In terms of Market Research, I intended to discover whether there were similar apps already in the market for users to access, and if not, whether there were similar websites or training solutions on offer. Although this module does not require me to be concerned with the marketing of the app, I do believe there are some valuable learning outcomes here, including how similar products are being distributed to users.
Secondly, by conducting some initial product research I could make observations about features, user experience/user interface design, and accessibility issues.
I have collated my research of three similar mobile applications, and three similar websites- a PDF is downloadable here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7bhzwp33imt2066/Market%20%26%20Product%20Research.pdf?dl=0
Moreover, I concluded with the following issues and thoughts:
Accessibility
- All applications researched on the iOS platform use Apple’s default system typeface, “San Francisco”; a Sans-Serif typeface, used throughout iOS and MacOS. Lack of serifs increases legibility (Apple, 2019).
- Instructions were often brief and to-the-point. Quick to read, requiring little of my time to get started. These were sometimes in the form of a ‘bread crumb trail’, whereas in other cases these were short, written instructions, to be read before proceeding
- Assessment activities were usually short, about 1 minute each (probably short enough for attention issues – although arguable driving will require focus for much longer), with only one hazard for the user to spot
- Many UI issues present accessibility challenges:
- Two apps featured inconsistent placement of back/exit buttons in apps (right during playback, left on menus)
- One app featured text hierarchy that was difficult to discern. Colours and sizes used for aesthetics rather than function.
- Many colour contrast issues are notable in current Hazard Perception tests, which may present a barrier to learning and readability issues for students with visual impairments
- One app did not feature any ‘help’ or offer and information access to explain each menu screen, beyond the initial breadcrumb trail
- One app featured buttons that were linked to external pages (loading up Safari and taking the user out of the app), while others buttons would not. Inconsistency was irritating to use, and felt jarring
- One app used system alerts for functionality of the app – I felt that this was poor UX design, as I momentarily thought there was a problem with my phone or the app. This feature would also limit the text size, typeface, and colour contrasts to the system defaults, rather that allowing the experience to be tailored to the user’s needs in-app
- One app marked completed and passed tests as a Red-cross, which is a cultural signifier of failed test, or negative outcome. Confusing.
Privacy
- Apple’s “Privacy Nutrition Labels” allow users to see which data is being collected by App developers. This form of regulation must be considered in the creation of apps for the Apple App Store. Many apps had not completed their “Privacy Nutrition Label”, meaning that they could not have been updated recently, as the labels themselves are mandatory (Peters, 2021).
Further Thought
- Does the small screen size have an impact on reaction times? Is this factored into this assessment? Questionable accuracy/reliability (not sure). The user could also (without realising) hinder their own results by having their display settings too dark
References
Apple (2019). Typography – Visual Design – iOS – Human Interface Guidelines – Apple Developer. [online] Apple.com. Available at: https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/ios/visual-design/typography/.