Add a new section GR6 User Testing to your group's wiki page, with the following subsections:
We developed for Android 2.3 using the Google Maps APIs and Eclipse. The server is PHP with a SQL database. Requests are sent from the app, and the servers responds with XML, which is parsed by the app. We tested our app on the Nexus One, Galaxy Nexus, and several other models of Android phones. The test phones included operating system 2.3, but also version 4.0, Ice Cream Sandwich.
Our app has a local front end, but the tour data is stored on our server. We made some simplifications to our system to make it fit into the scope of this class. For this reason, the landmark data is stored locally, and users cannot add new landmarks with their own pictures. Also, we simplified the database for tours by not allowing the user to chose a picture for a tour they create. These don't take away very much from the functionality of the app, at least in terms of what we think our users want/need to do.
Users can add their own tours to the database, and in the future when they search those landmarks they will find their tour. This is not local to this user, so all users see all tours created. There is currently no way for a user to delete a tour, but this doesn't hurt functionality that much.
Designing a product is highly challenging and may be the most difficult task our group has ever faced together. We all had unique visions for our final product and merging those visions together with the other constraints of real life, such as time, was difficult and taught us all some valuable lessons.
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.
Project Proposal and User AnalysisWhat We Learned While creating the project proposal, we learned that it was a lot easier to get our creative juices flowing once we knew what we wanted to develop. Through the entire proposal process, we realized how important it was to conduct the interviews, especially in the case of Torch. What We Would Have Done Differently When we were trying to decide on a product, we at first were focusing on what was already out there rather than what was something that we wanted to use. We eventually learned, but if we had started from that mindset of creating something of use rather than improving something that was already in existence, we could've saved ourselves some time and thus, would have had more energy to devote to analysis and proposal of Torch. When we first started, we didn't really have a specific problem and we had some lofty goals. To be honest, we should've narrowed down our focus directly to the specific needs of self-guided tours rather than what does the user "find interesting" angle. We should've narrowed in scope our User analysis so in the future it would've been easier to develop specific tasks and needs. Our interviews were more surface level than they should have been, and while designing our product, we had to delve more deeply, a task we could have avoided if we had done more comprehensive interviews originally. |
DesignsWhat We Learned What We Would Have Done Differently |
Paper & Computer PrototypingWhat We Learned What We Would Have Done Differently |
Heuristic EvaluationsWhat We Learned What We Would Have Done Differently |
User TestingWhat We Learned What We Would Have Done Differently |