Peruse: Collaborative Shopping Experience

Redesign + Retrospective Collaborative Shopping Experience HCI Methods

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Redesign Scenario Table Interface Web Interface Phone Interface Retrospective Contextual Inquiriy Contextual Design Heuristic Evaulation Keystroke Level Model Cognitive Walktrough Think Aloud Appendices A Models B UAR’s C KLM’s D Design Ideation

WORD COUNT

2 8 12 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 29 53 55

Group 11: Rafae Aziz, Austin Bales, Andrea Irwin, Noah Levin, Aesha Shah

Executive Summary: 496 Redesign: 2821 Retrospective: 2980

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Shopping is a struggle. Whether it’s wavering back and forth between buying that new sweater or hesitating before snagging that new TV because it just doesn’t feel right for the living room, shopping can be a long and drawn out process. Now, add someone else to this process who may have completely different tastes than your own. Working together to purchase an item – like a communal futon in a new apartment or a gift for a mutual friend – can be even more difficult, but it is also a great opportunity to get to know someone else. Unfortunately there is no ubiquitous tool to assist in collaborative shopping. Documenting our likes and dislikes is mostly done through links in emails, scattered telephone calls or cutting out magazine ads. These methods are inadequate because of their transient nature; the inability to track down everything that has been considered and to view our thoughts on these items. In the midst of multiple methods for socializing and sharing content with others, we seek to provide a unified tool to improve the quality of the collaborative shopping experience.

Our design team is comprised of five undergraduate students in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) with multi-disciplinary backgrounds including computer science, engineering, information systems, industrial design, and communication design. Drawn together by an understanding of the need for user-centered design and its all-important mantra, the designer is not the user, we worked to place ourselves in the users context to fully understand what people need rather than what we think would be desired.

Working over a period of three months, we implemented six HCI methods on the current tools of documenting and sharing preferences

during collaborative shopping. We performed Contextual Inquiry and Contextual Design on roommates seeking to purchase a couch to discover the user’s needs based on their actions and immediate environment. We then completed multiple usability analyses including Heuristic Evaluation, Think-Aloud studies, Keystroke-Level Models and Cognitive Walkthroughs to document both positive aspects and common shortcomings of the current tools for sharing items like google notebook, social publishing platforms (wiki’s), and sending emails.

Inspired by all of the data from these studies, we determined that in order to design a successful tool to help people agree on the end product, we would need to support: Documentation: Provide an easy way to track details on what had already been viewed through multiple mediums.

Learning: To encourage enjoyable discussions about tastes and preferences such that eventually you can better predict what will be liked among your shopping group.

Efficiency: Improve the overall speed and usability of thought transfer in making a mutually agreed upon decision Our design focuses on solving these key issues by gathering people around a physical space to promote more personal discussions during the shopping process. We’ve designed a digital table on a software platform aptly named Péruse, where preferences are stored in personal spaces such that users can easily view overlaps in interests and dislikes.

1 / 61

REDESIGN

SCENARIO INTRODUCTION

Alice, Jeremy and Paul are new roommates looking to furnish their living room with a new couch. They search independently before meeting together. Since they do not know each other very well they are having trouble coming to a consensus. To help them collaboratively shop, they register as a group on PĂŠruse.

PART 1

Alice drives to IKEA on her lunch break and finds a striped couch that she likes. She thinks it would fit well in the apartment and takes a photo of the couch with her phone. She then sends the picture of the couch with a caption to the group website. (Figure 1.1)

Figure 1.1

2 / 61

Figure 1.2

PART 2

Jeremy is bored in class and sees that Alice had added a new couch to their group catalogue (“Newsfeed�). He decides to contribute to the collaboration and surfs Craigslist for a couch. He finds a few options he thinks might work and shares them with the group. The ideas are sent to the group and catalogued in a group collection. (Figure 1.2)

3 / 61

Figure 1.3

PART 3

Jeremy and Alice come together around the digital table and look at all the links and pictures uploaded on the website. Paul is stuck at work, and receives a text that his roommates are looking at the digital table. He logs on to listen/contribute to their discussions while viewing the Venn diagram application. Using the Venn diagram, they find three couches with overlapping interests.

They “tap� them to bring up a side by side comparison. (Figure 1.3)

4 / 61

Copyright © Carnegie Mellon University. The use of this service is subject to terms.

Péruse | New Couch

+ add a note

Jeremy

Notes

Fairfax, VA

LT I LOVE AL

Tan Couch made by North Carolina Furniture for sale. It's in great condition. No stains or tears. read more »

HIN

GS

L

R

IN TH NO

G Cost R $200 E D PLE ASE Location

EA TH E

Alice

Description

Great Tan Couch craigslist.com

Blue Striped Cuch mobile photo Description

Red-Wine Color Couch craigslist.com

N/A

Cost

Description

$2,000

This is a textured chenille couch, in red-wine/burgundy color. The seat cushions are soft, plush and very comfortable. read more »

Location

Local IKEA Retailer

Notes

Nice Striped Couch! edit

Cost

$125 or best offer

Location Fairfax, VA

Venn View

Physical Model

Copyright © Carnegie Mellon University. The use of this service is subject to terms.

Paul

Notes

Pet Owner!!!

Péruse | New Couch

ATS ALLER GIC TO C

Figure 1.4

PART 4

While comparing the three couches, Paul notices that one of the couches had been in a household with cats. He expresses his concern of being allergic and the group removes it from the diagram/comparison, while making a note in the Venn diagram by placing text in the diagram. (Figure 1.4)

5 / 61

Figure 1.5

PART 5

After settling on two options, the group decides it would be helpful to see how the couches would fit in their living room. They change the current view on the digital table from Venn View to Physical Model. The table then displays a virtual representation of their living room, which Jeremy had previously mocked up using basic rectangles and a photo of their room. While both couches seem to fit the space, Alice mentions that it would be nice to entertain multiple guests. Paul agrees and notes that the striped couch would allow for greater seating than the red couch. They take note of this directly on the interface. (Figure 1.5)

6 / 61

Figure 1.6

PART 6

Jeremy suggests tabling the idea because he is unsure about the stripes. He records this opinion under the notes for the striped couch.

Having learned (and documented) more about each other’s likes and dislikes, they decide to take a break and reconvene when they have found more couches. Thanks to Péruse, Jeremy, Alice and Paul can better predict each others’ opinions, thereby speeding up the process to not only buy a new couch, but to acquire any future communal item for their home. (Figure 1.6)

7 / 61

REDESIGN

TABLE INTERFACE This table is designed to help people collaborate; it is a medium for people to see and compare images – much like traditional sharing around a kitchen table – but with the advantages of an adaptable interface to get the most out of available information. While only two interfaces will be discussed here, this product is certainly not limited to these applications. (Figure 2.1) The need for the table was derived from observations of the Contextual Inquiry. In the supplied video, we noted that members of the group looked for ways to share their findings in person. The user’s description during the CI included a description of having resources split in multiple locations.1 During the CI, the user noted, “So that makes it go a little slower since we’re all trying to kinda come together.”2 This highlights one of our main goals, efficiency.

The table receives updated information from any of the users and is recalled when the group gathers around the physical object and interacts with the visualizations. As we saw in the CI, artifacts were transient and difficult to compare. Directly from the original CI transcript, a user identifies a breakdown with the existing methods. “I mean Cate is looking today so I'm assuming she actually went through some of these, but I don't know which ones she's looked through or not.”3 This inconvenience prevented users from sharing accurate records of their preferences and suggestions. The table evokes conversation as side-by-side comparisons may be made to note positive and negative attributes of options for group purchase.

Figure 2.1

As the information hubs, the table also fosters an interaction that allows a group to learn more about the motivations behind their purchase preferences. This is promoted by the presence of a physical object which encourages people to be in the same space.

This is a process that seemed muddled in the observed interaction in the CI.4

1. CI-L: 89 “So the other day when got back and we were having kind of a roommate powow, and we were just talking about couch stuff and she usually has her laptop on the kitchen table so she ran over there and was like looking at stuff while we were here on couch here and when she found this, well not this one but another couch or something that she thought was a good deal, we came over there and huddled by her computer.”

2. CI-L: 58 3. CI-L: 50 4. CI:L 91 “So she ran over there and was like looking at stuff while we were on the couch here and when she found this we came over there and huddled by her computer.”

8 / 61

Figure 2.2

If not everyone can be present, a web interface is available to allow for remote collaboration. This creates a tradeoff between the goal of having everyone in the same space and allowing convenient access. Since it is not feasible to assume everyone will always be able to be in the same physical space, an alternative must be available. Thus, the table is designed to work in tandem with the web interface when needed.

The Venn View provides a virtual space for users to interact through images that have been categorized by user. Taking advantage of prior knowledge, people can relate to the interface like a traditional Venn diagram. The interface allows users to learn collaborators’ preferences and easily see differences and similarities. Intended to be used on the table, images contain detailed comments, links to original posts, or additional information. The images can be dragged from one user’s circle to a common area, automatically updating the users’ preferences, as the group discusses their options. (Figure 2.2,3) Figure 2.3

9 / 61

This application is designed for the user to note what they do and don’t like about a potential purchase. This visualization is a store of already collected data that individuals have uploaded through various means. The approach is threefold: First, categorize preferable options by person including instances when there is an overlap between multiple people; Second, allow for a space to keep options that are disagreeable, keeping record of that which is not desired; Finally, allow individuals to make note of motivating factors visible within their user area and make additional notes on other items in the application.

In the CI, we saw that most people try to be reasonable and respectful of others’ preferences and restrictions when making group purchases5,6, but these preferences must first be known. The Venn View helps you learn about others’ needs while helping match up common interests.

The inclusion of notes learned by a person while searching was a concept derived directly from both the flow and sequence model. In the status quo, users keep data in their heads while gathering information7 or discuss them verbally8 in which case it is likely that not everyone in the group will have access to the information.

