What we learned:

1. Some of the delays in simulating the prototype sort of distracts the user a little bit and it seemed like they sometimes forgot what they were trying to accomplish.
2. We can not possibly draw up every bit of navigation for the user that wants to explore every possible pathways in the interface.
3. No matter how well you draw, or present a paper prototype, it still is not as visually or physically engaging as a piece of interactive software that allows full mouse navigation and graphical representations.

What we observed

1. Users did not pick up on how to navigate through the steps. A couple of them ignored the navigation bar at the bottom for quite awhile before it became evident of what it was.
2. It seemed like the tabs at the top of the screen were ignored as well, or just were not descriptive enough to compel the user to click on them.
3. Template mode seemed to be somewhat of a source of confusion for some, like how to edit or add metadata entries.

What we will add or modify in the interface from these results

1. A search feature that allows the users to search for a metadata, and provide synonyms to help user abide to the metadata term standards in the system.
2. Add buttons (e.g. previous, next, cancel) that allows the user to easily navigate through the system.
3. Add breadcrumbs that allows the user to easily keep track of where they are, where they came from in the metadata tagging process.
4. Add a save button so the user can feel confident that they have saved their work even though our tool has the auto-save feature.
5. Make it clear to the user if the lesson unit metadata template will be replacing just the current lesson unit or all lesson unit of a given type (e.g. quiz).
6. Allow users to add default values to the metadata tags on the template page.
7. Consider adding a metadata confirmation page that allows the user to view and make changes to a lesson unit metadata.
8. Consider adding a feature that lets user view and select from a list of the most recently used metadata to make metadata tagging more convenient for him.
9. We need to come up with a design of the metadata tagging tool that is light weight, and allows the instructors to have it on the side as they are authoring the lesson unit. So they can easily add metadata using this light weight tool as effortless and least interruptive as possible during authoring.

Things that the evaluation could not tell us:

1. We could not really tell how quickly the users would be able to navigate and explore this interface, because the processing of the tool could not be measured with doing the paper walk-through.
2. How much the user would like the look and feel of the system. For example, the visibility of the buttons, layout, progress bar, the mouse over effect, and the drag and drop interaction.