Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Issues

Users

Possible improvement

Severity

Could not post a tweet because
was not registered on twitter and did not wish to.

User 1

Create independent data base for tweets.

Minor

When navigating Google Earth, tried to use mouse
and did not figure out immediately to use keyboard
controls.

User 1

Support mouse navigation alongside keyboard controls.

Minor

Was confused when taken to teleport's navigation
window because did not know if the other person is still 
in chat mode.

User 1

Make it more obvious that person's live chat window moves 
to the sidebar, when system's mode changes.

Minor

When tried to speak a location, there were multiple errors.

User 1

Better speech parsing and understanding capabilities.

Minor

Keyboard does not have Page Up / Page Down.

User 2

Choose a different universal key.

Minor

The tweet option appears only when the user clicks the
share button.

User 2

Include a separate button for the tweet option.

Minor

Audio distortion. The user had to refresh the browser to
restore regular voice.

User 2

Most likely caused by internet connection.

Minor

 

 

 

 

Reflection

  • Brainstorming For our group, brainstorming and sketching ideas separately and then discussing them together as a group really expanded the amount of options and possible solutions we considered.
  • Early We feel like early paper prototyping is a good way to figure was very helpful to us understand usability, efficiency and learnability issues.
  • During user testing we observed plenty of user behaviours that we could not have predicted ourselves.
  • Because We found that paper prototyping is quick and easy, it allows to iterate through many different design options. Paper prototyping particularly helped us to find the most intuitive location for buttons and navigation controls; find out safety issues (e.g. confirming that tweets are being saved); because the paper prototype was to scale we got a good indication if the layout works well.we used the same layout that we finalized in the paper-prototyping.
  • We think, we didn't scope our project well -- this project was pretty complex, required some serious engineering and the implementation time we had (for computer prototyping) wasn't enough. We got pretty bad grade in GR4 but we believe that it was a good idea to focus on the individual pieces rather than the layout. We wanted to ensure that we have all the technology we need for building this system. Our computer prototype did't connect the individual pieces together and while the TA viewed it as an incomplete computer prototype, we think we took the right approach.  
  • We loved the class, and it definitely taught us how to approach building good user interfacesThe drawback of a paper prototype was that it did not allow us to foresee many implementation challenges, accurately test typography, colour schemes.