Difference between revisions of "IS480 Team wiki: 2012T1 Team Sageby UserTest4"
Tjfoo.2010 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| style="border-bottom:5px solid #F7F7F7; border-top:5px solid #F7F7F7; background:none;" |<font color="#545454"><b>|</b></font> | | style="border-bottom:5px solid #F7F7F7; border-top:5px solid #F7F7F7; background:none;" |<font color="#545454"><b>|</b></font> | ||
− | | style="padding:0 .4em; background-color:#F7F7F7; font-family:Helvetica; border-bottom:5px solid #F7F7F7; border-top:5px solid #F7F7F7; text-align:center; color:#000000" width="16%" |[[IS480_Team_wiki: | + | | style="padding:0 .4em; background-color:#F7F7F7; font-family:Helvetica; border-bottom:5px solid #F7F7F7; border-top:5px solid #F7F7F7; text-align:center; color:#000000" width="16%" |[[IS480_Team_wiki:_2012T1_Team_Sageby_UserTest4 |<font color="#5C61A1"><b>USER TEST 4</b></font>]] |
| style="border-bottom:5px solid #F7F7F7; border-top:5px solid #F7F7F7; background:none;" |<font color="#545454"><b>|</b></font> | | style="border-bottom:5px solid #F7F7F7; border-top:5px solid #F7F7F7; background:none;" |<font color="#545454"><b>|</b></font> | ||
− | | style="padding:0 .4em; background-color:#F7F7F7; font-family:Helvetica; border-bottom:5px solid #F7F7F7; border-top:5px solid #F7F7F7; text-align:center; color:#000000" width="16%" |[[IS480_Team_wiki: | + | | style="padding:0 .4em; background-color:#F7F7F7; font-family:Helvetica; border-bottom:5px solid #F7F7F7; border-top:5px solid #F7F7F7; text-align:center; color:#000000" width="16%" |[[IS480_Team_wiki:_2012T1_Team_Sageby_UserTest5 |<font color="#545454"><b>USER TEST 5</b></font>]] |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
| style="border-bottom:5px solid #F7F7F7; border-top:5px solid #F7F7F7; background:none;" |<font color="#545454"><b>|</b></font> | | style="border-bottom:5px solid #F7F7F7; border-top:5px solid #F7F7F7; background:none;" |<font color="#545454"><b>|</b></font> | ||
|} | |} |
Revision as of 19:01, 23 November 2012
| | PRODUCT OVERVIEW | | | PROJECT MANAGEMENT | | | USER TEST | | | LEARNING OUTCOMES |
| | | | USER TEST 1 | | | USER TEST 4 | | | USER TEST 5 | | |
Contents
Objective
1. Receptiveness of Functionalities from Users via Provision application
a. Login ⁄
b. Survey ⁄
c. Redemption with QR Code ⁄
2. Obtain feedback from users such as to improve the usability (learnability, efficiency, errors, satisfaction)
UT 4 Schedule
User Profile
Altogether, there are 42 responses. Their age group range from 18 to 26. Majority of them were of age 21 (26%).
Gender wise, we have 23 males (55%) and 19 females (45%).
For internal validity purpose, 26 out 42 (62%) seated for our user test previously.
To understand user lifestyle usage, 55% were iPhone user while 38% were Android user.
Testing Methodology
Qualitative Metrics
Repetition Matrix
Analysis
1. Login
Issues:
- Long login process
- Login failure when asked to permit application from posting on user’s behalf. (Error msg: Please update to latest version)
- Registered as user but not shown in the Profile. (Error msg: Please update to latest version)
2. Survey
Font Size
- 65% gave a neutral stand for the font size from our external survey (lime survey). 16% expressed that it was smaller than average while 17% stated that it was bigger than average.
Easiness
- 86% feel that it was easy to do the survey (7 and above). Out of the 86%, 62% gave a score of 8 and above.
Limesurvey issues
- Last question of ranking. Selected option does not tally with output selection.
- Submission of survey was not recorded and brought forward to a Limesurvey page.
Issues
- No credits accounted after completion of survey
- After clicking submit, error message “/www/..” appeared before success page comes out.
User Experience
- Satisfaction Level – 83% were pleased with the app. Score of 7 and above.
- Easiness to use the app – 86% finds it easy to use the app. Score of 7 and above.
- Spelling error such as “OKK” button
- Slow response time upon clicks
Improvement(s):
- Question size could fit whole iOS screen.
- Quality control the survey question and template. If not, it will look back on the app. (Sageby, take note).
- Add more color to the survey page
- Can add a redemption button after completion of survey.
- No horizontal scrolling
3. Redemption Module
Easiness for redemption
- 84% gave a score of 6 and above for redeem a reward using the application
Distinguishable between store and wallet function
- 73% find it okay.
Receptiveness of QR Code
- 63% find it exciting
Crash Alert
- Reward > Wallet > Ok > Crashed
Issues
- No credits accounted after completion of survey
Improvement:
- Display cumulative credits earned at the top right hand corner at every page.
- Grey out area that can’t be redeem
- Instruction Tab about the app.
- Highlight how store and wallet are related
- Show redemption history
4. Application User Experience
Satisfaction Level – 83% were pleased with the app. Score of 7 and above.
Easiness to use the app – 86% finds it easy to use the app. Score of 7 and above.
Issues
- Spelling error such as “OKK” button
- Slow response time upon clicks
Main Changes to App
What can be improve
The app was too buggy for user test. There was confusion from bug crashes from login process to redemption process. Store feature was buggy and hence, nothing were shown in wallet. There were lack of quality control for Limesurvey template and questions.
Test users did not arrive as per scheduled which causes unforeseen bottleneck and also no show occurrences.
What we did well
There was a proper demonstration of process flow via 3 booths for different purposes. Proper instructions were given from the Testers to the users. All equipment’s are working fine. There were minimal waiting times.
Documentation
User Test 4 Review Minutes
User Test 4 Schedule
User Test 4 Test Plan
User Test 4 Summary