You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 12 Next »

StageIt

Unknown macro: {pagetree2}

GR6 - User Testing

Design

<Describe the final design of your interface. Illustrate with screenshots. Point out important design decisions and discuss the design alternatives that you considered. Particularly, discuss design decisions that were motivated by the three evaluations you did (paper prototyping, heuristic evaluation, and user testing).>

Task

Screenshot

Explanation

Signing Up/ Logging In

The login screen is simple and has an obvious signup container, along with a login area.

Creating/Selecting a Project

The dashboard lists saved projects and allows users to easily access them.  The green button allows the user to start a new project - a dialog will pop up asking for the name of the new project.

Selecting a Stage

This is the main interface - the area where the user will make all of the edits to the formations.

Heuristic Evaluation:  The original computer prototype forced users to choose a stage before having access to any other function, so it was very limiting.  The current model flashes a tool-tip as soon as the project is first open, suggesting the user to select a stage first.  Another option was to have a default stage, and users would have to explore and find out they can change the default.

Editing Formation Name

When the user hovers over the current formation name (indicated in green), the tip to click and change the name pops up.  However, it was not intuitive to users to hover over that label.

Heuristic Evaluation:  The way to change the formation name was not learnable, so we added the tool-tip and editing icon that pop up when the user hovers over the label.

User Testing:  Each of the users we tested tried to double-click on the title under "Formations" (indicated in red) to change it.  This was not an implemented function.  

Other options:

  • When clicking save, allow users to change the formation name if they have not already done so.
  • When creating a new formation, force them to give the formation a name.

Adding Dancers/Props

Paper Prototyping:  During the paper prototype, users had to click through multiple dialogs to add dancers and props.  For the computer prototype, we put it all together onto one dialog.

Heuristic Evaluation:  It was suggested to have a drag and drop system, but we went with the current model because it was efficient to add multiple dancers at once.

Changing Dancer Name

In the "Add Dancers" pop-up, there is a tip under the dancer preview (indicated in green).  Users would have to read the tip in order to know the default names are editable.

Heuristic Evaluation:  There was no way to know that double-clicking a dancer allowed you to give it a name.  By giving each dancer a default name, we made it apparent that text in the shape is an attribute.  The tip in the pop-up clarified how to edit it.

Other options:

  1. During presentations, we were also given the suggestion to allow the user to enter multiple names in the "Add Dancers" prompt, and these names will be used instead of the default "Dancer".

Moving a Dancer

In this model, we highlight the dancer/prop that is being moved.  

Heuristic Evaluation:  Users did not like that shapes change size to indicate they are being moved.  It was not externally consistent with any other program.  This attribute confused the user as to the shape's actual size and made it difficult to arrange dancers because sizes were skewed while moving.  Highlighting worked much better.

Selecting Multiple Items

The select tool was added to the toolbar, to make rearranging dancers more efficient.

User Testing:  However, there were some more features related to selecting that the users expected:

  1. Users wanted to be able to drag and highlight multiple items, as well as use keyboard shortcuts (like ctrl).  The current click-and-select is inconsistent with other programs and is inefficient.
  2. Users wanted to be able to change the sizes of the selected items simultaneously.

Resizing Items

Heuristic Evaluation:  At first it is not apparent that items can be resized.  But when trying to move them, sometimes the user would accidentally resize it.  To fix both of these issues, we added the resize toggle button in the toolbar.  This showed users that things were resizable and gave them the control to turn it on and off (for safety issues).

Tool Bar on Top

 

 

Tabs on Top

 

 

Arranging Dancers


Paper Prototyping:  Users almost always overlooked this feature because it was hidden amongst other tabs.  To fix this, we put these under the "Tasks" header, to show that it is an action.

Heuristic Evaluation:  In earlier prototypes, users chose the arrangement through radio buttons, and it was difficult to picture how the dancers would end up.  Now they can select based on these image icons, which is consistent with the Stage and Prop dialogs.  Also, it was not apparent that you can select specific dancers to be moved/which dancers were going to be arranged, leading to safety issues.

User Testing:  We emphasized the select tool to push users towards learning that specific dancers/props can be arranged.

 

 

 

Changing Project Name

 

 

Saving a Formation

Heuristic Evaluation:  There was no feedback that the formation had been saved successfully, so now a label slides in (animation).  It's green and has a checkmark, giving it a positive connotation.  It also disappears after 5 seconds, to de-clutter the toolbar, while giving the user enough time to read it.

Other options:

  • This label can also be used for other feedback/indicators, after any major event.

Creating a New Formation

 

 

Deleting a Formation

 

 

Undo/Redo Functionalities

 

 

Implementation

<Describe the internals of your implementation, but keep the discussion on a high level. Discuss important design decisions you made in the implementation. Also discuss how implementation problems may have affected the usability of your interface.>

Evaluation

Describe how you conducted your user test. Describe how you found your users and how representative they are of your target user population (but don't identify your users by name). Describe how the users were briefed and what tasks they performed; if you did a demo for them as part of your briefing, justify that decision. List the usability problems you found, and discuss how you might solve them.

StageIt was implemented and hosted with Parse. The pages of the app are created using standard HTML, CSS, and JQuery. Twitter’s Bootstrap was also used to style the pages, though the bulk of the project page was created with manual css. The app has three basic page - the signup/login page, the dashboard, and the project page. The dashboard page displays all of a specific user’s projects by making an asynchronous query to the Parse database and returning the results into a table. When a user tries to create a new project, they are redirected to a page that automatically creates an untitled first formation in that project that is saved to the database.
In the project page, we created the stage with two html5 canvases - one to draw the stages selected by users and one for users to draw arrows. We also used easeljs to create a canvas that allowed for dragging and dropping of drawn items.

