...
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
...
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
- - Use of border color to indicate grouping is not accessible to colorblind users (could be mitigated by utilizing specific color groups)