1. Problem Statement

2. Solution Overview

3. Personas and Scenarios

4. Final Interface Design

4a. Functionality

4b. Interaction Design

4c. Unimplemented Parts

4d. Tools

5. Design Evolution

6. Most Useful Design Process Step

7. Work Distribution

Currently significant inequalities and inefficiencies exist within the United States broadcast spectrum allocation process. These problems are a direct result of an archaic understanding of the communications spectrum and are compounded by the entrenched interests of current spectrum licensees. The lack of public understanding of and engagement in the management of the communications spectrum results in exclusive licensing and encourages the use of inefficient technologies and capital intensive business models.

Although the communications spectrum allocation process has been significantly revised in recent years, the prevalent metaphor of “scarce real estate” has not been questioned. The current allocation chart (pdf) is very hard for the uninitiated to understand. It shows too much information without enough explanation.  What is missing from the allocation debate are tools that allow interested parties to understand how the spectrum is actually allocated and utilized. An interactive communications spectrum analysis tool would allow users to view individual sections of the spectrum along with regional usage information. It could also provide meaningful explanations of the chart data.

Susan lives a hectic life, but enjoys it immensely.  She spends 90% of her time working out of her congresswoman’s local offices in Oakland and the rest of her time in Washington.  She has been working at this job for a year and half and is considering working on a campaign in the next election cycle.  Susan rents an apartment off of College Avenue in the Rockridge area of Berkeley.  Susan tries to commute by bus, but often has to drive to work as she is frequently asked to go to regional events and constituent meetings.  She has an active social life that revolves around her friends from growing up and school, and increasingly her work mates.  Susan enjoys music and theater performances, usually going to an event at least once a month.  She is active in Habitat for Humanity in Oakland. Though she is not religious, she enjoys the community spirit.  She has been known to pick up a hammer, but primarily contributes her organizational talents.

Susan’s job consists of two main functions; community outreach and legislative research.  By meeting with local constituents and representing her congresswoman locally, she provides key information about local issues.  She is required to be on top of district level social and economic issues and to understand how pending federal legislations is going to effect the district.  Though she is diligent and resourceful, she does not have much time to do direct research on legislative issues. Instead she relies on secondary sources including the Congressional Research Services, local and national newspapers and research published by interest groups and foundations.  Over the past year Susan has developed a good relationship with several industry lobbing groups and foundation staffers.  Though she recognizes that these individuals have agendas, she has come to trust their opinions and rely on them for insights into some federal legislative issues.

Since California’s ninth district contains a substantial amount of technology companies, Susan is very aware of the economic impact of technology in her district.  Though she is not a tech geek she does consider herself an experienced computer user, but not an expert.  Susan primarily uses office applications and has been learning how to use Microsoft Access.  She was an early convert to the PDA and now relies on it exclusively for her contacts.  Six months ago she upgraded her home computer getting a new Dell Dimension and DSL. 

At a Chamber of Commerce meeting recently, Susan met a representative of a local company that makes chips for wireless radios.  From him she learned that there are dozens of companies in the 9^th district that make hardware and software for the wireless industry.  Though her congresswoman is not a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee that oversees wireless communications, Susan recognizes that federal regulation of the wireless industry will affect the local constituencies and thinks that it could be good issue for local fundraising and campaigning.

Goals

• Contribute to the success of her congresswoman
• Identify issues that are important to her district and that could be useful for future campaigns
• Build a network of political contacts that will further her professional career
• Create areas of expertise that will make her a more valuable staff member

Katie Coogan is a staff writer for the Technology division of the San Francisco Chronicle.She has been working at the Chronicle for a little over a year.Before coming to the Chronicle, Katie worked as a legal reporter specializing in Internet and technology issues for American Lawyer Media.On the side, she also worked as a freelance writer for The Industry Standard.

Katie was recently promoted by the Chronicle from her position as a weekly column writer covering technology-related legal issues, to a staff reporter position. Two topics that Katie has covered in depth are the Microsoft anti-trust trial and the copyright controversy created by Napster. In her new role, Katie will be focusing on technology-related issues which are of concern to California voters. She is especially enthusiastic about her new role at the paper. Katie feels that with more and more technology issues going to the polls in California, it is important for journalists to educate voters on such topics.