Individual input is arranged to help the group eliminate options that are not beneficial to all by highlighting those that are favorable to more than one person. Once the images and text has been added, the conversation can start by looking at areas of great overlap with find a better solution faster.

This application, as it is designed, only works for up to three people. Additional considerations have been made for more users though they were not fully developed in this redesign. (Appendix D) Once ideal couches have been selected in the Venn View, the group can extract them to the physical model, which allows the group to fit found options into the physical model view.

In this view, the user maps out the physical space affected by the group purchase.

Comments made in the physical model will reflected in the Venn View. (Figure 2.4) In the CI, the users noted the specific qualities they were looking for as a group and observed the motivating factors behind those aspects.9 Further, the physical model allows the group to specify an ideal layout in a predetermined color. As the images are extracted from the Venn View, they can be sketched and overlaid on the layout in a different color. Once sketched, the potential purchase can be moved around in the space just as you would push a piece of furniture around in a room. The model itself would be drawn by the users but is not covered in depth in this redesign. Strongly motivated by our own use of the physical model used in the CD, it became apparent that a clear visual of the space made for the best dialog in a group.

As this is a platform for discussion, the group will be able to manipulate objects in front of each other, placing them in the space, rearranging and reordering to come to an ideal solution. In some instances, this model might even be used to prepare compelling

5. CI-L:521 “I would trust my other roommates caring about things I cared about, like the cat issue, price issues.“ 6. CI-L:564 [Eric] was respectful of the fact that neither Cate nor I would like [a dingy frathouse couch], so I think we have everyone’s best interests in mind.

7. CI-L: 154 We just have to keep in our head like what we haven’t looked at and that kind of thing.

8. CI-L:115 We don’t have it like written down. We don’t have any place that I can be like, ‘This is well within our price range.’

9. CI-L:189 We need more size and this is not enough even. Actually Eric mentioned he’d like something that goes to the wall…so something that’d comfortably seat 4 or 5 people.

10 / 61

Figure 2.4

arguments as to why a particular purchase should be accepted by the group.

As the group must come to a consensus on the ideal scenario, there is much discussion that would surround the intended uses for the future purchase. People will also be able to use the multi touch interface to manipulate the model as they discuss. Identical to the functionality of commenting in the Venn View, descriptions can be added and edited based on these discussions.

This application is not without tradeoffs. The interaction is intended for people to be physically present and remote users would lose a lot in the translation as they would have difficulty voicing their opinions, even with two-way audio feeds. We realize getting everyone in the group together can be challenging, so this is a potential tradeoff of our design.

11 / 61

REDESIGN

WEB INTERFACE The PĂŠruse web interface was designed to be used for specific uses: viewing the status of the table-based collaboration; adding images; and commenting/rating. The interface was purposefully designed not to attempt to emulate the user experience available on the table interface. In fact, even if given a set of tools that would allow near-emulation of the table interface (saw a large touch screen for instance), the web-interface is a personal computer interface and thus it is not as wellsuited to rich, dynamic, collaboration as the table interface, which allows all the users to share the same physical space.

Taking advantage of best practices in web development, the login form is dual-purposed as the site’s user registration form. The system requires no information other than an e-mail address and password (the same information required by the table interface), and thus reduces the need for a separate form, and drastically reduces the time required to use the system. (Figure 3.1)

Figure 3.1

12 / 61

Interface elements were styled using standards-compliant and accessible behaviors, and the user interface elements are styled to respond to hover and click interactions with the mouse. In Figure 3.2, the user has selected the E-Mail for data entry and is placing the mouse pointer over the Password field. The system responds to hovers and clicks both on the label and form element components of the fields, allowing for a large target area (thus making the system both faster and easier to use). The button elements use friendly, actionable language to avoid confusion by non-tech savvy users. The elements also respond to hovers and clicks with a visual change, in order to give feedback to the user on his selection. (Figure 3.3) When the user attempts to login, an asynchronous request is made, allowing the content of the current page to be removed, and replaced with an indicator that shows the status of the login process. (Figure 3.4) Rather than having the user reload the entire page in the event of a failed login, the login form simply re-appears, saving both loading time and interaction time. Upon completion of a successful login, the user is greeted and redirected to the application’s main interface.

This was done to immediately greet the user, while still preserving a separate page for the application window (for bookmarking, performance, and technical purposes).

Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3

Figure 3.4

Figure 3.5

13 / 61

THE APPLICATION

Figure 3.6

The application page makes visual reference to the login, but is structured to include less “gloss” and more content. The left sidebar displays all the shopping workspaces that the user is currently a part of, and all the other users and items part of that space. The list is collapsible, allowing quick access to different workspaces, while not confusing the user with information not relevant to the selected workspace.

The initial state of the page shows recent changes to the workspace (the newsfeed) as well as images recently added.

(Figure 3.6) When the user hovers over an image, several overlays appear: “Like”, “Dislike”, “Comment”,

14 / 61

Figure 3.7,8

and one for the current title of the image. If the user has indicated their preference (“Like” or “Dislike”) the choice is grayed out. This allows the user to either change their minds or add a comment. (Figure 3.7,8) The diagram view shown to the right accepts a single click to enlarge. This allows a web collaborator to view the state of the shopping, even if he is not there to actively contribute.

Additionally the Venn view (when enlarged) allows to user to listen to a live audio stream (and contribute audio); this feature is toggled by a speaker icon in the upper-right of the diagram view. (Figure 3.9)

Figure 3.9

15 / 61

WHILE BROWSING

The web interface is accessible via a browser bookmarklet. The bookmarklet performs a content insertion onto the active page displaying the Peruse toolbar — this eliminates the need for proprietary extensions and won’t contribute to bloat in your browser’s code. (Figure 3.10) Because the bookmarklet contains a key for accessing the user’s workspace, a list of current spaces associated with the account is shown, the default being the most recent.

(Figure 3.11) Once the interface is active, the user is able to double-click on an image to add it to Péruse.

When double-clicked, the page is masked to highlight the selected image and the Péruse toolbar. This allows the users attention to be solely focused on the task at hand, and prevents erroneous interaction with other elements on the page. (Figure 3.12)

Figure 3.10

Figure 3.11

16 / 61

Figure 3.12

After conducting a keystroke-level model on the design, we realized one obvious and small tweak to decrease mouse movements: have the cursor select the “Title� field upon selection of an image. These fields were designed to be easily identifiable using terse but friendly natural language, following our goal of a friendly, well-documented interface.

(Figure 3.12)

17 / 61

Figure 3.13

The user can then enter a title and <TAB> or click to use or skip the description field. Based on data extracted from the CI, we concluded that there should be a way to add something that the user does not like. While not the default behavior, the user can easily select “dislike” from the dropdown. This allows the user to provide the group with important information about his preference without requiring a separate step. (Figure 3.12) KLM demonstrates that keyboard actions are generally more efficient than mouse actions.

Optimizing the web-add feature for keyboard use saves time, and makes the interface easier to use.

After the user is content with the data, pressing <ENTER> or clicking “Save & Close” will save the form and remove the mask from the page. If the user decides against saving the image “Nevermind” will cancel the

process. Again, the decision to use natural language buttons is a conscious one as supported by the Think-Aloud where the user expressed confusion about meaningful labels in the interface.

(Figure 3.12) When the user has saved an image, a message is appended to its border, making it clear that the image has been previously saved. This not only informs the user of the success of their action, but also discourages them from re-adding an image. (Figure 3.13) If the user does attempt to re-add the image that they have personally added, they are presented with a notice stating that they have already performed this operation. If, however, the user adds an image already added by another user, the system will silently update.

18 / 61

REDESIGN

MOBILE PHONE INTERFACE People in the 2.5- or 3G market frequently take pictures with their mobile phones, and almost always keep them on their person. To take advantage of this useful vector for the transmission of information, we would implement a mobile phone interface. Allowing friends, family, or co-workers to casually add to the workspace(s) follows the natural flow of information as defined by the flow model; moreover, any opportunity to increase the range and diversity of relevant options is a beneficial contribution to the system. Rather than have a dedicated e-mail address for each person, and use some sort of hash string to protect from unwanted contributions, we thought it best to have the system route the photos automatically based on the senders address. This allows users to not only (S/ M)MS photos to their PĂŠruse workspace, but also from any e-mail enabled device or client (such as an iPhone or iPod touch). (Figure 4.1) Figure 4.1

19 / 61

RETROSPECTIVE

CONTEXTUAL INQUIRY Contextual Inquiry (CI) is a qualitative field exploration technique that reveals a participant’s work practice through interviews conducted within the user’s work context. The data gathered is used to gain insights into the user’s tasks, the people they interact with and their environment. The interviews can be performed in different ways depending on the situation. We were provided with a workbased interview, which involved a user attempting to buy a coach with her roommates whom she did not know very well.10 The work-based interview requires a slight interruption to normal workflow, but seems to yield more rich and valid information than some of the other retrospective or future scenario options.

The CI became the backbone of our usercentric design, allowing us to view the problem holistically rather than concentrating on a set of discreet usability problems.

Though time consuming, reviewing the transcript served as an invaluable reference through the design process. Walking through a real user’s experiences, we were able to see opportunities and breakdowns in the status quo. Access to additional interviews would provide different perspectives to validate the findings and help see the problem through different lenses.

Contextual Interviews require significant preparation and can be time consuming and expensive to complete. It is important to stay on focus and maintain partnership with the user, which yields more accurate data about the user’s work practice.

10. CI-L:568

20 / 61

RETROSPECTIVE

CONTEXTUAL DESIGN

Contextual Design (CD) is a qualitative cooperative post-field analysis that consists of five models used to understand tasks and details of the working environment. These models are: flow, cultural, sequence, physical, and artifact.

