...
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
...
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