PosterBoard - GR2 - Designs

Manasi Vartak, Tristan Naumann, Chidube Ezeozue

Scenario

Amanda a graduate student in the EECS program is organizing an event – a South Asian cultural night, to be specific. After creating a poster, she decides to put it up on PosterBoard’s electronic poster boards.

Five minutes later, John is walking past a poster board. He’s hurrying to his lab not because he has a meeting but because hurrying is a way of life at MIT. In any case, he interested in knowing if anything has changed in the poster board since he walked past it the day before also the electronic poster board catches his attention.  So he stops and takes a look. Amanda's cultural night looks like an interesting event and he adds to his calendar. He also has the option to share the poster on facebook and he promptly does so since many of his classmates have been craving some free Indian food. He’s not done with the board yet because the beardless man in the poster could do with a nice moustache (It’s November Movember, after all) so he paints one in and adds a speech bubble that has the woman in the poster complimenting the moustache. This would also certainly be a good thing to share with his friends on facebook.

Before he steps off the poster, he observes some other posters for ‘related’ events and activities; a South Asian dance group, MISTI India and a Pakistani Coffee Hour at the Ashdown house. He’s not interested in any of these so he continues hurrying to his lab.

A day before the event, Amanda needs to get some sense of the level of interest in the cultural night. So she accesses the poster board and is able to see how many people focused on the poster, how many people added it to their calendar, what annotations and comments were made on the poster and all this in relation to how many people interacted with the board in that time. She now has a better idea of the level of interest and heads to Shalimar food and spices to order the ‘right’ amount of food.

After the event, the poster expires and disappears from all poster boards.

Designs

Design 1

Modes of Access: Electronic poster board for adding and viewing posters

Highlights: Single point of access, virtual keyboard, calendar view, clustered events view.

Description

In this design, all activities happen at the electronic poster board. The event organizers (Amanda, in our scenario) visit an electronic poster board and use the poster board interface itself to upload/delete their posters. The board, in this case, will support a USB port. Uploading posters will create a separate UI pane such that other users can keep viewing the other parts of the board. A virtual keyboard allows the event organizer enter an email and an expiration date. Poster deletion also happens at this board using the creator's email address for validation.

To attract people to the board, posters periodically receive the "spotlight" and have edges that throb giving the impression that they can be touched. A calendar view allows users (John, for instance) view events by date, a clustered view gather events by similarity and a random view retains the metaphor of the traditional poster board by arranging posters in no particular order. John is given the option to switch between these views. Users can also search for posters using the virtual keyboard.

It is also important to note that when a user choose to focus on a poster, related posters are shown around it. After focusing on a poster, the user can add it to their calendar or share it by typing in an email address on the virtual keyboard. They can also make comments, scribble on it and like/dislike it using buttons just below the poster.

Analysis

The emphasis on a single interface suggests Design 1 will support both learning by doing and watching better than designs which rely on a supporting web interface due to the "one stop shop" nature it facilitates in which all actions are carried out in public view. However, supporting additional actions results in an interface with reduced simplicity. Further, it constrains the user to touch-based input methods tend to support the actions of the event goers, but may be less efficient than the traditional keyboard and mouse for event organizers trying to add poster information. Finally, several measures must be taken to mitigate safety issues associated with a consolidated interface which supports both posting and deletion. Specifically, the following positive (+) and negative (-) aspects are worth noting.

Learnability: 

• + Single interface facilitates learning by doing: actions for all user groups are discoverable via exploration at PosterBoard
• + Single interface facilitates learning by watching: actions are performed in public and easily observed
• + Externally consistent iconography -- "plus," "magnifying glass" -- encourage exploration and facilitate interface learnability
• + Visual indication of USB port location from within the interface removes need to search (although a disconnect between the indication and physical location could result in worse learnability)
• + Metaphor to non-electronic poster board results in a logical extension for viewing posters
• + Additional poster actions availability upon touch provides good use of information scent as users "drill down" on specific interests
• + "Throbbing" animation encourages touch thus improving discoverability of the added functionality
• + Visual display of views encourages discoverability of touch actions
• ? Feedback -- capacative touch ideally facilitates this design, but use of a less responsive SmartBoard may result in issues with perceptual fusion
• - Metaphor to non-electronic poster board may be confusing for event organizers as it changes the mechanism for adding (virtual vs. staples)
• - Addition is unclearly indicated for this PosterBoard or all PosterBoards which may result in a system model which does not align with user model

