IS213 Projects Home

Assignment 1

• Problem Statement
• Project Members

Assignment 2

• Personas
• Task Analysis
• Appendices
• Work Distribution

Assignment 3

• Scenarios
• Comparative Analyses
• Initial Design 1
• Initial Design 2
• Initial Design 3
• Work Distribution

Assignment 4

• Introduction
• Low-Fi Prototype
• Methods
• Test Measures
• Results
• Discussion
• Appendices
• Work Distribution

Assignment 5

• Design Revisions
• Revised Scenarios
• 1st Hi-Fi Prototype
• Storyboards
• Instructions for Use
• Slide Presentation
• Work Distribution

Assignment 6

• Heuristic Evaluation
• Work Distribution

Assignment 7

• 2nd Hi-Fi Prototype
• Responses to HEs
• Work Distribution
• Instructions for Use

Assignment 8

• Introduction
• Method
• Test Measures
• Results
• Discussion
• Appendices
• Work Distribution
• Slide Presentation

Final Write-up

• Problem Statement
• Solution Overview
• Final Personas
• Final Scenarios
• Revised Storyboards
• Final Interface Design
• Design Evolution
• Interactive Prototype

From Second to Third Interactive Prototype

The design of the system changed most during this phase. In response to both user testing and a second heuristic evaluation, we took a more bold approach to the design, departing further from the existing styles of the IMG system and even reworking our interaction flow. Some of these changes are reflected in our final prototype, but many are represented by design mockups because we did not have the time needed to make functional versions of these radically altered pages.

Changes in the Prototype

To address user confusion about the meaning of MyAnnotations versus MyWatchedAnnotations, we decided to break the MyAnnotations page into two more differently named pages called Genes I'm Watching and Genes I've Annotated.

The Compare and Transfer page is heavily altered in the final design, but we chose to make most of these changes in the prototype itself to make the prototype more complete. First, we removed the "% Agreement" field, since users tended to confuse this with % identity (a common similarity measure) when comparing genes. We also regrouped the data shown on the page, placing selectable items together and unselectable data together in a visually distinct presentation. In addition, we removed radio buttons for fields that are blank in the genes being compared to the subject. Finally, we changed the "Transfer All" radio buttons, previously located at the bottom of each column, to "Select All" buttons positioned at the top of each column. This was done to address user confusion about the meaning of the "transfer nothing" radio button, which appeared as selected in the second prototype even if the user chose some items to select.

The Compare and Transfer form (on the Update Annotation page) in the prototype is replaced by an entirely new page in the final design. Still, we wanted to fix the problem we found in testing of users selecting labels in the multiple-select menu, so we went ahead and disabled those "options" in that menu.

We also made changes to the representation of the annotation history. In the Gene Details page, we decided to remove the many links to individual versions and instead make one clear link to the history. The history page, therefore, now contains the list of versions as a set of internal links at the top.

We made a few bug fixes as well and fixed a few minor inconsistencies in how the same data is displayed on different pages.

Final Design

Besides the changes we made in our prototype, our final design reflects major changes that we only had time to show as mockups. Screenshots of the final design are available under Final Design.

The Gene Details page will offer the discussion form, now allowing users to see recent discussion comments and add their own. We chose to make this change because we realized that it was not obvious from the previous designs that one can carry out discussions. Trying as we were to change as little as possible of the existing IMG Gene Details page, we had succeeded too well: the page's extra functionality was lost visually. By adding blog-like discussion items right beside the functional annotation area, we were able to make a design that clearly indicates that this is more than a typical annotation system.

We are also moving the voting buttons to the discussion forms, both on Gene Details and on the forms reached via the Gene Cart page (single- or multiple-gene discussion). This allows us to encourage voting and address an important note that came up in user testing, namely, that scientists are expected to give a reason if they express disagreement with another scientist's work. As components of the form, these buttons become radio buttons rather than instant voting buttons. (Both heuristic evaluations pointed to trouble with the instant voting buttons.)

Because of continuing concern about the popup window for updating annotations and the general flow through the system, particularly noted in the second heuristic evaluation, we decided to try a very different approach to the interaction flow. Instead of a single upate page will all controls, we decided to break the update task into two branches, one for direct editing of data and one (the most common) for updating by transferring data from similar sequences. In this new flow, the Compare and Transfer area of the Update Annotation page becomes its own page, with much more information for users to decide which genes to work with in transferring annotations. (Test participants said they wanted more information, such as alignment data, with which to decide which genes to examine for transferring.) The sections of this page are collapsible to prevent overwhelming the user with all the data. From this initial update page, skilled users who wish to enter a quick update by hand can reach a Direct Entry page, which is essentially the old Update Annotation page without the Compare and Transfer area. Those who wish to continue on with the transfer approach can do so by selecting a subset of genes for further analysis by one of three methods: transferring via anupdated radio-button page, downloading FASTA sequence data to build a tree (the button for linking to the external tree-building application is now on the page with the sequence), or viewing a multiple-sequence alignment. We expect users analyzing trees or multiple alignments will return to the update area to complete their task, so these pages are the ones that appear as popups. With this approach, we obviate the retention of the Gene Details page as a reference while working on annotations. Thus, there is no need for the main update pages to appear in popups.

Because test participants pointed out that they needed the ontology terms to appear where the ID numbers appeared, all the pages for updating annotations in the final design show ontology terms to match ID numbers, even before a user makes a change.

The new flow for updating via transfer from similar sequence will also enable users to transfer annotations from sequences such as InterPro, Pfam, and UniProt hits, which was suggested in usability testing. The mockup of this page shows a sample InterPro hit as part of the table. We also added evidence fields and sequence sources (with links to those sources) to the radio-button table, because test participants requested we add this information there.

Our mockups also include new versions of the Genes I'm Watching and Genes I've Annotated pages with column sorting.