The flow model reveals patterns and breakdowns of a participant’s communication and interaction between people, resources and artifacts. It allows designers to illustrate responsibilities in a workflow, which is helpful not only for inspiring redesign concepts, but also to work through with the client to understand the system. Trying to devise a complete and readable way of displaying this large amount of data was challenging, but we were able to work through it by working through multiple iterations on whiteboards.

The flow model was the most time consuming CD for our group, but it was highly necessary because it gave us a clear depiction of the user’s interaction with her fellow housemates and identified the important stakeholders. For example, we identified friends and family as a common network in communication, which allowed us to realize that there may be couch opportunities that do not come from online sources.11 This motivated our expansion of Péruse to a cell phone interface to emphasize the importance of sharing media in multiple mediums.

During our meetings, we made sure to hang a copy of our final flow model (see appendix A) on a wall to use as a reference for who will be interacting with the system and their major influences. This ‘birds-eye’ view helped us cross-reference our designs to make sure we were accounting for all necessary stakeholders. In doing so, we found we needed to apply the web interface of Péruse to any potential site the user would navigate, not just craigslist.

In contrast to the flow model, which illustrates data between entities, the cultural model explores the subtle effects of expectations and influences that exist between them. It allows

us to discover unspoken problems and attitudes that exist within the environment.

Since information shown in the cultural model is based the interview, trust becomes an important factor in acquiring open, complete, and honest information. Thus, data from the cultural model is more subjective than from other more concrete models, such as the sequence model.

The cultural model made us aware of important user preferences and requirements that were not necessarily shared by all of the buyers. This motivated the “Newsfeed” feature and the ability to add notes to uploaded items, allowing for personal issues to become more visible to all users.

The sequence model provides a detailed qualitative sequence of the actions, triggers, and intents associated with tasks a user performs during an interview. While the sequence model provides good information on the sampled tasks, it lacks big picture motivations and connections provided by the other models.

From the sequence model breakdowns, we observed that there was no method of documentation for what people had already viewed. One of the primary functionalities of our design allows the user to view a full list of rated or viewed items via either the table or the web interface. The sequence model’s highlevel view of what the user was trying to do and existing breakdowns through each step of the process allowed us to confirm that our design allowed the user to complete the task more effectively.

The physical model shows the user’s surroundings and the various elements that support or constrain the user’s work. It carefully focuses on elements in the environment that are relevant to the system at hand, which helps note factors that might not be immediately apparent in the CI. The physical model played a major role in the creation of the “digital table” form factor. The model showed that two users were working

11.CI-L:83, 85 - She's going to ask her brother to see if one of his co-workers has something for us to use... I'm asking one of my colleagues... there's a couple of avenues going

21 / 61

on collaborative tasks far apart from each other, which made communication difficult.

This spurred the idea of bringing users together, improving user-to-user communication and user-to-user interaction.

Initially we did not understand the value of the physical model. Early in the design process we had a very interface-centric point of view and did not consider features of the environment to be relevant. It was only after we decided to think of an out of the box form factor that we returned to the physical model.

The artifact model is akin to a macro version of the physical model because it displays the structure and issues associated with a specific object or display. It has the basic appearance of the object itself while displaying intent, structure, and breakdowns throughout the interface. The artifact model adds a layer of information to specific items that may appear in other models. Illustrating this content supports its purpose in the interface, but it must be viewed in tandem with the other CD models to by fully justified.

The artifact models made for Craigslist ads12 depicted just a small aspect of collaborative shopping. One thing we noticed was that pictures were given the most value in Craigslist ads. This was reflected in our design by emphasizing visuals over text during the users search process; they click on a picture to save the item rather than highlighting text. We found that the artifact model needed to be used sparingly during the redesign process as it lends itself to very specific usability problems with the current interface, rather than over-arching redesign ideas.

Overall, we found Contextual Design to be a very time consuming, yet powerful design process. Although it was easier to create lowfidelity models on large sheets of paper, we discovered it was beneficial to render them in high-fidelity as well. This not only gave us the opportunity to refine our models from their original conception, but also proved to be less cluttered and therefore easier to spot critical points. Additionally, the polished digital models would be easier to share with stakeholders, but if the client is on a tight budget it may not be possible.

22 / 61

RETROSPECTIVE

HEURISTIC EVALUATION

Heuristic evaluation (HE) is a method of formative usability inspection where analysts carefully measure each aspect of an interface against a set of established principles. In other words, compiling a list of good and bad elements of an existing design to provide recommendations for later improvements. The heuristics, or usability principles, used in these evaluations are derived from extensive industry research by usability experts (Molich and Neilsen, 1990). Conducting the HEs was a cheap and quick method of feedback because we were able to individually create multiple usability aspect reports (UARs) in just a few hours.

When combining our findings we discovered that each of us took unique paths in analyzing the interface, which resulted in myriad breakdowns. For example, a few of us focused only on the sign up form, one person worked only on the home page, and some of us went on to record issues deep into the Wiki pages for managing content. Often times we felt in danger of overanalyzing the site for potentially harmless violations, which is often a risk when conducting HEs13. Although we found an inconsistent home-link to be a ‘usability catastrophe’ of, it was a very inexpensive usability fix.

universal design patterns. We found it was necessary to demonstrate “recognition rather than recall” in our table design by showing thumbnails of the images on the Venn diagram instead generic iconography. We thought that applying an icon would be useful when viewing different types of items, highlighting general shopping patterns between groups. We determined that this would still be possible with thumbnail images and that the images were important to showing specific objects.

In the future, we would like to see a class-wide aggregation of UARs and ratings, sorted by occurrence and severity rating. WetPaint was an especially large site to tackle for usability issues — even after creating our report we had just scratched the surface. Additionally, we had difficulty agreeing on severity ratings for usability flaws as we lacked observation of an actual user’s interaction. Once again, we are not the user, and as such it is not always possible to gauge the severity effects on them.

Therefore, the heuristic evaluation provided us with a fundamental understanding of effective design patterns, rather than directly applicable modifications. For example, many of our HE’s were on a sign up form and thus had no concrete implications for our solution .

Instead, we took note of the visual clutter problem, a common occurrence on the WetPaint site, and focused on the importance of a minimalist design that makes frequent tasks easy, while keeping infrequent tasks accessible.

Finally, the HEs helped us to iteratively refine characteristics of our solution to conform to

12. CI-L:214 - you really depend on [the visual] for a lot of information... I think is very important.

13. 4 We found an average of a 2.55 severity rating for 21 problem aspects and a 2.42 benefit rating for 11 good aspects, which indicates the majority of the issues were minor in scale.

23 / 61

RETROSPECTIVE

KEYSTROKE LEVEL MODEL EVALUATION

A Keystroke Level Model (KLM) simulates a skilled user executing simple data input tasks and produces quantitative predictions of their behavior on an interface. It requires a clearly defined sequence of actions to model the output in an execution time using calculations from cognitive psychology’s Model-HumanProcessor. Typically KLMs require an experienced analyst with a background in psychology. However, we were able to use the software, CogTool, which automated the process of KLM predictions thereby removing the need for a trained analyst. A KLM’s objective results can provide solid arguments for design improvements. The ability to show a client that a proposed redesign is predicted to be significantly faster than an existing design for accomplishing a given task serves as compelling quantitative evidence that is difficult to ignore.

While typical criticisms of KLMs argue that the common user is different than expert users, it is important to note that comparing an interface with task time differences greater than 20% typically demonstrate real problems. For example, we found a small difference between Gmail and Wetpaint for sharing a link with a comment and did not have enough evidence to conclude one as superior to the other.14

Google Notebook had an advantage of not needing switch pages to share information.

Being able to stay within the craigslist page while adding comments saved valuable clicking and cognition time because the user could quickly access the notes section in an unobtrusive window within the browser’s status bar. We added a similar method of sharing a link allowing the user to double-click an image and add a comment without navigating away from the content being viewed. We iteratively tested our model and found an overall time for sharing a link to be 15.711 seconds, which is 13% faster than Google Notebook.

Overall, we found KLM to be a fast and inexpensive method that made it easy to validate our design. CogTool was especially useful because the qualitative formula was already laid out for us by industry experts and no users were needed in testing. The only downside we found was the inability to validate our design’s welcoming to new users; we could not tell if the system was intuitive or easy to find since the data is based on a user who knows exactly where to click beforehand. Given more time, it seems that CogTool’s results would have been best paired with a think-aloud of a prototype using the export to HTML click-through feature.

Between our three major themes, we found KLMs to be extremely helpful in providing greater efficiency than the current methods of sharing data. KLMs helped us to identify specific problems like poor spatial arrangements, inefficient groupings of tasks, and lengthy paths of reaching a simple objective. For example, we saw that Google Notebook took significantly fewer clicks to share an image of a couch with a comment.15 CogTool allowed us to hone in on specific differences between these interfaces using side-by-side comparisons to determine what was causing these differences.16 We found that

14.KLM results for sharing a link and comment: GMAIL = 33.495s, Wetpaint = 33.015s 15.KLM results for sharing a link and comment: Google Notebook = 17.763s, Wetpaint = 33.015s 16.Diagram shown in appendix C

24 / 61

RETROSPECTIVE

COGNITIVE WALKTHROUGH Cognitive Walkthrough (CW) is a structured Usability Evaluation Method (UEM) used in initial design phases to evaluate user interfaces by analyzing every step in a selected task. A set of questions is asked for important and frequent tasks to help the analyst understand the cognitive process of the user. The CW, rooted in cognitive theory, helped our group analyze “selling” on eBay via the user’s own “exploratory learning”.

In order to perform an effective CW, we needed to make assumptions about the novice user, defying the course mantra, “the user is not like you”. Coming from different backgrounds, we debated for some time on the expected knowledge of a novice user.

Since our Contextual Inquiry (CI) was based on a different interface, our CI findings did not provide concrete information about the knowledge of our user. We also found it difficult to distinguish between the perception an comprehensibility of an action. This problem was tackled by developing more specific criteria to analyze the user’s actions.

