Developing a Way-Finding System for the Engineering and Computing Building
Our second ALL (activity led learning) project was to create a way finding system for navigating the University's Engineering and Computing Building, using any software we wished. For this project we were to work in groups of four.
Week 1
To begin the project, we decided upon the project methodology RAD (Rapid Application Development), as this methodology focused on the importance of prototyping. As the assignment stated that we would be
making a series of prototypes, this seemed the most appropriate. In our
first group session, we planned and conducted a PACT analysis of the
Engineering and Computing Building. We observed people who were
either familiar and unfamiliar with the building. We found that those who
had not been to the building before had some difficulty navigating the
building. Some of the things they found were:
-The lift buttons were confusing
-The signs need improving
-Clearer rooms labels
-The screens outside the rooms were useful
This information was useful in enabling us to get unbiased data on how people navigate the
Engineering and Computing Building.
Week 2
This week we created a paper prototype for our way finder application. We brainstormed as a
group, using the information we found from our PACT analysis, and came up with the basic
design for our system. Following the MoSCoW rules, we created a paper prototype with the
features that we would ideally want to implement on our system. This included:
-A menu at the top for each floor
-A colour coded map
-A key for maps
-Directions to each room
We then used fluid to make the paper prototype look neater and more colourful.
Week 3
For our third session we carried out our user testing on our paper prototype. During the test, the user as shown the welcome screen and were asked to navigate to a certain room in the Engineering and Computing Building.
The user was given:
-Maps of the floors
-Photos of the rooms
-The paper interface
-Directions to the rooms
The standard process for the user testing went as follows:
1. User 'presses' floor button
2. User 'presses' room button
3. Maps, images, and directions are displayed
From there the user was told to find the specified room. From our user testing, we received a variety of feedback, including:
+User friendly interface
-Could be grey scale, would help with colour blindness
-Confused about which stairs to use
+Easy to follow
From these comments, we made the appropriate amendments to our prototype, for example, we labelled each set of stairs. We decided to use 5 people for our user testing, as according to Nielson Theory, any more than 5 people would be a waste of time. Testing above 5 people would result in the same comments being found, wasting time and resources.
Week 4 & 5
After the user testing in the previous week, we began the implementation of our mid-fi
prototype. Each member of the group worked on an individual prototype on their
preferred application, but still working from the same paper prototype. Before we
started, we decided as a group which rooms and lecture theatres we would be using,
so that when it came to user testing, only the rooms we would only need to test a few
rooms. I decided to do my version on Processing. On Processing I was able to:
-Use layers for each floor
-Add a navigation bar
-Insert images of the rooms
-Colour coded room buttons
-Create a key for the colour coded rooms
-Add text directions for the selected rooms
Week 6
Once we had completed our mid-fi prototypes, we agreed which out of the four applications would be the best to use. We decided to use one that had been made in powerpoint and one that had been made in Processing, as these 2 had the most functionality. During our user test we had the participant navigate the Engineering and Computing Building to find a specific room with each of the applications. As they did this, we recorded them (with consent given), so that we could analyse how the user went about using the prototype. Once they had found the room they had to look for, they were asked to fill out a questionnaire, so that we could get their feedback from their experience using the application (any further verbal comments were also recorded). Each participant was able to find the room they were told to look for; however, a similar problem arose from our initial paper prototype user testing. The users had a bit of confusion with distinguishing each staircase. We had labelled the stairs on the new mid-fi prototype, however as they were not actually labelled in the Engineering and Computing Building, they found it confusing. If we were to create the hi-fi prototype, we would need to make this clearer. Overall, the users said in the questionnaires that the app was useful in finding the room they were looking for. Out of the two applications, the participants said that they liked different aspects of each. For example, they liked the colourfulness of the application created in powerpoint, however they liked the images on the Processing application.
If the project were to be extended into making a high-fidelity prototype, we would have ideally liked to have some extra features implemented. For example, one feature we would want to add would be that when the user selected a room, the directions would be given from the users current position rather than starting from the main entrance each time. This would make using the app more efficient and the user would be able to find their room from anywhere in the Engineering and Computing Building.
Overall, I feel that our team work during the project was effective as all work was completed on time and up to the appropriate standard. The workload was divided amongst the team members evenly, ensuring that no one was left with too much to do. During group discussions, everyone in the team was involved and each person’s ideas were taken into consideration.