Unknown macro: {pagetree2}

Scenario

Phil and Vivian are a married couple that lives in Boston's Back Bay neighborhood with their 3 year old Boston Terrier, Will. Despite giving Will all the attention in the world, Phil and Vivian believe it is important for Will to spend time socializing with other dogs as well. During one of their daily walks, Phil and Vivian run into another dog owner, and the couple stops to let Will play. Unfortunately, the larger dog gets a little too aggressive and bites Will. Determined to find a smaller, less aggressive playmate for Will, Phil and Vivian Google search for a solution and come across DogPack.

The two decide to try out the new site in an attempt to find friends for Will. After quickly filling in their biographical information, they begin inputting Will’s information. The website requires them to fill in Will’s name, gender, and breed, in addition to uploading a picture of their Boston Terrier. With their profile created, Phil and Vivian search for dogs in their area. Luckily for them, they come across another Boston Terrier named Carlton around the corner. They click to view Carlton's profile, and see many comments on how sociable  Carlton is. Pleased with what they have seen, the click to schedule a meeting with Carlton and his owners. They fill in a date, a meeting place, and send the invitation. Shortly after, they are sent a notification from Carlton's owners, Geoffrey and Hilary, saying they have accepted.

Will and Carlton have blast during their first meeting, and Phil and Vivian get along great with Geoffrey and Hilary. Shortly after their meeting, Dogpack prompts the two for input on their meetup. Phil and Vivian enthusiastically comment on how well the meetup went and add Carlton to their doggy favorites. The next day, they simply go into their favorites and schedule a weekly meetup with Carlton.

In summary, Phil and Vivian were able to accomplish the following tasks using DogPack:

  • Find dogs in a specified location or nearby (using their current location)
  • Schedule a meetup with a dog owner
  • Review an experience with a dog they have met up with
  • Schedule a meetup with a dog they have met up with in the past.

Individual Designs

Individual Designs-Runmin

Individual Designs-Tunde

Individual Designs- Xola

Individual Designs - Shashank

Storyboards

Design 1 (Social Network)

This is the main page of DogPack. Phil and Vivian view this page and are attracted by the pictures of various dogs filled with possibilities of finding a playmate for Will. Feeling excited the two go ahead and create a profile for Will.

 Phil started filling in the information to create a profile for Will. He shares Will's name, age, size and also uploaded a few pictures of Will, trying to find Will some "friends".

Phil tried to find an interesting activity in the vicinity for Will to join. He searched the activities by location, time and other details. The map in the bottom page shows the location of each result.

However, Phil failed to find a suitable activity. He decides to host an activity for Will. Phil post the activity information and invites others to join in. This notifies "friends" and also has the option to be listed publicly in results for activities searches by other dog owners.

Analysis

Learnability :

This interface is familiar and easy to learn, given it's external consistency with existing social networking sites. It looks like a Facebook for dogs. Users are able to simply learn by doing. No tutorial is needed.This interface is focused on finding individual 'friends' and activities in the vicinity. The interface provides affordance to easily schedule activities if no suitable existing activities are found.

Efficiency :

It is efficient for the users who want to have such a profile for dog. The different shortcuts on the doggy main page allow for efficient navigation from the home page to other sub pages. Also, the fact that the network keeps a history of doggy friends and dogs you have met up with in the past allows the use of autocomplete when searching the network, which also increases the efficiency. One negative is, despite having many different actions to be taken, this interface has no keyboard shortcuts.

Safety :

The many different options in the various screens makes the likelihood of slips and lapses a little higher with this interface. Similar options such as view owner profile and view dog profile can lead to description slips. One positive is the ability to undo certain actions, such as revoke invitations that were sent. One limitation is that there's no "request cancel" function in this interface. If a user sends a friend request to a wrong user, he/she has no way to stop the request.   

