Design Description:
Describe the final design of your interface. Illustrate with screenshots. Point out important design decisions and discuss the design alternatives that you considered. Particularly, discuss design decisions that were motivated by the three evaluations you did (paper prototyping, heuristic evaluation, and user testing).
Implementation Description:
Describe the internals of your implementation, but keep the discussion on a high level. Discuss important design decisions you made in the implementation. Also discuss how implementation problems may have affected the usability of your interface.
Evaluation
Describe how you conducted your user test. Describe how you found your users and how representative they are of your target user population (but don't identify your users by name). Describe how the users were briefed and what tasks they performed; if you did a demo for them as part of your briefing, justify that decision. List the usability problems you found, and discuss how you might solve them.
User testing was conducted at the WMBR Radio Station located on MIT campus, lasting on average 30 minutes in length. All users are Music Directors at WMBR and fall directly into our target user population. We connected with these users through a group member who is a DJ at the station, but not a Music Director (hence satisfying the project requirement that none of the group members fall into the target user group).
The 4 users are within the age range of 20s - 60s, with varying levels of technical proficiency. Three are female and one is male. All had a need for a music importing system such as KaJaM! Some use the uploading interface more while others are more concerned with the reporting interface. Each Music Director is typically in charge of one single music genre. Some music genres deal with more digital content than others, hence usage of the KaJaM! application is expected to differ across users.
We briefed the users by explaining the scope of our application (limited to importing music, not playing or managing the library), and our hypothetical scenario. The briefing is kept consistent across users by showing them the same instruction sheet. We also explained that we are interested in how users naturally interact with the interface, and assured them that there is no right or wrong way to use the application.
All users interacted with a Macbook laptop owned by one of our group members and used the attached Touchpad + Keyboard to navigate the KaJaM! interface. One group member was in charge of walking the user through the scenario tasks, providing assistance only when necessary. The remaining two members sat alongside the user and noted critical incidents + usability issues.
We decided that a demo is not necessary due to the intuitive interface of the application. The scenario tasks presented to all users can be found as follows:
Reflection
Discuss what you learned over the course of the iterative design process. If you did it again, what would you do differently? Focus in this part not on the specific design decisions of your project (which you already discussed in the Design section), but instead on the meta-level decisions about your design process: your risk assessments, your decisions about what features to prototype and which prototype techniques to use, and how you evaluated the results of your observations.