HeaderSIS.jpg

IS480 Team wiki: 2012T1 Team Sageby UserTest4

From IS480
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frontpage2.png

HOME

| PRODUCT OVERVIEW | PROJECT MANAGEMENT | USER TEST | LEARNING OUTCOMES


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)

3. Aesthetics of our application via Provisioned Phone Simulator.

UT 4 Schedule


Eff.GIF


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

Users are allowed to express their opinions while accomplishing each task. The intention is allow the facilitators to record observations and important details of the users' thought processes. In addition, the facilitators are expected to look out for errors and navigation issues. Users will be guided by a online questionnaire with instructions stated clearly. It will be crafted around the usability issues and their satisfaction level of the application.


Repetition Matrix


Cccc.GIF



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


Resolved know bugs

Size of Survey questions options
Fixing 2nd survey crashing issue


Heuristic

Flow Bar while completing surveys


Functionalities

Change "Do more surveys" to "Back to Surveys"
Adding a popup to confirm purchase
Arrange Vouchers in alphabetical order
Fix up API to check QR Code validity
Split the Redeemed vouchers into 2 categories, redeemed and :available.


What we did badly


Overall, the UT execution faces no major issues pertaining to equipment lapse or application failure. However, from an operation perspective, few UT users failed to turn up for the test on time. It could be due to various reasons.

Secondly, some UT users did not have the right frame of mind while doing the test. It could affect the quality of the feedbacks. Thirdly, UT users experienced difficulties understanding the objectives of the UT and couldn’t handle the application well. Reasons could be the lack of clear explanation or users could be misguided


What we did well


Users did not find a problem locating the test venue. Test equipment and application are running fine.


What to improve for future UTs


1) Reminders to ensure user attendance
2) Quality control the UT users, making sure its fall under the targeted demographics.
3) Standardized opening speech to all users to ensure that they know the objectives of the UT.

Documentation

UserTest2 Schedule
UserTest2 Test Plan
UserTest2 Summary