Earlier this week, I built a paper prototype of my design for the Sobersauce mobile experience. The paper prototype is essentially a rough, pencil-traced version of my recent wireframes, which can be adjusted quickly using a pencil and rubber. My intentions were to put this paper prototype in front of a prospective user to gauge their reaction (and hopefully inform further iterations of the design) – I could then make design changes and decisions quickly, recording the adjustments directly onto the prototype (Bowles and Box, 2011). The most accurate option for testing my designs would be to produce the final product first and then test it, however, this wouldn’t be time-efficient or economical, so a paper prototype serves as the next best thing at this stage (Brown, 2007).
Having previously read Carolyn Snyder’s book “Paper Prototyping,” I had already picked up a few tips on conducting usability tests, however for my own personal development I needed to practice planning the usability tests and keeping them within a reasonable timeframe. These two elements are key to attaining useful and concise feedback that can be analysed and inform later usability tests.
Usability Test
I decided to complete only one round of usability testing for this project. I understand that usually several rounds would be carried out in a real-world scenario, allowing for an iterative cycle of development and testing to occur. However, in the interest of progressing my project to the medium-fidelity/mock-ups stage, where I would like to spend some time learning, I have decided to demonstrate my usability testing abilities with one round of low-fidelity prototype testing, focused upon wayfinding.
The objective for this usability test was to address the user’s ability to locate a product and then add multiples of the product to their basket. This would be a useful test because the Sobersauce homepage had been redesigned and the product pages had become pop-out windows. The impact this design change might have on the user’s ability to wayfind would be important to understand and may require further remedial work should it lead to undesired outcomes.
Below, I have embedded a Youtube video of the link usability test and a download link for the Plan and Report document.
Remedial Work
The usability test required the usability tester to complete two tasks – firstly, exploring the navigation elements of the website, then making use of the search functionality. Largely, the test participant was able to navigate without hindrance, but did explain when outcomes did not match their expectations. Feedback was positive and the required remedial work is minor.
I was lucky to be testing this prototype with such an inquisitive test participant – I had not planned to review the ‘sort’ function, however as the participant was inquisitive about this and were able to give me some constructive feedback on it. In future I may not be so lucky, so I should make sure that I plan thorough usability tests that explore every function that I require them to.
Regarding my personal performance, I had successfully managed to complete the usability test in a concise manner, producing a reasonable amount of notes and recording useful feedback. The scenario and task key the tester on-track, and I was careful to ask open questions to gain qualitative feedback.
The remedial work required is as follows:
- ‘Refine’ function – Different types of beer expected in ‘refine’ / ‘filter’ function e.g.: lager, light, pale, dark
- ‘Sort’ function – Expand sort functionality e.g.: (rank by rating) High -> Low, Low -> High
- Search functionality – provide a drop-down menu that completes as matching results are found
Next week I will make these adjustments as part of the medium fidelity/mock ups stage of the design process.
References
Bowles, C. and Box, J. (2011). Undercover User Experience : Learn How to Do Great UX Work with Tiny budgets, No time, and Limited Support. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
Brown, D.M. (2007). Communicating Design : Developing Web Site Documentation for Design and Planning. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
Snyder, C. (2003). Paper Prototyping : the Fast and Easy Way to Design and Refine User Interfaces. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.