ANEXÓ I: INSTRUMENTÓS E INFÓRMES PARA EL PRÓGRAMA DÓCENTIA-UCM
CUESTIONARIO PARA EL ALUMNADO
4. Valoración global y otras observaciones adicionales (Máximo 1500 caracteres).
This covers the result from the usability questionnaires. The results are an average of the 10 participants that took part.
Page 64 of 86
Figure 6.1 Average of system usability feedback
6.2.1.1 Navigation
The question asked was “How did you find navigation within the application? Especially when trying to find your room after creation”. The purpose of this was to get an understanding of how easy it was to get between different screens on the application, and whether it was clear how to get back and return to a previous screen.
This scored 7.8 average between participants. This suggests that it has worked to a good extent, this said it is marginally lower than some of the other feedback. After further inspection of the results from the “do you use a modern smartphone frequently” question showed a correlation between people that didn’t use/own a smartphone had a worse experience with navigation, their average (4 participant that don’t use smartphones) was 4.75. This is probably because they hardware buttons on the device are used for navigation, this is foreign to people whose integration with a program is through a keyboard and mouse. As mentioned in the background Google suggests that the hardware buttons are used as to not use many ways of getting the same operation (returning from screen) as to create a less confusing UI.
6.2.1.2 Finding Furniture
This question is
“How easy was finding the furniture that you wanted to place?” It aims to
find out how easy it was for the participant to find the furniture they wanted within the category window.At a score of 6.5, this was the lowest result from the feedback. This score is not drastically low but definitely shows that there is room for improvement in this section. The difficulty with this feature was mostly likely due to their not being an image to complement the text of the furniture. The user found it difficult to pick what they wanted as text did not give enough detail, this meant that there was a bit of trail an error until finding the right furniture.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Navigation Finding furniture Arranging furniture
Publishing room Browsing rooms Performance
Ease
o
f u
se
Tested Feature
System Useability Feedback
Page 65 of 86 6.2.1.3 Arranging furniture
The question “During room creation, how easy was it to arrange the furniture?” was asked. The purpose of this was to find out if moving furniture around could be done easily by the participant. Thus evaluating the snapping, rotating, and grouping tools.
This scored over 8 so there is confidence that the tools created to help the user arrange furniture worked to a good extent. This could be further evaluated by doing some final observations and seeing which of the tools they use and any problems they have related to them.
6.2.1.4 Publishing room
The question “After creating a room you were asked to publish it. How easy was it to publish the room?” This question was asked to ensure that it was easy for the user to share the room after they had finished creating it, this is an important part to the user generated aspect of the project.
Publishing the room scored over 8 again suggesting there is no problem with how it is done. This wasn’t too much of a surprise as the process consists of an up arrow button and a dialogue with a clear publish button. Rather than finding it my concern was that users would leave the application without uploading, this did not happen in any of the 10 participants but is something that should be handled.
6.2.1.5 Browsing rooms
The question “Next you were asked to find the room that you had just made. How easy was it find your room?” This was asked to evaluate the view rooms’ screen and see if users found it easy to use, after making changes from the first prototype to address this, it should be work fine.
The feedback shows got a score of 7.5 suggesting that is better than satisfactory but may still have room for improvement. Part of the result could have been affected by navigating from the main screen to the view rooms’ screen.
6.2.1.6 General performance
The question “During your use of the application, how did the app run performance wise? I.e. did it lag or stutter during your use?” This was asked to see what the users felt about the performance of the application to evaluate if it had met the performance non-functional requirement. Although it maintains a 30fps throughout animations between transitions can stutter between screens depending on the platform.
This gave an average of just over 9. This suggests that the performance was acceptable but some stuttering must have been noticed at some point but did not affect the experience.
Page 66 of 86
Figure 6.2 Pie chart of participants' preferred device for Mini Architect
Figure 6.2 shows the results of question 8 from the feedback form. The purpose of this was to see what platform the participants preferred. Tablet is the clear favourite here with 50%, this makes sense as the application was designed first for touch devices and a tablet has both a touch interface and a larger screen than a phone. This is not to say that it wouldn’t be used on phones or PCs; it would be down to the users requirements at the time e.g. if mobility is important then they would use a phone. The PC margin was only selected by the participants that did not own/use a smartphone, the keyboard and mouse interface is familiar and they already know how standard operations like dragging and rotating works. This fits one aim of this project (developing for cross platform) as the participants have picked the platform that they are most familiar with.