...
Figure 6 shows the "settle dispute" pop-up menu. In this pop-up menu, there is a "new amount" field that is defaulted to $0.00. This default has been chosen to make it easy for users to accept disputes (clearing the debt). This type of menu also makes it easy for the two users to agree on a new amount of the debt if they choose so. if the new amount is set to $0.00, the debt will be automatically deleted on both of the user's accounts.
Design #2 Storyboard
Upon logging in, the user will be greeted by the Home Page. At the top, there is a bar with the PennyPincher logo and three menu buttons to be displayed on all pages. A the home page specifically (which can be accessed by clicking on the PennyPincher logo at the top), the user will see a quick overview of the current “what is owed” status from the most recent closed transaction period. Reds (as taken from the term ‘in the red’) shows what the user owes other people, whereas Greens (for ‘in the money’ where green symbolizes as such) shows what other people owe the user. The Reds and Greens can be expanded and contracted as needed and will show the transactions under each with additional granularity.
...
With the transactions description page, details about the transaction are shown. Eunice sees that this transaction is faulty and decides to dispute it by clicking on the Dispute button. This leads to a new page that where she can add a quick memo/message about the dispute before submission. When the dispute is posted, the counterparty (Matt M in this case) will be notified for settlement.
Analysis: Dimensions of Usability
...
PROS
...
Learnability: This design is similar to many existing applications on the market. There is a clearly defined menu bar at the top for easy navigation to feature pages; the summary page lists transactions in similar style to some online banking mobile-based displays.
Efficiency: A common action that users will encounter will be to add a new transaction. The current design places the add transaction button to the top left of the screen for easy navigation on every page! Additionally, the interface allows for posting group transactions (ie. posting a single transaction for multiple people that are sharing a bill instead of having to post a new transaction for each person; efficiency derived here is of factor n)
Safety: When there are faulty transactions, users have the ability to post a dispute for mistaken transactions. (Although not shown here in this design, the original poster of a transaction should have the ability to cancel it).
CONS
Learnability: While there are many features here that are commonly found in some well-known applications, it may be unclear what a transaction implies (as in, who is allowed to make a transaction and type of transaction). Since our implementation involves only one-way directional transaction relation, this may be difficult to learn or understand for users.
...
Complex transactions: Consider the case where at a dinner, a group of 4 decide to evenly split a $100 dinner bill. However, some people are short on cash while others have extra on hand. So one person pays $50, another $40, and two of them $5 each. If in the end this should be equaled out such that all pay only $25 for the dinner, how would that happen? The solution to this is currently unknown.
Distinctions in Design #3:
Design #1: From the home screen, the Sally can click a button to add new transactions. This will take her to the “Add a Transaction” page. On this page, she can select a user from a dropdown list of know users or search for a new user by clicking on the “New User” button. A text box allows her to enter the amount of money the selected user owes. Clicking the “Submit” button records the transaction for Sally and the selected user, and brings Sally back to the home page. Clicking the “Cancel” button brings Sally back to the home page. The home page will also have a “Pending Transactions” button with a number displayed next to it. Clicking this button leads Sally to a page that shows any new transactions where other users claimed that she owes them some sum of money. Sally can dispute claims on this page by clicking any of the dispute buttons next to the individual claims. Clicking the “Done” button brings her back to the home page.
From the home page, Sally can view all current transactions she has with other users. If Sally wants to view all transactions, including past transactions, she can click on the “View All” button. Clicking this button leads her to the “All Transactions” page. This page shows two lists. The list closer to the top of the page shows current transactions she has with other users. The list below the current transactions list shows past transactions she’s had with users. The past transactions list does not include the amount of money because these transactions should have all totaled out to $0.00 since these are closed and settled transactions. In both lists of transactions, you can click the button corresponding to each user to view all transaction history with that particular user. This leads you to a different page, which displays a list of dates and money amounts for every past transaction Sally has had with that user.
...
*Design #2: *The primary difference of Design #2 between the other designs is that it focuses attention on how to tackle specific features to enhance efficiency for add transaction. While the other designs only allow transactions to be posted to a single other counterparty at once, this design handles group-based transactions. Consider, again, the scenario of a group dinner outing with four other people. Instead of having to create 3-4 separate transactions, a single one to split the bill will suffice! Additionally, the ability to individually modify transaction amounts for each given person allows for additional flexibility (if there are uneven splits between a group). However, it lacks the ability to compound transactions based on other users (ie, aggregating all the transactions that I have made with Susie Q) that the other two designs have incorporated.
Design #3:
Learnability
Pros:
- The buttons are clearly labeled and accessible from the home page.
- All pages have buttons to easily return to the home page.
- The dates for transactions are listed so that the user can recall certain transactions.
- There are only five distinct pages that the user will see, making it simple for the user. The main page is the home page, and from this page the user can get to any of the other four.
Cons:
- The user may need to learn to understand that any negative amounts of money listed in their transactions with another particular user show that that person owes them money.
- The user will need to learn that the little buttons with arrows next to each transaction lead to the transaction details with that person.
- The user may need to learn what it means to dispute a transaction or how to settle a transaction.
Efficiency
Pros:
- There are no dialog boxes that pop up to confirm if a user wants to dispute or settle a transaction.
- The list of current transactions on the home screen shows that total amount of all transactions with another person. The user can choose to view more details by just clicking a button.
- The home page shows the total amount across all transactions that the user owes other people or that other people owe the user.
- Past users that the user has had transactions with are listed in a drop down menu so that it is easier for the user to add a new transaction with them.
Cons:
- The user still needs to click on a couple of buttons to view all details of transactions that they have had with another person.
- There are no group transactions. Transactions must be entered one user at a time.
Safety
Pros:
- All pages have buttons to easily return to the home page.
- The user can view the details of every transaction to double check for correctness.
- The user can dispute transactions that the claimer may have claimed incorrectly.
Cons:
...