THE UHLE COLLECTIONS @ BERKELEY

|    Home     |     About Us     |     UC-Berkeley   |     SIMS     |     IS 213     | Links
 
 Assignment 1
Project Proposal
 
 Assignment 2
Personas, Goals
& Tasks Analysis
 
 Assignment 3 (Revised)
Scenarios, Comparative
Analysis & Initial Design
 
 Assignment 4
Low-fi Prototype & Usability Testing
 
 Assignment 5
First Interactive Prototype & Presentation
 
Assignment 6
Heuristic Evaluation
 
 Assignment 7
Second Interactive Prototype & Heuristic Evaluation Intergration
 
 Assignment 8
Pilot Usability Study &
Formal Usability Test Design
 
 Assignment 9
Third Interactive Prototype
Write up
(Final Presentation)
 
Work Distribution

Assignment 6: Heuristic Evaluation

1. General Recommendation

2. Heuristic Evaluation

3. Work Distribution Table


1. General Recommendation

Heuristic Evaluation of PhotoCat

Evaluators: Shelby Peak, Kelly Bryant, Cecilia Kim

General Recommendations

Overall, we found PhotoCat to be an interesting, aesthetically attractive, and potentially quite useful application. The major layout, colors, and logo are very pleasing to look at and professional. We especially liked that the interface is able to provide many useful tools without falling victim to the temptation to add extraneous features and thus cluttering the screen. The interface shows its best side when it is usable without the need for any instructions-filtering by time and date made instant sense to us, and we feel that you were correct to privilege this metadata in a prominent way. Your use of pop-up windows is very good and we never found ourselves lost or "stuck" when interacting with that part of the interface.

That said, however, we discovered that our critiques fall into two categories. First, we found some minor consistency and terminology issues in the design, which should be relatively simple to address. Occasionally, the system responded in a way that we did not match up with our expectations; for example, when we clicked on a photo's thumbnail, we expected to see an enlarged version but instead the photo was transferred to the "bin" and another click was required to see the details of the photo. Switching the order of these actions-i.e. opening the details pop-up when the user first clicks the thumbnail, then allowing the user to add the photo to the bin from that screen-would easily solve this problem

More critically, however, we had many questions about the bulls-eye design which constitutes user's major point of interaction with the system. The circular shape only made sense to us when it represented a 12-hour time period (i.e. the face of a clock). In the other views, we quickly became lost when trying to determine what the different bands and sectors represented.

The automatic categorizing by time and place is very useful, but mapping this onto the bulls-eye became problematic. We would prefer to see a more familiar representation such as a calendar or timeline. Yes, this wouldn't be as innovative or exciting, but we found that the effort it was taking to understand the mapping as the interface is currently implemented was interfering with our abilities to accomplish our goals-locating and sharing photos.

We encourage you to continue to consider the representation of grouped photos and perhaps rethink the bulls-eye layout. If you are determined to pursue the circular design, focusing on the clock metaphor and perhaps supplementing it with a more familiar linear representation might make the design more accessible to users.

 

[Top]