Prototype Photos
Briefing
Can’t decide where to eat as a group? Play Dedice --- An interactive social decision-making game for dining out. Dedice will help you decide with “dice”, but with a twist. The randomness is weighted, so instead of blindly choosing a restaurant, Dedice will pick a restaurant for you based on the weighted preferences of location, price, and cuisine type that each player individually bets on. It’s fair. It’s fun. It’s Dedice!
Scenario Tasks
1) Group Selection Round - As a group, pick a couple of choices for location and cuisine type. You are all sharing one phone.
- For location: choose Kendall, Central, Harvard, and Chinatown.
- For cuisine: choose American, Chinese, and Indian.
2) Individual Betting Round - Take the phone to place bets on the location, cuisine, and price you want most. Pass the phone to the next player when you're done.
3) Group Decision Round - As a group, Spin the Dedice Wheel once each for location, price and cuisine.
4) Restaurant Voting Round - Vote on the restaurant choice that you like the most. Pass the phone to the next player when you're done.
Observations
First Prototype
Learnability
Betting concept not completely clear
- Users did not understand the purpose of the betting screen. They did not realize that their individual coin assignments would be used later in a group decision round. As one user initially commented, "What am I betting on?"
- Users did not understand that their coins were split across three criteria. They would often use all their coins on the first criteria (location), only to realize that there were more criteria (price, cuisine) to bet on later. This suggested that the idea of weighting across criteria was not clear (e.g., location is more important to a user than price).
Transitions between group/per-user components and between users were not clear
Some interface wording was unclear and inconsistent
Insufficient feedback
Efficiency
Some convenience features were unnoticed (e.g., the "+" button on add-(location, cuisine, etc.) screens)
Users tried using some efficiency features that didn't exist
- Users tried to drag the entire stack of chips instead of one 10 point chip at a time. We assumed people would drag them one at a time, because they had to bet on multiple criteria.