Efficiency: 

• + Consolidation of all actions into one interface results in a streamlined experience for users spanning multiple user groups
• + Expected size of posters and buttons is large enough that resulting pointing actions are efficient
• + Interactive forms for adding posters and continuous visual representation of displayed posters require little working memory on behalf of user
• + Multiple views allow event goers to explore the available information in the manner most personally efficient
• + Ability to add to calendar directly removes secondary interface traditionally required to perform such actions (e.g. use of cell phone)
• - No method for managing multiple posters simultaneously (e.g. a single user modifying two posters is no more efficient than two separate users)
• - Lack of explicit auto-complete for search provides mediocre search efficiency
• - Use of virtual keyboard for input on a vertical display is typically less efficient than using a keyboard
• - Use of virtual keyboard for search input is less efficient than traditional keyboard

Safety:

• + Partial use of the screen for adding new posters reduces mode errors which would be otherwise encountered by utilizing the full screen
• + Use of confirmation dialog to prevent deletion of posters accidentally
• - Availability of several view modes may result in mode errors for some event-goers
• - Mitigation required to prevent users from accidentally removing poster from all boards if they are used to removing from a single board
• - Lack of explicit undo/edit requires the deletion and recreation of events
• - New poster's arrival may be obscured if there are lots of other posters (could be mitigated with a confirmation message)

Design 2

Modes of access: Website for adding and removing posters, electronic poster boards for viewing and interacting with poster board

Highlights: Web interface, card reader for personalizing poster board, similar posters identified by border color, fish eye menu

Description

One of the more striking differences between design 2 and design 1 is the addition of a web interface for uploading and deleting posters. The web interface actually shows all the posters currently on the board but allows no interaction with them. The main function of the web interface is to allow event organizers upload their posters using a form. The form contains fields for email, event date, a file browser and links for a map that allows Amanda pick her desired poster board locations. The web interface also allows deletion of posters after filtering them with a search bar. Deletion confirmation would utilize a code generated and emailed when the poster was added.

Another significant difference between design 2 and design 1 is the use of a card reader here. Users are attracted to the poster board by the posters floating around slowly and they have the option to either touch the board/a poster or swipe their card to start their poster viewing session. Poster display utilizes a fish eye menu here. Posters in the fish eye are organized by what has been viewed previously by that user (if they swiped their card) or by closeness to the poster board in location and closeness in date (if the user touched the board instead). Annotated versions of each poster are also vertically stacked. Some form of graphical search is enabled by using similar border colors for similar posters.

Finally, like in all the other designs, the board allows interaction with the posters. In this design, the interaction buttons: sharing, calendar, liking/disliking and scribbling are overlaid on the poster.

Analysis

The addition of a supporting web interface in Design 2 facilitates the separation of user group actions thus increasing the simplicity of the primary display interface, but likewise introduces a discoverability issue as well as a coordination issue between the two interfaces which hinder learnability. In many ways, the separation of actions allow each user group to more efficiently interact with their primary interface -- event goers with the display, and event organizers and moderators with the web interface -- via input methods which support their actions; however, this also comes at the cost of the "one stop shop" experience provided by single interface designs. Finally, several steps must be taken to mitigate potential safety issues that arise as a result of two coordinating interfaces.  Specifically, the following positive (+) and negative (-) aspects are worth noting.

Learnability: 

• + Externally consistent iconography -- "magnifying glass" -- encourage exploration and facilitate interface learnability
• + Metaphor to non-electronic poster board results in a logical extension for viewing posters
• + Additional poster actions availability upon touch provides good use of information scent as users "drill down" on specific interests
• + "Moving" animation encourages touch thus improving discoverability of the added functionality
• ? Feedback -- capacative touch ideally facilitates this design, but use of a less responsive SmartBoard may result in issues with perceptual fusion
• - Dual interfaces obscure learning by watching: event organizing actions are performed in private
• - Dual interfaces obscure learning by doing: event goers who are first time organizers may not know of additional site
• - Dual interfaces hinder discoverability: event organizers must be aware of the additional site
• - Metaphor to non-electronic poster board may be confusing for event organizers as it changes the mechanism for adding (now separate website rather than at board)

Efficiency: 