Katie has always been a driven individual who continuously strives to improve her work and position in life. She grew up in Peshtigo, Wisconsin.  She always had a knack for technology. In high school she made a hobby of tinkering with the family’s Dairy Master Swift Flow milking system, but her real passion became politics after she joined her high school debate team. Upon receiving a full tuition scholarship to The University of Wisconsin, Katie entered and studied Political Science with a minor in Industrial Engineering. Nearing graduation, Katie discovered that she was torn between politics and technology. She decided to enroll in Northwestern’s Journalism School where she could pursue both areas through her writing.

As a journalist, Katie dreams of one day becoming the Associate Editor of a large newspaper. She is excited about her new promotion and is determined to impress her new boss. Katie devotes most of her time at work to research and tries to focus on topics that are of interest to Californians. She uses the web to browse through technology forums like slashdot.com and mailing lists hoping to find references and links to experts in the field. She also spends time looking at websites that advocate the different positions of the topic at hand. Katie is frustrated by websites that contain stale information or confusing visualizations. She often downloads charts and visuals which she can later use to help her write her articles.

With Katie’s constantly increasing workload, she has little time for a social life. She currently lives in a condo in Potrero Hill with her cat, Milky.

• Become the first female associate editor of The San Francisco Chronicle
• Stay informed about the latest technology and technology issues that concern California voters
• Continue to write informative articles that help educate the average Chronicle reader about technology-related issues
• Summarize topic issues in how they effect the Bay Area

The final interface for the Communications Spectrum project is geared toward a subject matter novice who is looking for information about how the communications spectrum is allocated. The site offers two main functionalities; an overview of the topic in the Tour and a comparative analysis tool in the Analyze Spectrum Usage section. The site also provides a Related sites page that directs users to other sites that provide information about spectrum allocation issues.

Information in the Tour is organized according to industry, e.g. Broadcast Television and Radio. The Tour provides data about how each industry uses the communications spectrum and shows graphically the parts of the spectrum allocated to each industry. Users have the option to navigate through the Tour sequentially using the Next and Back links on each page. Or they can jump to specific industry pages using the other links found at the top of each Tour page.

The comparative analysis tool first guides novice users through a step by step process of choosing relevant and allowable data parameters to compare spectrum use in different industries and different regions. Users have to the option to compare spectrum usage in one region for one industry, in two regions for one industry, or for two industries in one region. New functionality in the Third Interactive Prototype streamlines the initial selection process, making it so clicking a choice immediately proceeds to the next step rather than requiring the user to click to select and click again to proceed. Additionally the Third Interactive Prototype supports better content integration with the addition of info links that display brief industry information for each possible choice on the industry selection pages.

Most importantly the Third Interactive Prototype offers shortcuts for changing parameters directly on the results pages. These shortcuts let users change their comparison parameters (regions and industries) on the results page, without having to step through the selection process again. This shortcut selection process continues to seamlessly enforce the supported combinations of parameters. For example if a results page is displaying a comparison of spectrum usage in one region for two industries, then the user is only presented with the option to change the one region, change either of the two industries, or remove one of the two industries. If the user chooses to remove an industry , leaving only one region and one industry selected, then choices appear for her to change either of those selections or add another industry or another region. If she chooses to add another industry, then the option to add another region disappears and so on. For visual depiction of this functionality, please see the Analyze Spectrum Usage section of the Third Interactive Prototype or the screenshots below at the end of the Design Evolution section

While we have focused on designing interactions that prevent most errors, there are a few exceptions we have not handled in the Third Interactive Prototype. For example, it is still possible for users to choose the same industry or the same region twice in the Analyze Spectrum Usage section.

We also realized by the Second Interactive Prototype phase that it didn't make sense to spend a great deal of time writing domain-specific content for the Tour and the rest of the site. We struggled mightily to learn enough about the vast array of spectrum allocation data to make somewhat educated decisions about which data to display on the results pages. After that experience, it became clear that we should focus our energy on streamlining the interaction and providing an effective framework for exploring the information, rather than trying to produce the content itself.

Along these same lines, users can select different regions and industries for comparison. The labels on the data change, but the actual values do not. All versions of the results pages show the data we aggregated for the regions Helena, MT and New York, NY, and the Broadcast Television and AM/FM Radio industries. The graphics showing bands of allocated spectrum for each industry (on Tour pages and results pages) are accurate and based on actual data though.