This helped us gain a better understanding of how to design for a novice user.

We found writing the priori to be imperative as it was the basis for our success and failure stories. The priori did not, however, allow for subjective data collection or an expansive audience.

Collectively stepping through a predefined set of tasks while in the mindset of the user allowed us to have complex discussions involving user assumptions and preconditions. Therefore, analyzing the transitions between each step was time consuming.

From all the methods performed, we found CW least useful to our redesign. Although the discussions of the priori and user tasks helped us define the user’s exposure to similar interfaces, the actual findings never directly related to the ideas that motivated our redesign. For example, we noted an inconsistency in the placement of a “Continue” button, which caused confusion when traversing from one state to the next.

This usability flaw was never applicable to our design. However, being mindful of these errors while creating redesign prevented us from similar transgressions.

25 / 61

RETROSPECTIVE

THINK ALOUD A Think Aloud (TA) study is a Usability Evaluation Method (UEM) based on cognitive theory. The novice user is asked to talk about his interactions with an interface while trying to accomplish a specified goal. This method produces empirical data that helps the analyst understand the user’s thought process while navigating the interface.. The analyst observes the user’s interaction, taking note of both good and bad events that relate to predefined criteria. This helps the analyst develop an understanding of the user and the problems he encounters.

To be effective, a TA should be conducted on an important set of tasks,at different stages in the development cycle. This allows, the analyst to test the design process and catch problems before they become costly fixes.

Like Contextual Inquiry (CI), we had an opportunity to observe the user as she attempted to achieve her goal of selling a couch on eBay. Breakdowns that would otherwise go unnoticed were highlighted in the TA study. In the Cognitive Walkthrough (CW) we noted the visibility and position of the “sell” button followed website conventions17, but in the TA study, the user was unable to locate it without external help18.

From observing this breakdown, we learned that when designing our interface we should ensure that the main functions should be explicitly visible ,appropriately positioned, and well styled. Thus, the TA study gave us the opportunity to observe the failures of the user as she traversed through the steps, allowing a better understanding of the interface’s shortcomings. TA studies are executed on both scenarios and realistic tasks. Thus, they show breakdowns in workflow rather than UI inconsistencies extracted from Heuristic Evaluations (HEs).

While consolidating our individual TAs, developing specific UARs challenging since workflow problems were deeply interconnected. For example, the user experienced several difficulties specifying shipping information for local pickup19. This problem persisted as the user was unable20 to identify and understand the error feedback.

Although in our experience the TA proved to be very useful, we were unsure as to wether or not the users expressed their thoughts clearly and if the task defined took into account all the critical events. Further, the users may not have provided a rich vocal thought process in all cases. We also felt that multiple failures while accomplishing a particular task earlier in the study affected the user’s attitude and performance in the later portions.

Despite these drawbacks, we found the TA study to be the one of the more useful methods in developing our redesign. It made us realize that “the user is not like me”. It brought to our attention unanticipated problems, identified high severity problems and gave us qualitative findings. However, multiple TAs with different users would have provided us with subjective data. Thus, allowing us to gain a better understanding of our user spectrum.

17. CW step 1 question 29 18. G11-TA-01 User has difficulty finding where to begin selling an item 19. G11-TA-02 User has difficulty finding where to indicate a local pick up 20. G11-TA-03 User has difficulty understanding error feedback

26 / 61

APPENDIX A

MODELS Friends Friends and Family Primary Search Person 36

Buyers

Graduate Student (U2) 35

get opportunities

gives opportunities

RETAILERS INVENTORY in stock implied

e-mail & chats 44, 117

Professional (U3)

Grad Student (U1)

OPPORTUNITIES

get opportunities 267

search

Primary Search Person 36

Sellers

265

36

16

Independant Sellers

CRAIGSLIST

get opportunities 41

posts ads implied

Has excess INVENTORY

Opportunities (Ads) 41

implied

41

Professional (U4) 37

exchange followups about ads 263

e-mail

removed couch 41

Former Roomate (F1)

25

Flow Model

“I’m allergic to cats” 251

R1

“There’s not an urgent rush, but he would like to have his couch back.”

31

Friends and Family Buyers

24

Grad Student (U1)

16

Graduate Student (U2)

20

Professional (U3)

20

Professional (U4)

20

Sellers

61

Independant Sellers

“Something that will comfortably seat five people” 190

41

“I’ve heard of Swickley, I can look at this one.”

245

“It says semi-annual sale, so it might be a good time to b uy a new couch.” 270

“I trust Macy’s” 295

Retailers “If there was another site, I would just go there, so I just Google to see what happens”

“Getting a better deal than retailers” 142

42

265

Cultural Model

27 / 61

Sends an email to her roommates with links to the couches she wants to discuss 470

Cannot find the item she had viewed on craig's list earlier 400

Discuss previously viewed links with U2 in person 293

Goes back to Craig's list to review the items she has seen before 362

U2 Comes Back 281 Sub-Trigger

To get di!erent ideas of other options in the market 264

View the sale items of the first link/retailer produced by the search 278

Searches the web via google 266

Couches do not satisfy 264 Sub-Trigger

Makes Decisions on couch 156, 167, 202

Analyze the value of the couch Checks the location 133, 241 Views the price 155, 188 Views the photo 157, 159 Reads the description i:98 Check if location is near 133 See if price is reasonable 155 Check if decor matches 214 Learn what criteria to look for i: 231, 249

Sub-Intent

Find more opportunities to send to group 128

No indication of what links the other roomates looked at 150

Searches Craig's list for options 128

No more links in email 127 Sub-Trigger

Makes Decision(s) on couch 103, 111

No method of recording preferences 122, 123, 125, 126

Analyze the value of the couch Views the price 87 Views the photo 98 Reads the description i:98

Review U2's suggested couches 45 Sub-Intent

See if price is reasonable 45 Check if decor matches 214 Learn what criteria to look for i: 102, 156, 231

Follows links in email 86, 104

Receives email from U2 72 Trigger

Find a new couch Main Intent

Sequence Model

7IUYIRGI 1SHIP

+VSYT )PIZIR

'SRXI\XYEP (IWMKR ` L[

Price is often used to determine how seriously to pursue (155)

%RHVIE -V[MR %YWXMR &EPIW %IWLE 7LEL 2SEL 0IZMR 6EJEI %^M^

craigslist > category

email this posting to a friend

Ent nullan henisci blandrer ad dit niam euisim dolobor acipisci bla autem ea con utpat nissequatis at lobore tat. Ut irilit ing ercidunt prat. Duis nonsed dolum doluptat. Duisi.

HEADER DESCRIPTION Name can bring intrigue and attract attention to the buyer (172, 442)

Item for Sale - $5 - (Location)

Buyer ignores this function of the interface (167)

please flag with care: miscategorized prohibited spam/overpost best of craigslist

Reply to: sale-837325355@craigslist.org Date: 2008-09-11, 9:50PM EDT

5

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Nulla sollicitudin, pede non posuere lacinia, elit pede tempus mi, sit amet faucibus purus quam nec arcu. Curabitur molestie. Nullam posuere tempor massa. Praesent congue. Nunc posuere, lacus placerat vestibulum auctor, urna dolor adipiscing dolor, vitae molestie ante nibh viverra orci. Integer justo nunc, tempor ac, tincidunt eget, mattis quis, nisi. Curabitur vitae purus id tellus lacinia semper. Quisque imperdiet odio eget massa.

Location helps give the buyer a sense of how easy it would be to view the item in person (241)

PICTURE Description is the first filter for the buyer – used to determine initial relevance to query (157)

While not required by craigslist, a picture is almost necessary for a buyer’s confidence in the item. (210)

Pictures can indicate features that can quickly negate other good qualities (246)

+ Location: Shadyside + it’s NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests PostingID: 837325355

Special features, such as optional shipping or add ins, are added to this body description (199)

Consolidated Artifact Model

'SRWSPMHEXIH %VXMJEGX 1SHIP 'SRXI\XYEP (IWMKR ` L[

+VSYT )PIZIR %RHVIE -V[MR %YWXMR &EPIW %IWLE 7LEL 2SEL 0IZMR 6EJEI %^M^

22

28 / 61

APPENDIX B

UARS No. Group11-HE-01 Name:

Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Aspect

Creation Process

Evidence Heuristic: User Control and Freedom Location: Steps 2 and 3 of Creation page (http://www.wetpaint.com/wiki/easy)

The user is not permitted to travel backward in steps during the creation of a Wetpaint page.

In order to go back and adjust content entered in previous steps, the user must cancel the site creation process all together or use the "back" button on their web browser.

Explanation When the user completes a step in the site creation process there is no way of going back without erasing what was previously entered. By not giving the user a choice to review and adjust content, there is a lack of control and a feeling of being locked into choices. This places a lot of pressure on each field of the form, which reduces comfort of the user and potentially decreases trust in the system. Undoubtedly, users will make errors and the current implementation does not allow the user to recover from them at a low cost.

Severity Rating: 4 – Catastrophe Justification (Frequency, Impact, Persistence) Frequency: Very common — can occur anytime a user is creating a page Impact: High — user has to start the form all over again to correct mistakes Persistence: Moderate — depends largely upon how many revisions are necessary How these factors are weighted and why: Because this problem occurs any time a person is creating a website (one of the fundamental goals of the site), and the impact is quite high since users can lose a lot of time and effort if restarting the form becomes necessary, we believe the problem is considered a usability catastrophe. The user may determine to give up and leave the site all together in the presence of this problem unless there is a strong motivation or will to create the site.

Possible solution and/or trade-offs The user should be able to make changes to previous steps in the process but using the browser back button clears all data from the previous form. A possible solution would be multiple stream-lined navigation buttons that allow the user to continue, go back to the previous step, or cancel the Wetpaint site creation process. This gives the user control over the site creation process.