Implementation Problems

Backend - took up a lot of time since we initially didn’t know what framework to use (PHP, Rails, Parse, Node.js, etc), and we weren’t very familiar with server-side web-development. The saving of projects - especially the objects added to formations, was a difficult problem to solve and led to some usability problems - for example, if a user accidentally refreshed a project page that they have just created, then the page will create a new “untitled formation” automatically, and will add it to the project. Another problem was showing a user a formation they had already made in the same project, since the data wasn’t always saved properly.

User Population

As stated before, our target population was choreographers and dance directors who are looking for a better way to illustrate their designs. The users we tested are choreographers for various dance groups at MIT, such as Fixation, Dance Troupe, and the Bhangra Team. All 3 of them are all current MIT undergrads who do choreographing in their spare time, but they all do different styles of dancing: hip hop, contemporary, and bhangra. This being said, we were unable to test professional choreographers for this task, but with the trained hand of an MIT student, I think we got close enough.*

User Testing

We modified the initial test from our prototype to include some new implemented features:

  1. Create an account and make a new project with your first formation.
  2. Name this new formation Blues Enter.
  3. Create a semicircular stage in this first formation.
  4. Add 5 blue circle dancers to the center of the stage in a vertical formation..
  5. Give each dancer a different name.
  6. Save the current formation and create create a new one, with the same dancers on the stage.
  7. Name this formation Green Enter.
  8. Add 5 more dancers to the stage as green triangles.. Move all dancers into 2 horizontals lines in the center of the stage
  9. Add 2 arrows to the stage, pointing outwards from the lines of dancers.
  10. Make one last formation, so save this one and make a new formation titled Circle Time.
  11. Move all the green triangles off stage.
  12. With the remaining Blue circles, arrange them into a big circle.formation
  13. Add one last prop, a flag to the center of the circle.
  14. Save and logout.
    We encouraged  the user to explore the interface while performing the tasks, and we also encouraged mistake-making such that they would be able to use the undo and redo functions. We decided a demo was not needed, as one of the main focuses of our interface was learnability.
Usability Issues

These are problems that each user encountered as we did one final round of user testing with our final prototype:

Issue with...

Users

Severity

Possible Solution

Renaming a formation

The first impression of each user tested was that double clicking on a formation listed in the formation panel would allow them to rename the formation. This is not permitted as we thought that it would allow users to misclick and click away from whatever their current formation is.

Moderate

Solution: Implement the double click as a way to rename the formation, in addition to the current implementation of allowing a click on the name at the top. We could also make it more obvious to the user that they could rename the formation through the current means.

Formation Selecting

When selecting the default arranging of dancers, the expected behaviour of the user is that they will be able to move all of the dancers at once as if they are selected, so they would essentially be moving the whole formation. This was not implemented.

Moderate

Solution: Implement selection such that an arrange with no one selected will select all.

Select Tool

Prompt to confirm select is not apparent to the user at first glance, as they will try to move the selected items without confirming the total selection.

Moderate

Solution: make the prompt more obvious by changing location to a more central location on the screen, for example the top left or top right. Or make the contrast greater, by changing the color with respect to the stage.

Select Tool

Having a multiple select box would be helpful. To maintain consistency with other programs like powerpoint, having a click and drag box such that you will be able to select multiple dancers at once without individually clicking them all does a lot for efficiency

Major

Solution: Implement a box with the selectable jquery class

More select Tool Issues

Select to arrange was unclear on first try, but on second try the user was able to figure out how to select in order to arrange only a couple of dancers, and not all of them.

Minor

Solution: link arrange and select together, allow the user to select some or all before prompting for a arranged formation, or move the select button to be clearer. Overall it would decrease the efficiency of the formations minimally by adding an extra prompt.

Rename Project/Formation

One user could not tell the difference between a project name and a formation name. Renaming the project name, which is under the Project Settings tab,
could be confused with changing the formation name.

Minor

Solution: make the abstraction of formation and project clearer, don’t make this setting editable in a tab connected to the stage formation edit.

Offstage

The area for offstage is a bit unclear, and there might not be enough room to hold more than 10 dancers in each area of the offstage.

Cosmetic

Solution: make an offstage “drawer” on each side, such that you can stick dancers in each drawer and hide them, accessing them only as needed.

Resize Ability

When selecting multiple dancers, you could also allow resize, as well as move, delete, and arrange

Minor

Solution: Another feature that is expected that we could implement.

Notes Box

Clicking on the text in the Notes box does not allow the user to edit the box, clicking anywhere else will prompt text.

Major

Solution: make the text as well as the whole box clickable, so the user can edit the text box.

Other feature suggestions:

Stage markers in the form of a grid, editable by the user to accomodate each stage.
Invert Selection possibility
Add more keyboard shortcuts, or a keyboard toggle for resize as well as more shortcuts.

Overall the program was very accepted for being an extreme improvement with respect to previous methods of choreographing, and everyone is very enthusiastic that this is a palpable object now.

Reflection

<Discuss what you learned over the course of the iterative design process. If you did it again, what would you do differently? Focus in this part not on the specific design decisions of your project (which you already discussed in the Design section), but instead on the meta-level decisions about your design process: your risk assessments, your decisions about what features to prototype and which prototype techniques to use, and how you evaluated the results of your observations.>

  • No labels