PhotoCat: Results and Discussion

Assignment 2
Revised Proposal
Persona Explanation
Personas and Goals
Task Analysis
Interview Questions
Interview Summary

Assignment 3
Task Scenarios
Comp. Analysis
Primary Persona
Initial Designs

Assignment 4
Introduction
Prototype
Methods/Measures
Results/Discussion
Appendices

Presentation #1

Assignment 5
Interactive Prototype
Prototype Overview
Screen Shots
Inter. Scenarios
How to Use It

Assignment 6
Heuristic Evaluation

Assignment 7
Outside HE Update
New "Grid View"

Assignment 8
Introduction
Subjects/Methods
Test Measures
Results
Discussion
Experiment Design
Appendices

Presentation #2

Assignment 9
Overview
Personas/Scenarios
Final Design
Design Evolution
Appendices

Interactive Prototype

Work Distribution

SIMS 213, Spring 2005

ASSIGNMENT 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results
Discussion

Results

Participant #1

SUMMARY: Tester one used the smallest set of the PhotoCat tools. During the first scenario she found the pink rose picture without problem, and could open a larger version. She shared from the details screen. She used the same share method for each of the other scenarios, sharing one picture at a time, not seeing other parts of the interface. In general she understood how the most basic functions of the system worked and left all of the filtering tools untouched. In comparing PhotoCat with her current method of storing photos she commented that the PhotoCat system would help her remember more specifically when she took the picture.

Participant #2

SUMMARY: Tester two used the largest set of the PhotoCat tools. She thought the “people” category showed who you had already shared with rather than the friends that were co-present when you took the picture. She created albums to share/save during the entire test. She commented that she liked the target layout because she didn’t have to scroll at all. She commented that she felt being shown who was at an event was unnecessarybecause she would remember who was there or could view them in the pictures. The first time the thumbnails disappeared due to filtering, she was confused, but she quickly caught on. She didn’t understand the thumbnails graying out when she changed the location filter, “why don’t they disappear like the other filters?” She would have reorganized the filters view, Time, Location People, Action, Album. Commented that she would like to create additional albums from the current ones.

I like it…it is a really good start…It is something I can navigate it…not computer savvy…its clear and it makes sense…good organization…

Participant #3

SUMMARY: Tester 3 was probably our most computer savvy tester (she is a graphic designer by trade). Because of this she came to the interface with a lot more technical assumptions than the other two testers she commented, “the web doesn’t allow for double clicking” and wanting right-click functionality. She wanted to be able to drag pictures from the target to add to the Photo Bin.

She looked all over the interface for an e-mail button--skipping over the share buttons in a available in a few different places. She had no problems finding pictures on the target, in the different time frames. She also did not understand the “people” category although she pointed out that she thought the petals were pretty.

To send the pictures in a batch she wanted to be able to highlight the pictures in the bin, and have a screen come up with a share button. She expected the target to change when she interacted with the drop downs and she understood most of the interface.

TOP

Discussion

What We Learned
Only one of the participants played extensively with the filtering mechanisms provided in the interface. This taught us that there needed to be a stronger mapping between the filters and the bullseye view. It might also be the case that the filters are not as important to the user as we assumed (although we did not ask our users questions about this).

During our paper prototype sessions, users did not understand the mapping between the "Actions" section of the screen and the Photo Bin. We believe this occurred because the "Actions" commands and Photo Bin were not tied together visually on the screen.

None of the users understood the significance of the "people petals" attached to the pictures or the functionality of the "Friends" drop-down menu on the right of the screen. Two of the three participants thought that the petals signified who the picture was shared with instead of who was co-present when the picture was taken.

One of our participants pointed out that when the "Time" or "Friends" filters were used, the pictures that did not fit the criteria were removed from the target. When the "Location" filter was used, the pictures that were not from that particular location were made translucent. We may need to address this inconsistency.

We assumed that users would expect the user-created albums to be displayed on the target. However, all of the users expected albums to show up in a separate album view. It seemed like they wanted the interface to express the difference between their collection at large and the user-crafted (and possibly emotionally tied) albums.

Users assumed that some elements of the bullseye view were clickable, and that clicking them would allow them to filter the photos in the collection. This was most apparent when one of the participants clicked on one of the bands and wanted the target to change to that time frame.

What we will Change
We will change the overall layout of the screen to create stronger ties between 1) the filters and the target and 2) the Photo Bin and the Actions. A very preliminary sketch is displayed below.

We would like to change the way location is displayed. Right now it seems like instead of representing location or place, we are attempting to represent distance from a place. Perhaps that is not helpful and what needs to be displayed is place, and not distance from a particular location.

We will display albumed pictures on a separate screen. This will differentiate such pictures from the collection as a whole. Our participants seemed to want this, although it may add more complexity to the interface.

We will keep the drop-down menus for filtering photos, but also make more of the elements in the bullseye view clickable. This will allow advanced users to move through the data in a quicker, more efficient way.

We are thinking critically about the bullseye visualization. Perhaps this visualization is limiting us in ways that a more conventional interface would not?

What we couldn't learn from this evaluation
Since our system enables users to view and organize their personal artifacts, it was unfortunate that we couldn't test participants using a collection of photos familiar to them instead of dummy photos.

There are elements of PhotoCat that are not like any standard GUI or Web page. For this reason, we expect users will experience a steep learning curve as they become comfortable with the system. It would have been interesting to investigate if users interacted differently with the system after using it for a longer length of time.

TOP

Next: Appendices