Relationships Specific UARs written for the Creation Process: ab-HE-06 Problem Sign up process does not allow users to correct mistakes ra-HE-04 Problem User control during site creation process nl-HE-09 Problem Cannot go back in steps when creating a site as-HE-03 Problem User cannot navigate through site creation steps ai-HE-10 Problem User is guided through steps without control in moving through

29 / 61

No. Group11-HE-02 Name:

Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Aspect

Inconsistent Home Link

Evidence Heuristic: Consistency and Standards Location: Home Page + Four Pages in primary navigation www.wetpaint.com vs www.wetpaintinjected.com

When the user clicks 'developer resources' in the primary navigation, the site changes from the standard elements on the top to a completely new set of links. As a result, the wetpaint logo no longer links back to the home page. There is a traditional web design pattern that is being violated where the user should always be able to see consistent top-level navigation from any page. (http://www.welie.com/patterns/showPattern.php?patternID=mainnavigation) Explanation When clicking on a link in the top-level navigation, the user should consistently know where they are and how to get back. When the user clicks the wetpaint logo, the normal behavior is a link to the home page. However, while in the developer resources page the user may become disoriented by the fact that the same logo links to a different domain.

Severity Rating: 4 – Catastrophe Justification (Frequency, Impact, Persistence) Frequency: Common — part of the primary navigation Impact: High — user cannot easily get back to the primary navigation since links are removed.

Persistence: Relatively low — once the user discovers to manually enter www.wetpaint.com to their address bar or press the back button, they will not make the mistake again.

How these factors are weighted and why: Although the problem will not persist once the user learns how the navigation works, the initial frustration cost is high because many people will not want to spend the time figuring out how to get back to where they are when exploring the contents of the site.

Possible solution and/or trade-offs Leave the primary navigation and use the develop resource navigation as a secondary navigation as to give the user a sense of consistency.

Another possible solution is to separate developer resources from the other elements as to emphasize their different content and not provide a false relationship.

30 / 61

Relationships Specific UARs written ra-HE-11 Problem ai-HE-11 Problem ab-HE-09 Problem ab-HE-12 Problem nl-HE-06 Problem ai-HE-09 Problem

for the Home Link: Behavior of "Wetpaint" logo is inconsistent.

Ambiguity of function of the icon Lack of universal home button Inconsistent message for page headers Inconsistent navigational elements No navigation to home page except for using icon on top of page

31 / 61

No. Group11-HE-03 Name:

Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Aspect

Forced Reformatting of Content

Evidence Heuristic: User Control and Freedom Location: When editing a page (www.sitename.wetpaint.com/#edit)

When a user copies and pastes material into the editor, if it is not in the exact formatting of the current theme, the computer will automatically adjust the content and not allow the user to undo or change this reformatting.

Explanation While reformatting content to match a theme can be useful, not giving the user a choice and forcing them into an action violates user freedom. The user cannot undo this automated action, which is frustrating because it removes a sense of control over a user’s supposed ‘custom’ web page.

Severity Rating: 2.8 – Minor Problem Justification (Frequency, Impact, Persistence) Frequency: Common — Users experience this event whenever they copy & paste text.

Impact: Difficult to overcome — the user cannot undo this action.

Persistence: High persistence — the user cannot disable this behavior.

How these factors are weighted and why: Although this behavior does not make changes to the content vis-à-vis textual meaning, it can unexpectedly change the meaning of the input by disregarding or altering important formatting or visual characteristics. This fault creates the potential for the user to be unable to create content according to their own desired/required visual scheme.

Possible solution and/or trade-offs Consider allowing administrative users to decide if content reformatting is mandatory or optional. Ultimately, it should be the choice of the “user in charge” as to which was more important: required visual consistency of content or flexibility. Wetpaint should also consider adding an “undo” button (if the user in charge allows non-reformatted content) to let users go back and tweak, or change their minds.

Relationships Specific UARs written nl-HE-03 Problem ai-HE-06 Problem nl-HE-04 Good

for Reformatting of Content: Forced Reformatting of content No way to undo the auto-formatting in easyedit Automatically reformats content to display properly with theme.

The users freedom and control are potentially more important than the cosmetic benefit of the error prevention.

32 / 61

No. Group11- HE - 04

Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Aspect

Name: Visual Clutter of home page Evidence: Heuristics: Aesthetic and Minimalistic design.

Location: Home Page (www.wetpaint.com)

Given the screen, there is an excessive amount of content and repeated information on the home page. Although they have different names, all of the links circled in red and in blue lead to the same pages, respectively.

Explanation The user is presented with a great deal of choices and links, which creates visual clutter and adds more information for the user to search through to find desired information. Repeating the same information in different ways located in multiple places on the home page is redundant, can be a source of confusion, and causes cluttering of the main page. Different names for links that all lead to the same page invites the user into thinking that there is more information on the website than there actually is. The user may waste time exploring each individual link under the false impression that they lead to different locations.

Severity Rating: 2.6 – Minor Problem Justification (Frequency, Impact, Persistence) Frequency: Very common — Any visitor (most importantly newcomers) to the home page may be confused by the excessive amounts of repeated information and links.

Impact: Low — becomes relatively easy to overcome once the user becomes familiar with the site, but there is an initial confusion for novice users.

Persistence: High — Occurs whenever the page is accessed.

How these factors are weighted and why: This is a minor problem; although the impact is low, the frequency and persistence is relatively high, as the user will have to waste time reading through repetitive data on the home page to find desired information and courses of action.

Possible solution and/or trade-offs Solution: I would propose having information listed only once and having only one link leading to a particular page. If two links were necessary then I would propose having the same name for both the links to avoid confusion.

33 / 61

Relationships Specific UARs written for Visual Clutter of homepage: ai-HE-08 Problem Visual clutter of home page as-HE-02 Problem Duplicity of links leading to same page nl-HE-01 Good Aspect Prominent Initial Action

34 / 61

Group Heuristic Evaluation Table Combined Aspect Report Problem Aspects Terminologies Are Not Defined Procedures and terms such as “lock your site” are not defined Help Not An Option in EasyEdit Mode Assistance is not available in easy edit mode because non-editable texts are uneditable.

Unclear Input Prompt URL and sitename boxes input boxes are not prominent.

Style Selection Pane The style selection pane does not show an updated preview if the theme was switched using the error keys.

EasyEdit Element Binding EasyEdit doesn’t demonstrate a strong link between text area and toolbar.

Unclear Points of Entry Difference between “Create a Free Website and “Go” is unclear.

Profile Editing Unclear Link to editing profile inconsistent with affordances throughout the interface Search Box Location Location does not meet standard design pattern.

Meta Navigation Format Small windows cannot view complete navigation bar My Wetpaint Wikis Link Shows unnecessary page if user has only one wiki.

Site To-Do use Site to-do’s cannot be added from a central interface.

Linked Page Layout Not Standardized The pages that are linked from the bottom of the home page do not have a standardized layout Difficulty in Submitting Forms Users who previously entered an invalid birthday cannot submit a new form without clearing their cache or disabling the cookies on the browser

Heuristic(s)

Individuals Referenced

Average Rating

Help and Documentation

ai-HE-04

2.4

Help and Documentation

ai-HE-05

2.2

Aesthetic and minimalist design

ra-HE-09

2

Recognition vs. Recall; Visibility of system status

as-HE-11, ra-HE-05

2

Match between system and real-world; Efficiency of use

ab-HE-01

2.6

Recognition vs. Recall

ra-HE-10

1.6

Consistency and Standards

ai-HE-07

2.2

Consistency and Standards

ra-HE-06

2.6

Consistency and Standards

ab-HE-08

2.4

Flexibility and efficiency of use

ab-HE-02

2.6

Flexibility and efficiency of use

ab-HE-03

2.4

Consistency and Standards

as-HE -07

2.2

User control and freedom

ab-HE-07

2.2

35 / 61

Links to page in Wiki If there are no links, clicking "Links to [this] page" will result in an empty screen.

URL Formatting User is not informed of incorrect format until after error is made Cluttered Wiki Design Default wiki page has too much information for the user to search through to find desired info.

Visual Clutter of Main Page Amount of text, links, and icons on the home page is overwhelming Behavior of Two Similar Buttons Two buttons with the same appearance and placement in the interface (titled "Get Injected" and "Get Attached") have entirely different behaviors.

Inconsistent Home Link Inconsistent use of the wetpaint logo as a home link.

Flexibility and efficiency of use

ab-HE-04

2.4

Error prevention

nl-HE-02

1.8

Aesthetics and Minimalist Design

nl-HE-08

2.8

Aesthetics and Minimalist Design

ai-HE-08, as-HE-02

2.6

Consistency and Standards

nl-HE-07

3.2

Consistency and Standards

ra-HE-11, ai-HE-11, ab-HE-09, ab-HE-12, nl-HE-06, ai-HE-09

4

Required Fields Consistency and Standards Inconsistent use of design patterns for required fields.

Creation process Error prevention Signup process doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t allow users to go backwards to correct mistakes.

nl-HE-10, ra-HE-01 ab-HE-06, ra-HE-04, nl-HE-09, as-HE-03, aiHE-10

4

Forced Formatting of Content User control and freedom Content is reformatted after entry to match the format of the page.

nl-HE-03, nl-HE-04, aiHE-06

2.8

3.2

36 / 61

No. 11-CW-01

Problem Aspect

Name

Poor location of "Continue" button within category selection process Evidence

Task Step: Step 11, Click Continue Cognitive Walkthrough Question: #2, Will users see the control (button, menu, switch, etc.) for the action?

Explanation The user will likely not see the "Continue" button because he works linearly across the screen from left to right and the button becomes active at this step at the bottom left. Given the prominence of the verification check mark and other text, it is confusing as to where the control should take place.

Severity or Benefit Rating: 2, Minor Usability Problem Justification

Frequency: Not uncommon, many users will expect a "continue" button to appear towards the right side of the screen.

