...
Imagine that Sally has just opened up the PennyPincher website...
FIGURE 1
Figure 1 displays the home screen of the application for Sally Smith. In this screen, she can see a list of all of the people she has a PennyPincher connection with. Each row itself is a link to a screen displaying all debts for that particular person (Figure 2). On each row, three main user interface devices are shown. On the very left, there is a checkbox used for selecting the user when Sally wants to delete a connection with that particular user. To the right, there is, on some rows, a button with a label representing the number of disputes that particular user has with Sally. Next to the disputes button, there is a convenient "add" button that will bring Sally to the pop-up add screen (Figure 3). On the very right, there is a value of how much money that Sally owes or is owed by that particular person. (Negative sign (-) means Sally owes the person, and positive sign (+) means that the person owes Sally).
Imagine that Sally has pressed the row with "Roommate #1"
FIGURE 2
Figure 2 displays a screen displaying all of the debts between Sally and Roommate #1. The layout of Figure 2 is consistent with Figure 1, with the difference being listing debts instead of people. Just like before, checkboxes are on the very left of each row to perform row selection for the "delete", "nudge", and "dispute" functions located at the bottom of the screen. On the right side of some debts, there is a dispute flag, indicating a dispute on the debt. On the right side, the amount of debt is once again shown, using the same (+/-) system to indicate the direction of the debt.
Imagine that Sally presses the Add button on the bottom left of Figure 2.
FIGURE 3
Figure 3 displays the add debt pop-up screen. The idea behind that idea of an add "pop-up" is that users can add a transaction from home page (Figure 1) as well as a user's page (Figure 2). This duplication may seem ineffective, but since "add" is such a commonly used function, users would appreciate not having to go back to a certain screen to "add." The add pop-up itself is pretty simple, with three main fields: name, date, and amount. The user can simply click on the field to bring up a suitable keyboard (on touchscreen phones) or simply click the field to gain focus to type. At the bottom, there is a simple add button to submit the debt. After this is done, the pop-up simply disappears.
Imagine that Sally is on Figure 2 (the page displaying all of Roommate 1's mutual debts), selects two items (checkboxes on the left are checked), and presses the dispute button on the bottom right corner. This would send a dispute in the system to Roommate 1.
'
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 6
...
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.
Analysis: Dimensions of Usability
...
PROS
...
Learnability:
- Simple, table style interface.
- No “settings” menu to complicate things
- Large, easy to hit buttons (on touch screen phones)
- Consistent, clean layout
Efficiency: - Add function is very efficient (you don’t have to click on a person’s name and go to their screen to add a debt – you can do it from the home page.
- Clean layout lends to easy, efficient navigation.
- Multiple row selection is VERY efficient for mass deletion, “nudging”, or “disputing.” (I personally incorporated this because I hate how the iPhone lacks this feature in many places).
Safety: - Most execution functions are located at the bottom screen, decreasing chances that the user will hit one by accident when trying to hit a particular row.
- Deletion of something a user added is possible, thus making faulty added debts easy to remove and fix.
...
CONS
...
Learnability:
- Multiple row selection can be confusing
- (+/-) labeling for types of debt can be very jarring at first.
- Labels and Buttons are on the same row (“Disputed” label vs “2 disputes” button which can lead to some confusion
Efficiency:
- Adding an actual debt may be slow, since there are three fields to manually fill out
- No aggregate view of all transactions over some past period of time (for those who like to analyze their past lending/borrowing behavior).
- Adding multiple people quickly will take the user some time since the “add user” button only allows the user to add one person at a time.
- Users cannot add debts for multiple people at once.
- Ex: The user pays for 3 other people at dinner and wants to put down a debt of #bill/4 for each of the three other people at once.
Safety:
- Deletion and Dispute functions execute immediately, with no easy way to undo the action
- Deletion action is available for debts, so technically, someone could just delete all debts even though he/she has not repaid the lender
- “Disputes” button is on each person’s row in the main screen. This can be accidentally hit when a user tries to just click on a person’s row to see all of their mutual debts.
Learnability:
- Pros
- Simple, table style interface.
- No “settings” menu to complicate things
- Large, easy to hit buttons (on touch screen phones)
- Consistent, clean layout
- Cons
- Multiple row selection can be confusing
- (+/-) labeling for types of debt can be very jarring at first.
- Labels and Buttons are on the same row (“Disputed” label vs “2 disputes” button which can lead to some confusion
...
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.
...
Suppose Sally wants to dispute a transaction with Bob, she can do so by viewing the details of her transaction with him. This will lead to a page that shows the total that she owes Bob, or however much Bob owes her. This also shows a list of dates and money amounts for every past transaction she has had with Bob. Next to each transaction where Bob claimed that Sally owes him money, Sally can click the “Dispute” button if she disagrees with that transaction. The “Done” button brings the user back to the home page.
Analysis: Dimensions of Usability
...
PROS
...
Learnability:
- 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.
...
- 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
...
Learnability:
- 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.
...