• + Separation of actions into two interfaces results in streamlined experience for each user group
• + Expected size of posters and buttons is large enough that resulting pointing actions are efficient
• + Card reader authentication makes several actions -- add to calendar, sharing, &c. -- much faster
• + Use of forms which display all currently entered information reduce event organizer working memory
• + Use of visual clustering (e.g. via border color) results in improved searchability of similar events
• + Removal of dependence on virtual keyboard expected to result in shorter time to perform some actions
• - No explicit method for managing multiple posters simultaneously (e.g. a single user modifying two posters is no more efficient than two separate users)
• - Separation of interfaces removes ability to "one stop shop" for users that span user groups

Safety:

• + Use of confirmation dialog to prevent deletion of posters accidentally
• - Availability of several interfaces may result in coordination errors
• - Lack of explicit undo/edit requires the deletion and recreation of events

Design 3

Modes of access: Website for adding and removing posters, electronic poster boards and website for viewing and interacting with posters

Highlights: Polls/Surveys, Virtual keyboard, QR codes for poster interaction; adding to calendar, sharing

Description

Design 3 combines certain elements of designs 1 and 2 and adds a few new ideas too. This design has a web interface for adding posters like design 2 with a few subtle differences. For instance, selection of poster board location will utilize a drop down instead of a map and the selection of date utilizes a date picker instead of drop-downs for day, month and year. Another more marked addition in design 3 is the possibility of poll-type, free-form posters that allow posters ask a question that viewers may answer or interact with. This is in line with the metaphor of the blackboard that can be found in the ground floor of the Stata Center.

Users are attracted to the poster board by highlighting closest upcoming events. The board also visually separates traditional posters and polls and surveys into separate panes. The poster board would also allow searching using a virtual keyboard. 

The board loses card reader in design 2 and instead introduces automatically-generated QR codes that allow the viewers take a picture to add events to their calendar and share posters. Like in all designs, the poster board will allow scribbling on posters in addition to non-scribbling interaction with the polls and surveys.

Analysis

Again, the addition of a supporting web interface in Design 3 facilitates the separation of user group actions thus increasing the simplicity of the primary display interface, but likewise introduces a discoverability issue as well as a coordination issue between the two interfaces which hinder learnability. In many ways, the separation of actions allow each user group to more efficiently interact with their primary interface -- event goers with the display, and event organizers and moderators with the web interface -- via input methods which support their actions; however, this also comes at the cost of the "one stop shop" experience provided by single interface designs. It should be noted that the addition of the familiar QR code also facilitates several actions for event goers by providing faster methods than virtual keyboard input would otherwise. Finally, several steps must be taken to mitigate potential safety issues that arise as a result of two coordinating interfaces.  Specifically, the following positive (+) and negative (-) aspects are worth noting.

Learnability: 

• + Externally consistent iconography -- "check mark," "like," "dislike" -- encourage exploration and facilitate interface learnability
• + Metaphor to non-electronic poster board results in a logical extension for viewing posters
• + Additional poster actions availability upon touch provides good use of information scent as users "drill down" on specific interests
• ? Feedback -- capacative touch ideally facilitates this design, but use of a less responsive SmartBoard may result in issues with perceptual fusion
• - Dual interfaces obscure learning by watching: event organizing actions are performed in private
• - Dual interfaces obscure learning by doing: event goers who are first time organizers may not know of additional site
• - Dual interfaces hinder discoverability: event organizers must be aware of the additional site
• - Metaphor to non-electronic poster board may be confusing for event organizers as it changes the mechanism for adding (now separate website rather than at board)

Efficiency: 

• + Separation of actions into two interfaces results in streamlined experience for each user group
• + Expected size of posters and buttons is large enough that resulting pointing actions are efficient
• + Implicit authentication via device reading QR codes makes several actions -- add to calendar, sharing, &c. -- much faster
• + Removal of dependence on virtual keyboard expected to result in shorter time to perform some actions
• - Change of mode to scribbling/annotating obscures other posters and reduces efficiency for others who may also be looking
• - No explicit method for managing multiple posters simultaneously (e.g. a single user modifying two posters is no more efficient than two separate users)
• - Separation of interfaces removes ability to "one stop shop" for users that span user groups

Safety:

• + Lack of deletion means things become "deleted" through irrelevance 
• - Availability of several interfaces may result in coordination errors
• - Presence of multiple QR codes may be confusing to viewers and possibly also to capture hardware
• - Use of border color to indicate grouping is not accessible to colorblind users (could be mitigated by utilizing specific color groups)