Impact: The user will eventually notice the button and, having no other logical choice to progress through the steps, would likely click it. It does however take additional time and is a bothersome fault in the process.

Persistence: This problem occurs whenever the user reaches this point in the process, although the amount of time that it adds to the process would likely decrease the more the user visits the step due to habituation.

How these factors are weighted and why

This problem is more an inconvenience than a "show stopper" and it's affect on the user decreases with experience. It does however add an unnecessary delay in the process. Further the simplicity of the problem compounds its unacceptability â&#x20AC;&#x201D; it is a needless variation from standards and from eBay's well executed design.

Possible Solution Move the continue button to the right, closer to the verification message thereby assigning the action to a more obvious control. The user works linearly from left to right and will now notice the continue button change from its grayed out state.

Possible trade-offs If the user is just using the search button, it would be more logical for the continue button to follow directly below the search results on the left-hand side.

Relationships (None)

37 / 61

No. 11-CW-02

Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Aspect

Name

Poor feedback on userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current place in the system after clicking "Go!" Evidence

Task Step: Step 12. Click the Go under Keep it simple.

Cognitive Walkthrough Question: #4, After the action is taken, will users understand the feedback they get, so they can go on to the next action with confidence?

Explanation

The milestone bar does not appear in this step although it has been shown consistently on every other step. This leaves the user in an ambiguous state during this third step.

Further, if the user chooses "More Listing Choices", the resulting form accurately displays a milestone bar. If the system does not indicate the users' current place in the system, the user cannot positively assess their progress.

Severity or benefit Rating: 2, Minor Usability

Problem

Justification (Frequency, Impact, Persistence) Frequency: Common, the majority of users will select the 'Keep it simple' option.

Impact: Moderate, the user will be in an ambiguous state during this third step, and

not be able to positively assess their progress.

Persistence: Low, this will be a repeated problem, but after the first usage of the interface, the user will know their general location within the listing process during this phase.

will

How these factors are weighted and why

Although this problem has a high frequency, the impact is not very persistent because after the user's first interaction with the listing posting interface, they will have a general understanding of their location in future interactions within the listing process during the "Keep it simple" phase of the process.

Possible solution

A possible solution to this problem would be including feedback that indicates what happened in task terms, such as the milestone bar that was being used consistently in previous steps during the task. The milestone bar (as shown on at the top of the page in the first screenshot in the evidence) provides the user with an indication of their progress within the listing creation process. This will prevent users from entering an ambiguous state during this third step of the process.

Possible trade-offs

The proposed milestone bar may become lost because of visual clutter within the "Keep it simple" interface and thus would not provide useful feedback to the user.

Relationships (None)

38 / 61

No. 11-CW-03

Problem Aspect

Name

Insufficient feedback when selecting a photo to add to the listing page Evidence

Task Step: Step 17, Click Open Cognitive Walkthrough Question: #4, After the action is taken, will users understand the feedback they get, so they can go on to the next action with confidence?

Explanation

After clicking the "Open" button, although the previously empty text box becomes filled, there is no indication from the system that they have selected the intended file. In addition, the "Browse" button remains highlighted, which may lead the user to believe that the next action is to click "Browse".

Severity or Benefit

Rating: 2, Minor Usability Problem Justification (Frequency, Impact, Persistence)

Frequency: Low. New users are likely to encounter this problem but it would be rare for casual or experienced users to have difficulty as the action can be successfully performed but the user might not be sure if the photo was successfully selected as there is insufficient feedback before moving on to the next step.

Impact: Mild. Given the limited options available to the user, it is likely this will be easy to recover from when encountered.

Persistence: One-time problem - once they complete the task successfully they will understand the procedure and be able to perform these actions with confidence.

How these factors are weighted and why

This is really a problem that affects the user the first time it is encountered. Given it affects they user proceeding with confidence, the impact is mild because while they are likely to waste some time if they assume their photo has not been successfully uploaded they will eventually be able to continue with the original goals. Since this is a one time problem affecting new users and will not stop them from using the application, it is a minor usability problem with a rating of 2.

Possible solution

Eliminate confusing feedback by removing the highlight over the 'Browse' button after it has already been used. This would prevent users from perceiving they are supposed to click on it again. Also, having a thumbnail of the image appear in the window would provide helpful feedback that the correct image has been selected and the user would feel confident moving on to the next action.

Possible trade-offs

Including a thumbnail image would increase the necessary real estate on the screen.

Relationships

n/a

39 / 61

No.

G11-TA-01

Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Aspect

Name: User has difficulty finding where to begin selling an item Evidence: What the user said: “You want me to sell a couch by posting an ad on ebay.” [8:57] “I’m at the website and I have no idea what I’m supposed to do. I’ve never done this before.” [12:15] “I don’t know if that’s incoming or outgoing [sale items]... Okay so I’m a little bit stumped.” [13:33] “I’m not convinced I’m on the right page.” [14:50] “I’m really lost here.” [16:30] “I really didn’t see that at all” [17:17] What the user did: User clicks on the link to user page.[12:50] User clicks ‘Items for sale’.

[14:00] User goes back a page. [15:40] User clicks edit [15:50] User clicks on listing drop down [16:12]. User clicks ‘learn more about selling.’ [16:40] Proctor instructs her to go to sell link on top right. [17:11] What the system did: The system provided the user with multiple options at the home page [12:00] and responded to each of the users decisions with the appropriate page. The system provides a contextual help link for the user to learn more about selling. [16:28]

URL: http://www.ebay.com Criteria: 1. The user articulated a goal and does not succeed in attaining that goal within 3 minutes.

3. The user articulates a goal and has to try three or more things to find the solution.

6. The user expresses confusion over how to achieve a goal.

40 / 61

Explanation: The user was attempting to start selling an item. She looked over the main page reading the green headers to see the options available to her. She was unable the find a direct link to sell an item, so she selected what she thought was the most appropriate link (6). She selected the link next to the word "Welcome", which took her to a user profile page (3). Generally, the user was unaware of what the page should look like for selling a new item as she had never had sold an item on eBay before. Therefore, she tried several other links before realizing she had taken a wrong turn (3). Her confusion continued as she was unsure about whether the content on each page related to selling an item or viewing other people's items for sale (6). The sell button on the top right did not capture her attention; although meta navigation is conventionally located at the top right, the user was unfamiliar with this concept and hunted for a button that more explicitly fit her goals. After several minutes and multiple attempts, the proctor provided assistance (1).

Severity or Benefit Rating: 3 - Major Problem Justification Frequency: Moderate. This will be a common problem for novice users who are not familiar with the eBay interface. New users are not aware of website conventions and will not think of looking at the top right of the eBay window. Most users of eBay either want to buy or sell and item, thus it is one of the main tasks of a user.

Impact: High. This is difficult to overcome as the user received help to move on and had several failed attempts. If the user cannot complete this step, the user will be unable to sell an item on eBay. Persistence: Low. One time problem: Once the user locates the toolbar in the upper right corner containing the "Sell" button, the user will be able to locate the button with ease during future interactions with the eBay interface.

How these factors are weighted and why: This problem affects mostly novice users who lack an understanding of website design conventions. Although this problem could become a "show-stopper" for novice users, this problem is given a "3" because the location of the button does follow website design conventions and because it is a one-time problem. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Selling an itemâ&#x20AC;? is one of the main functions of eBay and thus has a high severity rating.

Possible solution: Since selling an item is one of eBayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s main functionalities, the home page for eBay could include a large icon or header (similar to the green headers that attracted the user's attention) explicitly indicating feed-forward that clicking that icon or link will allow the user to start the 'sell an item' process.

Possible trade-offs: A possible trade off for adding a large icon or header on the main page is that it would make what is arguably an already visually cluttered eBay main page even more visually cluttered.

41 / 61

Relationships: AI-TA-01 - User has difficulty finding where to start new item listing NL-TA-01 - User has difficulty finding where to begin selling an item AS-TA-01 - The ‘Sell’ button is not explicitly visible to the user RA-TA-01 - User confusion when attempting to start selling process RA-TA-02 - User is unable to begin selling process in a reasonable amount of time RA-TA-03 - User implies that the location of ‘sell’ is not optimal RA-TA-13 - User experiences difficulty when attempting to begin the selling process

42 / 61

Cognitive Walkthrough State 01:

State 02:

Step 01. Click Sell Will users be trying to produce whatever effect the action has?

Yes, the button is labeled “Sell” and the user's original task is to sell an item on eBay. Will users see the control (button, menu, switch, etc.) for the action?

Yes, the “Sell” button is on the screen and the standard convention is to have action items in the top part of the screen. Also when the user mouses over the "Sell" button, the "Sell" text gets underlined. Underlined text is a convention for button or link.

Once users find the control, will they recognize that it produces the effect they want?

Yes, mousing over the “Sell” button produces options (such as "Sell Item") that provide a link between the desired effect and action and provides a label in task terms.

After the action is taken, will users understand the feedback they get, so they can go on to the next action with confidence?

Yes, mousing over “Sell” creates a drop down list of further options including “Sell an item”, which the user can recognize as a connection between the system response and what they are trying to do.

43 / 61

No.

G11-TA-02

Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Aspect

Name: User has difficulty finding where to indicate a local pick up Evidence: What the user said: “I’m not sure if I need to mention here if its pick-up only and no shipping because I don’t know what’s in the system.” [21:15] “Oh so I forgot to put the shipping thing in, I’m gonna add that it’s local shipping only – I’m not sure if that’s necessary, but since I don’t know...” [25:00] “Uh-oh, shipping service... specify shipping service.” [28:44] “It seems like there would be something that says, you know, shipping or no shipping.” [29:55] “But I don’t want it shipped, I want them to pick it up... I assumed because they put all these other sorts of things up here that it wasn’t in here.” [31:05] What the user did: The user types “local pick-up” in ‘Create a descriptive title for your item’ section and then removes it. [20:55] The user types “local pick-up, no shipping” to the ‘Describe the item you’re selling’ section. [25:00] The user selects “Select a Handling Time” from the drop down box labeled ‘Handling time’. [26:40] The user clicks ‘Learn more about Shipping’. [29:30] The user clicks on “Local Pickup” from the drop down box under Shipping Destination. [31:30] What the system did: System shows an error message after the user pushes ‘Save and preview’ for the first time that reads, “Please specify a shipping service.” [28:30]

URL: http://cgi5.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?EasyLister Criterion: 1. The user articulated a goal and does not succeed in attaining that goal within 3 minutes (then the experimenter steps in and shows him or her what to do--the next step).

