarkets.

The test is anonymous, and we will be summarizing all responses to describe in general the whole categories of users. It should only take 10-15 minutes to complete a single cycle of the test. To save time, let us now begin with the interview.

14 | P a g e