We also did not implement the content integration between the technical terms used on the results pages and the tour pages and their definitions in the glossary. The glossary page is mocked up as a simple alphabetical listing with anchor links. We envision that the contextual glossary definitions incorporated on other pages of the site would look and function in a manner similar to the way the info links on the industry selection pages of the Analyze Spectrum usage section. That is to say when the user clicks a term a definition would display in an expandable and collapsable inner HTML 'box' just like the industry info does in the above mentioned pages of the Third Interactive Prototype.

With regard to the new functionality on the results pages of the Third Interactive Prototype, we have implemented the shortcut interface that allows users to change comparison parameters, region and industry, but we have not implemented the functionality that would change the data or the data labels on the rest of the page.

We used several different tools to produce our prototypes. Using Dreamweaver or TextPad, we wrote HTML, DHTML and Javascript. DHTML and Javascript support the dynamic presentation of the user's choices (region and industry) on the selection and results pages of the Analyze Spectrum Usage section. We used Adobe Photoshop, Adope Illustrator, and Excel to develop the icons and data visualizations displayed throughout the site .

Any discussion of the Communications Spectrum team's design evolution must begin before any actual design was put forward. The most difficult decision we had to make as a team regarded which aspect of the vast and complex communications spectrum information problem we would tackle. Going back to our first assignment’s problem statement, we stated that “What is missing from the allocation debate are tools that allow interested parties to understand how the spectrum is actually allocated and utilized. The current allocation chart is not very useful for the uninitiated, showing too much information without enough explanation.” In fact, it wasn't until after the Low Fi Prototype evaluation process, that we finally determined exactly which problem related to the display of spectrum related information we would try and solve.

Building and testing our Low-Fi prototype made us realize that we had to pare down our expectations and focus on a single interaction and visualization problem, i.e. how do you display comparative information about spectrum usage by industry and region? The Low-Fi prototype evolved from a series of sketches and conversations, now unfortunately mostly lost to history. In the process of constructing it we worked through a number of different possibilities for the data interface, navigation and labelling.

Low-Fi prototype exposed us to our first major interaction problem. To address our problem statement we chose to offer two distinct paths into the data analysis section (see the left hand screenshot below.) The user could choose to "Browse by Industry" or "Browse by region" . Before we tested the prototype with first time users, we had trouble even among ourselves differentiating between the two entry points. In testing this interaction all of our testers failed to understand the distinction between the two paths. In our First Interactive Prototype we thought we could solve this problem by making the language clearer (see the righthand screenshot below.) However, this was no help, and our heuristic evaluators again questioned the distinction between the two possible comparison dimensions.

In the Second Interactive Prototype we changed the main data analysis interaction from having two entry points to having only one, the "Analyze Spectrum Usage" link in the lefthand navigation bar of every page (screenshots below.) Implementing this change required significant changes to the entire data selection process. We created a sequential process where the user first chooses a region, then chooses an industry, then has the option to either analyze the one chosen region and industry (this was new functionality) or choose another industry or choose another region for comparison. We feel that this design makes the the data selection interaction vastly more usable. The onus is no longer on the user to understand the possible comparison parameters in advance. It also continues to enforce the comparison restraints on possible choices without the user needing to know about them in advance.

As also mentioned above we streamlined the data selection process in this iteration, making it so users need to only click on a region to proceed to the industry selection page, and click on an industry to proceed to Step Three.

The most significant change in The Third Interactive Prototype addresses the need for a more expedient expert interface for data comparison. The Second Prototype's data selection process is good for explaining the possible comparison the first time through. But it quickly becomes cumbersome for repeated selections. As explained above in the Functionality section, we now allow the user to add and/or change their comparison parameters directly on the results page (see screenshots below.) We considered creating a separate expert interface, but felt that once the user had seen the data results they would want to change their choices without further navigation.

In the context of this project specifically, both the usability testing of the Low-Fi Prototype and the Heuristic Evaluation gave us invaluable insight and direction for how to focus our efforts and move forward productively. Early discovery of the problem with the two path entry into the data analysis section insured that we would keep working on that problem with determination in each iteration.

The heuristic evaluation was the most thorough evaluation technique and offered a great deal of specific feedback about how and where the site could be improved. Using the other evaluation techniques, we were able to discover problematic aspects of our site, however, these evaluations did not provide us with as many alternative design suggestions as the heuristic evaluation. Additionally, our heuristic evaluators estimated the severity of each usability problem, thus helping us to prioritize our development efforts.