3. The user articulates a goal and has to try three or more things to find the solution.

6. The user expresses confusion over how to achieve a goal.

8. The user makes a design suggestion.

44 / 61

Explanation: The user was looking for a way to note that the item was available for pickup only. She needed to indicate this both to the system (to disable shipping and provide the correct associated costs) as well as to the potential buyers. Her problems began while providing a title for the listing, where she expressed confusion (6) over whether she should indicate "Pickup only" in the title. She subsequently decided against indicating "Pickup only" in the title and moved on to the other sections. After a long period of perplexed exploration (6), the user tried reading all the available documentation. Thus, all of the user's attempts did not lead to a solution (3), and the user spent over three minutes attempting to complete the goal (1). The user failed to carefully review all of the shipping method options thereby missing "Local Pickup", which was the very last entry. Ultimately, the user received help in completing the goal and the user stated a possible design suggestion to make the task easier to complete for future users (8).

Severity or Benefit Rating: 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Major Problem Justification Frequency: Mild. While it is unlikely many will be in situations where local pickup is needed, the user's confusion over how to find the option is likely to be fairly common especially among new users who may not scroll to view all the options.

Impact: High. The user is confused and cannot locate the local pick up option. The local pick up option is the last item in the shipping method drop down list box and many first time users will not think to scroll to the end of the list to find their desired option.

Persistence: Low. One-time problem. Once the user realizes that the local pick up option is located at the end of the list box, they will remember the location during future interactions with the interface. Even though this specific issue is likely to be a onetime problem, the issue of not reading all the options on scroll menus is a large problem that is more likely to affect the user often throughout the interface.

How these factors are weighted and why: Due to the one-time persistence and mild frequency but high impact to the user this was selected to be a major usability problem. It can affect a wide range of people, both novice and expert users, who may be unable to locate the local pick up option. For users attempting to indicate local pick up, the inability to locate the local pick up option may make this a "show-stopper" problem.

Possible solution: Create an optional check box for users that would like to select the local pick up option. As a result, if the box is checked, the system would remove all other shipping related options in an attempt at error prevention, and making the local pick up option more prominent.

Possible trade-offs: The majority of items on eBay allows for some type of shipping, so the local pick up option may not be very commonly used. Thus, creating a check box option exclusively for local pick up could take up crucial real estate on the "Create a listing" interface.

45 / 61

Relationships: G11-TA-03 - User has difficulty understanding error feedback Understanding the error feedback would help the user identify where to indicate a local pick up.

G11-TA-04 - User does not notice scroll bar in category search result page In both instances, the user fails to utilize the scroll bar to find more options.

ARB-TA-02 - User is confused as to where to indicate ‘pickup-only’ ARB-TA-03 - User does not understand how to disable “Handling Time” RA-TA-06 - User expresses confusion when dealing with handling time listbox RA-TA-07 - User has difficulty finding where to indicate a local pickup AS-TA-04 - No indication of what to put in the text field AS-TA-07 - No indication of where to enter ‘local shipping’ NL-TA-03 - User has difficulty finding where to indicate local pickup AI-TA-03 - User is unsure how to indicate a local pickup

46 / 61

No.

G11-TA-03

Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Aspect

Name: User has difficulty understanding error feedback Evidence: What the user said: “Uh-oh. Shipping service. Specify a shipping service. ::sigh:: This is where I couldn’t figure out where this was.” [28:34] "Ok.. umm.. this is where I got stumped earlier, I don't know where the place is. So its got to be under shipping I guess...” [29:00] "Shipping... I must have missed something" [29:08] "Shipping cost, I thought that I already read that too. I'll try it again" [29:18]. "Alright create a description, it wouldn't be under that.

Bring your item to life with a photo, I did and I cannot imagine anything under that. Describe the item you are selling. And.. I don't see anything under there so I don't understand. [30:06] What the user did: The user reads that there is an error in specifying the shipping service [28:34]. The user looks at all the options available under step 4: set a price and shipping details [29:00]. The user then scans the entire form step by step. [30:06]. Proctor instructs her to go to the drop down menu under step 4 and scroll down to the end and select local pickup [30:30].

What the system did: System shows an error message after the user pushes ‘Save and preview’ for the first time that reads, “Please specify a shipping service.” [28:30]

Criterion: 1. The user articulated a goal and does not succeed in attaining that goal within 3 minutes (then the experimenter steps in and shows him or her what to do--the next step).

6. The user expresses confusion over how to achieve a goal.

Explanation: The user failed to complete the form properly and attempted to submit it, resulting in feedback designed to alert the user of the problem; that the action was not completed; and that there was something for her to fix. When presented with this feedback, the user was initially confused over what component she had not completed successfully(4). Even after she realized her problem, the feedback did not aid her in fixing it. The user scanned the entire form again and was unable to notice the red text indicating where she needed to make a fix to her entered data. The user expressed confusion and at this point she was given assistance(1).

47 / 61

Severity or Benefit Rating: 2 – Minor Problem Justification Frequency: Low. While all users make errors, novice users are more likely to make errors while completing the form and will be forced to deal with the error feedback dialog.

Impact: Moderate. Users unfamiliar with eBay error feedback may not be able to identify and fix their error. These novice users may be unable to continue the item listing process unless they receive assistance.

Persistence: Low. Although the user may be confused initially with eBay's error feedback, this problem is easily overcome with some exposure to the interface.

How these factors are weighted and why: This problem aspect is listed as a minor usability problem because the impact is only expected to affect a subset of novice users. Also, the persistence illustrates this aspect as a one time problem for affected users and the frequency illustrates that this will only be a problem for users who are unable to correctly complete the form.

Possible solution: Provide a link in the error feedback that jumps the user to the relevant incorrectly completed part of the form. The system could also utilize pointers in the margin (red chevrons, for example) that indicate the exact location of the problem.

Possible trade-offs: A possible trade-off to the proposed solution is that it would create visual clutter within the error feedback dialog.

Relationships: G11-TA-02 - User has difficulty finding where to indicate a local pick up Understanding the error feedback would help the user identify where to indicate a local pick up.

RA-TA-09 - User cannot locate or fix error in form within ‘create your listing’ RA-TA-10 - User expresses confusion when attempting to fix error within ‘create your listing’ ARB-TA-04 - Provided feedback isn’t helpful/specific enough NL-TA-06 - User has difficulty understanding error feedback AI-TA-05 - User expresses confusion towards the error feedback

48 / 61

No.

G11-TA-04

Problem/Good Aspect: Problem Aspect

Name: User does not notice scroll bar in category search result page Evidence: What the user said: “So now I have a choice with 7 things that are 'Inside the Home'.” (18.29) "Oh, so it's allowing me to select two...this will allow me to get more hits" (18:56) What the user did: The user clicked the search button [18:21]. The user clicks the checkbox next to ‘Sofas’ [18:48]. The user reads the tip ‘Reach more buyers by selecting two categories [19:10]. The user clicks the checkbox next to ‘Sectionals’ [19:25].

What the system did: The system displays the first seven options and a scroll bar on the far right side, which could be used to see more options. (18:22)

URL: http://cgi5.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll Criterion: 4. The user accomplishes the task, but in a suboptimal way

Explanation: The user makes note of the fact that she perceived 7 results for her query of 'couches' and begins to read in depth on these options. She neglects the scroll bar on the right side, which indicates more results were found. She was able to complete the task and select the proper category, but she was unaware of all the options the system found and thus completed her task in a suboptimal way (criterion 4) because there could have been better choices.

This problem aspect uncovers a greater problem that the user is unaware of the affordance of a scroll bar which is a basic interaction not specific to this application and will impact other interactions beyond this case.

49 / 61

Severity or Benefit Rating: 2 – Minor Problem Justification Frequency: Mild. This is likely to be a problem for more novice users as scroll bars are a common interaction tool, but for those who do not have experience they are likely to miss more available options anytime a sale listing is created.

Impact: Moderate. If the user sees one or two options that they feel work well enough for the task in the first 7 options, they would not think to consider scrolling down for potentially more accurate choices.

Persistence: Moderate. The user may not realize that they are missing possible options in the category selection, so it may result in continuous suboptimal completions of the task.

How these factors are weighted and why: This is a minor usability problem since the user completes the task but in a suboptimal way (criterion 7) but because a satisfactory result was found within the first 7 responses we do not have data to know how the user would perform if a desirable option was not visible. Experienced users are not expected to find difficulty in this interaction, but for novice users the impact is significant as they would be unable to diagnose and recover from the error.

Possible solution: Display the number of returned options (Ex. 12 related categories found) to increase awareness that more options are available Possible trade-offs: This could increase visual clutter on the category selection screen.

Relationships: G11-TA-02: User has difficulty finding where to indicate a local pick up In both instances, the user fails to utilize the scroll bar to find more options.

