#alexanderjanson

Today we have been working on the final presentation coming up this Friday. We also made some minor changes in the prototype after evaluating think-aloud analysis.

The think aloud was done on a user over the internet via screen sharing and VoIP. The user willingly participated after had after having the context about the museum , but not the functions of the device, explained. The user is not from Sweden and does not understand Swedish. The user were given the following instructions for the think aloud:

1. Say what you're going to do

2. Say what you think will happen

3. Do the thing that you said you were going to do

Setting: Desktop computer Events are noted < > and thoughts ""

<User reads the bottom text of the instruction menu, but interrupts looking at the placeholders>

"Wait...what are these placeholders? I'm confused"

<Instructor explains to the user that they're temporary illustrations and to be replaced with more intuitive pictures>

<User goes back to reading>

"Wait... there's tapping in two different places. Tapping does two different things?"

<User gets confused>

"Oh I see, if you tap it will toggle a box and if you tap on the box again it will show more details of the box? And if you tap elsewhere it will close it I guess?"

<User gets asked how to zoom, zoom isn't available on the computer, but the user gives the correct answer>

"I'm going to tap the screen because I'm assuming that it will make this screen go away"

<User taps>

"Oh wait.. this isn't..oh it does. Ahhh....I see"

<User now realizes what the info boxes are>

"I'm going to click this info box to make it pop up with more information"

<User taps the info box. Only one functioning info box is available in the prototype. The instructor tells the user to pick that one instead. User taps the info box>

"Ok. .."

<User gets confused about the languages in the information screen>

"Ooh, title. This one I imagine."

"I want to close it so I click on it again"

<User taps screen  to get out of information box>

<The user gets told to remove the info boxes>

"I click on the info box again"

<click on the info box, nothing happens>

"Oh wait"

<User clicks a little bit above the info box. The boxes toggle>

<The user clicks a few times on different places and sees that the boxes toggle>

<The instructor asks the user to get back to the instruction screen>

"ooh, here!"

<User taps the info box in the bottom right corner>

Short analysis:

The user got confused because she didn't understand what the information was referring to until she got to the main screen. This may be solved by adding the related images in the placeholders. The user had to test to understand what it meant by tapping to toggle the info boxes, when she originally thought it meant that if you tap the actual info boxes it would toggle them. She thought it would be a better idea if the instruction said "Tap *what* to toggle the info boxes" , where *what* is what you're supposed to tap. The user thought this was confusing when tap was being used under another placeholder as well , but said that it would probably be fine once the illustrations were implemented.

To "finalize" the prototype, we should implement intuitive pictures instead of the placeholders , make more info boxes useable and differentiate the languages in the information boxes more clearer.  Make instructions slightly more understandable.

After receiving and reviewing feedback we started editing the previous sketches. After deciding about every detail we started developing an interactive prototype using http://proto.io. Here is the prototype so far:

While we received mostly positive feedback there were some points that needed further development, yeah. Those were:

The buttonless design felt a little bit to empty and unintuitive.

We decided to add "Info-buttons" instead of relying on areas of the picture being triggers for the information to appear.

A3 suggested that we put small flags on the idle screen to select language, however we decided to stay with the "parallel text design" used in the rest of the museum. (Two parallel texts in two different languages but both cover the same topic.

Today we have evaluated a1's product concerning an application with museum objects prior to a museum visit. We brought forth the following feedback:

Good

They had a clear design and layout.

The concept was good and we expect the users (teachers, guides and students) to use it more than one time (as long as the material requirements of having computers/tablets are met).

The functionality was well adapted and felt central in the product.

Could be improved:

We felt that the "mini-games " took the focus away from the main purpose of the product. We thought that it was an unnecessary addition to the product because there was no clear proof that it would make the target group more interested.

It was unclear how much guides and teachers were involved in the product. The guide's role in the entire thing was mostly missing due to not having made his/her interface.