Design 2 (Mobile Application)

Phil and Vivian create a profile for Will

On the map, they look for dogs nearby with a good star rating. The star rating tells whether or not DogPack thinks the two dogs would be a good match (based on size, breed etc.)

Phil and Vivan find Rosey, a 3 year old Chihuahua  that lives nearby. They believe she is a good match for Will so they they click the Meetup button.

Phil and Vivian propose a time, date and location to meet up with Rosey. Now they can't wait for Will to meet their new friend!

Analysis

Learnability -

The learnability is fairly high for this interface due to its external consistency with many other mobile apps. People who have used mobile apps are familiar with the map based interface with widgets that, when selected, bring you to a detail page.

Efficiency -

For casual use, this interface is fairly efficient. The map acts as a shortcut for users to find  users in their vicinity visually, versus scrolling through a list. For extended use, however, the lack of any kind of history hurts the efficiency of the app. There is no way to easily view or find dogs that you have met up with in the path.

Safety -

One of the benefits of mobile apps is that almost all the interaction is done by pressing buttons. This leaves less room for errors that are caused by using more complex controls. Furthermore, there are no modes to cause mode errors, or dangerous commands that can cause description errors. One issue with this design is the inability to undo an operation. If someone were to make a mistake and press the invite button on the invite page, there is no way to undo it.

Design 2 (Forum / Blog Approach)

In their quest for searching suitable dogs for Will, Phil and Vivian, come across this website.


They are able to search for groups in their vicinity based on criteria such as breed and locality. 

They find "Back Bay Small Dogs" in the search results. The search result lists a brief description, a few tags (such as categories) and a link to learn more about this group.
Clicking on the "More" button they come across the main page for the group. Here they can learn about the group, it's activities, members, and upcoming events.

Interested to read more about the group's activities, they click on the Blog section.

The Members page provides a brief introduction to the dogs and their owners and contact info, if provided.

Clicking on the Calendar in the Group's landing page, they can learn more about the specific event (such as date, location and comments/updates)

Analysis

Learnability :

This interface is learnable due it's simple interface that's similar to most forum style websites, maintaining external consistency. The interface focuses on larger group activities and makes it easy to find groups based on certain criteria. 

Efficiency :

In terms of efficiency, the interface might be limited by it's forum/blog style approach. Though, the user gets a brief overview of each group in the search results, they are still required to visit each group's page to learn about activities and schedules. It's not straight forward to schedule individual activities with specific members.

Safety :

The scope for mistakes is fairly limited for users since they don't have permissions to make changes to Groups, since only the admin/group owner will have permissions to edit them.Individual comments posted can be edited.

This interface might be limited by it's lack of visuals which might make it un-intuitive to users not familiar with forums and blogs (though a small user population).

  • No labels

1 Comment

  1. Hi guys,

    Thanks for all of your hard work on GR2! Below are my notes from grading feedback. Grades should be up soon.

    Scenario: Try to reorient your scenario to be a set of things that the users want to do, not just a story about how they use DogPack.
    Preliminary designs: You haven't all posted three *different* design sketches. These should have been three different sketches of totally different interfaces, not three sketches of the same interface. These were also supposed to each include a 'stretch' design, which I don't see here. Your group designs are supposed to incorporate, but not duplicate individual work. Your usability analyses are pretty cursory and you need to really think critically about what's happening with each interface. The work you're doing is really going in the right direction, but you need to really take some time to make sure your assignment covers all your bases.
    Wiki Presentation: You need to update your problem statement. I gave you feedback from GR1 that you need to incorporate.

    A few things to note going forward, for all of the groups:
    - Try to make sure your wiki is organized. Don't be afraid to create a table of contents, for instance.
    - You may want to refine your scenario for GR3. Note that you're going to be using your scenario to brief your users, so you may want to make it a bit more task-oriented.
    - Login and basic account creation are not a good use of your time for prototyping, unless you're planning on doing something really interesting with it. You can assume that basic signup flows work fine. 

    Good luck! Let me know if you have any questions.