After building the database, it was necessary to provide a set of interfaces for use by end-users. This front-end user interface is based on the different needs and requirements of the end-users. Furthermore, they need to be able to add, edit, delete and modify data located in the database, which can be achieved by using queries based on the Structured Query Language (SQL). Fields in tables were created cor-responding to what was required by end-users to manipulate. Multiple visits and meetings with the consultant neurophysiologist, epilepsy specialist nurse, and the administration staff were involved to ensure that all tables and fields in the database contained the exact needs for each group. This was accompanied by multiple revi-sions of the database tables/fields in order to finally capture the exact requirements.
Later on, this was followed by the need to present the database through a front-end user interface. For this, Microsoft Access was to create a front-front-end user interface.
Steps suggested by Rogers et al. (2011), in their book Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction were employed in its design. They state four activities for successful interaction design, these are:
1. Establishing requirements.
2. Developing alternative designs that meet those requirements.
3. Building interactive versions so that they can be communicated and assessed.
4. Evaluating them, i.e. measuring their acceptability.
Those four activities were involved when building the PWE database and the front-end interface.
1. Identifying needs and requirements: After identifying users benefiting from PWE database and front-end user interface, their needs and require-ments needed to be identified. Understanding their work and the context they work at is essential in order to develop a system that supports their activi-ties and achieve their goals. It is more likely that the end result will satisfy users’ requirements if end-users needs and requirements were considered and satisfied. The consultant neurophysiologist, epilepsy specialist nurse, and the administration staff each had their own different needs from the database and from the front-user interface. For instance, the consultant neurophysiologist, wanted specific information regarding seizures, seizure types, current medica-tion, and past medication to be in the database.
2. Developing alternative designs: This is the core activity of design. It is based on two sub-activities: the conceptual design and the physical de-sign. The conceptual design is producing a conceptual model for the product.
This describes what the interface should do, look like and behave. This was discussed with the potential end-users based on their requirements. The phys-ical design, on the other hand, considers the details of the interface: colours, images, menu design, and icon design, see Appendix P. At every stage, alter-natives proposed by the end-users were considered and were modified to meet their needs.
3. Building interactive versions: The most suitable way for users to evaluate the design involves interacting with the interface. An interactive version of the front-user interface was built. This was very useful in observing how end-users interacted with the interface and how they engaged with it. Such practice using dummy data enabled the end users to assess, communicate and evaluate the interface. End-users were able to give feedback into further design changes.
For instance, the epilepsy specialist nurse wanted to combine two tabs (current epilepsy medication and historic epilepsy medication) under one tab named (epilepsy medication) of which it consists of both tabs combined. She also wanted information in the medication fields to be arranged and displayed in a table format instead. Further, the consultant neurophysiologist, for example, wanted the patients demography tab to be removed and to have the patients demography display on the top, even when navigation takes place between different tabs. Appendix Q represents both the first version interface and the final version interface after end-users feedback have been applied.
4. Measuring their acceptability: This involves evaluating the final interface by end-users. It is to determine the usability and acceptability of the interface.
The number of errors users make using the interface, how well the interface matches the requirements, how appealing is it, etc. are different criteria to measure the interface.
Collection of all these activities led to the creation of the front-end user interface.
Figure 7.3 represents the general view of PWE database interface and Figure 7.4 illustrates the end-user view to the interface, that displays the stored information in the database about a person with epilepsy.
Figure 7.3: The Epilepsy Database Interface- General View
7.JCUHStaff&PWE/Carers:Findings141
Figure 7.4: The Epilepsy Database Interface- Patient Details
7.4 Summary
Here presentation of the second phenomenological study was presented. Find-ings were related to JCUH staff and PWE/carers. This was important to form back-ground information not just for developing the IB and building the PWE database, but also to elicit end-users opinions and requirements from an existing information transfer system (ePRF). Requirements varied according to end-users status. JCUH staff (excluding ED staff) were more focused on the system data management, pre-sentation, manipulation, internal/external integration, and information access. ED staff wanted the ePRF to be rapidly accessed, available and accessible. Finally, PWE/carers requirements were focused on their lifestyle routine, the unnecessary conveyance to ED, data access, protection and information security.