ARB-TA-01 - User does not see scroll bar in category listing NL-TA-09 - User does not notice scroll bar in category search result page RA-TA-11 - User does not realize more category options exist AI-TA-04 - User does not notice scroll bar in category search result page AS-TA-07 - No indication of where to enter ‘local shipping’

50 / 61

No. G11-TA-01

G11-TA-02

G11-TA-03

Tape Time 12:15 - 17:59

21:15 - 31:05

28:31 - 31:37

Problem description User has difficulty finding where to begin selling an item

UAR #s AI-TA-01 NL-TA-01 AS-TA-01 RA-TA-(01, 02, 03, 13)

Consensus Severity Rating 3.2

2.8

2.3

1.8

2

RA-TA-05 NL-TA-07

1.6 AS-TA-02

RA-TA-12 NL-TA-04 AS-TA-08 RA-TA-08

1.2

1.6

NL-TA-05

AI-TA-04

AS-TA-07

RA-TA-11

NL-TA-09

ARB-TA-01

AI-TA-05

NL-TA-06

ARB-TA-04

RA-TA-(09, 10)

AI-TA-03

NL-TA-03

AS-TA-(04, 07)

User is unsure how to indicate shipping ARB-TA-(02, 03) option of local pickup RA-TA-(06, 07)

User has difficulty understanding error feedback

User is confused by "Buy It Now"

18:29

24:02 - 24:25 32:35 - 33:45

User finds 'Start Selling' button to be a misnomer for its action

G11-TA-04

G11-TA-05

17:25 - 17:56 31:35

User does notice scroll bar in category search result page and in shipping options

G11-TA-06

User is upset by lack of early indication of listing fee

User does not take advantage of Paypal's email autocomplete feature

28:20

27:15

G11-TA-07

G11-TA-08

51 / 61

18:12

Evidence (Tape Time)

None

None

Think-aloud UAR nos. (if any)

Refuted

Refuted

Not Applicable

Supported / Refuted

Aspect Report Name

11-CW-01

Poor location of "Continue" button within category selection process - The user did not encounter this because she used the search feature instead of the browse feature for category selection.

19:35 - 19:53

AS-TA-05

Analysis Predicted (UAR nos.)

11-CW-02

Poor feedback on user’s current place in the system after clicking “Go!” - The user had no difficulties in understanding where she was or what to do next to accomplish her task.

21:20 - 21:55

RA-TA-14

NL-TA-02

11-CW-03

Insufficient feedback when selecting a photo to add to the listing page - The user had no difficulties in the process of uploading a photo. In fact, the user found the process to be a happy surprise.

52 / 61

APPENDIX C

KLMS

Comparison of our Web Interface and GMAIL in assessing the task of sharing a link with a comment. Through creating the KLM, we observed multiple opportunities to increase the efficiency of our interface. For example, we noticed that by moving the focus of the cursor to the form for â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;titleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; automatically after selecting an image, we could save the time of the user switching from the keyboard to mouse to move up to the form box.

More detail analysis can be found in our CogTool file.

53 / 61

Comparison of Google Notebook and GMAIL in assessing the task of sharing a link with a comment. More detail analysis can be found in our CogTool file.

54 / 61

APPENDIX D

DESIGN IDEAS Concept

Description

Chat Function

Having ongoing conversations about a shared link.

Derivatives Physical Model; Flow Model; Cultural Model (families who may not want to use the web to send links);

Being able to upload mobile pictures to a common space. i.e. You're at Ikea and you take a photo of a couch and want to get feedback.

Links and pictures in a shared space which shows up in the corner of your screen. Clicking on it would expand KLM (google notebook Drag & Drop the window. (Like a picture in picture display- will allow efficiency); Window easy switching between the two screens) Google Chrome Allow users to view links without following being forced Sequence model interface to follow/click links (similar to Chrome start page) Group can upload pictures of themselves, post Meeting with John (Finding comments about what they like and don't like, and out about each other) -User Profiles select check boxed preferences for autosuggestions. also sequence model On the 'home page' (expanded panel), there could be a Auto Competitive Analysis list of suggestions based off of user preferences taking Suggestions (Amazon.com) data from eBay, craigslist, retailers.

Shows the comments grouped by user for each link visited. Thus can view all the consolidated comments in one place and compare them. Avoids having to go Comparison Flow model back and forth with emails/ and avoids having to window search through emails to view feedback from other collaborators.

Sequence Model (Clicking Physical space that allows people to gather around a on things they didn't like): Table 'surface' digital screen with images for a more visual Finding more about each concept comparison of potential purchases other Allow users to mock up their physical space in a Physical Model (Being Displaying drawing and pull images into the space; could also distant while making Physical Space keep a running sum of the cost for the images that relatively personal (Real Estate) have been dragged in decisions) People add what they want and as other agree on objects they like it moves into common space; 'zoom Unmotivated Ven diagram in, zoom out' Some possible indicator of how close they are to Heuristics (Visibility of making a decision (progress bar, automatic comments/ Milestones system status) suggestions, etc,.)

Avoid visual Make page clean and simple. Have most common task clutter -emphasized (make it easy to share the first link, photo,Heuristics (Visual Clutter) minimalist etc,.) design Provide effective feedback during all interactions Effective Button necessary for the interface. Cross reference with Cognitive Walkthrough Labeling positive examples in the cognitive walkthrough Uploading Pictures

Note: This is not an all-inclusive list of our design features. This is result of our initial brainstorming session as we were sketching up ideas.

55 / 61

We created an affinity diagram to organize our initial design concepts. This is how we ended up with the three themes in the executive summary: Documentation, Learning, and Efficiency.

56 / 61

Hand sketches of several design concepts helped us to explore obscure opportunities and hone in on viable ones.

57 / 61

Scenario sketches were crucial in our design ideation. We sketched multiple stories and asked around to find what was most compelling. It also helped to create low-fidelity designs before moving on to digital prototypes.

58 / 61

A slightly higher fidelity sketch of our concept for handling venn diagrams with more than 3 people.

59 / 61

APPENDIX D

HELPFUL CI QUOTES L. 56: So I think because of that we all want to have our say.

L. 58: So that makes it go a little slower since we're all trying to kinda come together.

L. 89-96: So the other day when I got back and we were having kind of a roommate pow-wow, and we were just talking about couch stuff and she usually has her laptop on the kitchen table.

So she ran over there and was like looking at stuff while we were on the couch here and when she found this, well not this one, but another couch or something that she thought was a good deal, we came over there and huddled by her computer. so then ummm. yeah I was just asking around people and then she sent some out again today. ok, so where do you think she did it from, from the kitchen table? either last night at the kitchen table, or at work on a break or something like that L. 102: is that it is a pretty neutral color that can hide dirt easily, not that we were pouring dirt on it. it could just be nice so you don’t have to worry about cleaning it constantly.

L. 125-128: Yeah, one thing I've done in the past when I'm looking for stuff is like copy and paste this craigslist thing into a word document and write my own comments or something in it, or like Google notebook or something, so that is a way for me to store my memory like what I thought about it and why I don’t' like something.

here with just craigslist. yeah so what I’m going to do next is, after going through what she said, keep that email open and write my comments about it. and then I would go back to craigslist and just go thought the listings and see if i can find other couches.

L. 149-152: So yeah I was gonna look through this. looks like that's the one we were just looking at since it's highlighted in purple, but that's the only indication that I've looked at it.

I don't know which ones. that Cate, I mean Cate is looking today so I'm assuming she actually went through some of these, but I don't know which ones she's looked through or not, because they are not kind of highlighted like this one is, but I might as well just help out and look. So you're saying that there may have been ones that she considered and rejected by virtue because she didn't sent them to you, but you don't know what she's seen.

L. 152-154: Yeah I don't know what she's seen, so I might be doing a little bit of double work.

Like, I'm doing it separately and she's doing it separately and she's doing it separately and Kurt and Eric are doing it separately and we just have to keep in our head like what haven't we looked at and that kind of things.

L. 189-190: we need more big size and this is not enough even like what we have right here, actually Eric mentioned he'd like something that goes to that wall, so from there, to there, so something that'd comfortably seat 4 or 5 people.

1.

60 / 61

L. 195-198: but yeah so 61 that's 5 ft ish. so 5 ft that's my height essentially and I feel like that is not, that could probably seat like 2-3 people... so it's a little smaller than the one we're sitting on now, and I guess you kinda judge with the number of cushions. but also having some indication of how large the couch is or the type of furniture it would be.

L. 264: Yeah there just doesn't seem to be that many great things I found over what Cate found.

L. 214: yea these types of ads without pictures. it's really difficult, well it's kinda funny because when craigslist first started there weren't pictures but now look there are pictures you really depend on that for a lot of information, visual when you're buying, i think is very important. I'm not going to just say yes to buying a couch without seeing it. I guess you can go check it out, but that's almost like an extra step, like this needs to be screened further, almost.

L. 521: Yeah, I think so, because I would trust my other roommates about caring about things I cared about, like the cat issue, price issues.

L. 230-234: yeah, so I think a set is okay so we have this one chair, the couch we used to have in here was like a U shape, a huge couch. and I think we want to move away from the U shape because it blocks this fireplace, and the fireplace is actually very pretty, centerpiece to the room, I don't know what you want to call it. so if we get like an L this way,we can put that chair over here, and wouldn't quite block it all the ways, so that's an option. so if it's not an L shape, it can be a couch plus a loveseat.

L. 288: I thought that, I went kinda looking at craigslist further for a little bit, I don't know when you looked at it and was doing some thinking that ummm

L. 564: Eric, one of my roommate, mentioned that he would be more comfortable with a dingy, frathouse couch but he was respectful of that fact that neither Cate nor I would like that, so I think we have everyone's best interests in mind.

L. 565-570: So he's one of your two new roommates?

Yeah.

Did you know them before?

No, Craigslist.

I see. So you're still trying to get to know them.

Yeah.

L. 251-253: I'm allergic to cats.

I think just animal use, it's like things you'd want to screen like smoker or have pets let's say. smoking I don't smoke and really affects the furniture with cat and pet hair, the dander, the cat might have clawed it in some places, or whatever, so stay away

These quotes were often the backbone for many of the major concepts discussed in the 1. report. The Contextual Design was one of the most helpful human-computer interaction methods we practice, specifically for identifying a project focus.

61 / 61