1. Select/view stores based on product type/category- 2. Select/view stores based on store name-

Transcription

1 COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS Context The world of mobile computing is fast paced. There are many developers providing free and subscription based applications on websites like Owners of portable information devices are able to search for compatible applications for download and install it on their devices. Motivation Unlike street map-guides used for navigation in cars, mall guides are a niche market and have to be customized exclusively for a particular mall. Free map-guides are not available except on mall websites. Mall administration typically enlists services of developers to design maps and guides to suit the malls. Our search for such mall guides revealed only one such service being provided by the West Edmonton mall ( They have developed a version compatible with PDA s and similar devices for their patrons. A web based java map is also available on their website. Goal Although the input interface is different for computer terminals, we decided to go ahead and evaluate this interface to get an idea of the functionality and possible usability problems that might exist. Performing evaluation of the web based emulation helps address two issues. One, it helps us prepare a list of functionality that is already available on such services. Secondly, it also shows us voids in the functionality that might improve customer experience. In the earlier sections we gave a brief overview of the type of system/service we had in mind. This analysis would further enrich our requirements gathering phase. Existing system In this section we provide screen shots of the web-based map and discuss the features that are present. The screen is divided into three sections/panes- map area, directory, and text information pane with a HUD for holding navigation elements. The existing system supports four major user tasks (contd. on the next page):

2 1. Select/view stores based on product type/category- 2. Select/view stores based on store name-

3 3. View list of previously selected stores 4. Locate mall services like restrooms etc.

4 Methodology Due to resource limitations of time and availability of users, heuristic evaluation (HE) was chosen as the preferred evaluation technique. We would like to point out the each evaluation technique (usability testing, Cognitive walkthroughs etc.) reveal problems of varying scope and type. Other evaluation techniques should be used before final design decisions are made. Heuristic evaluation involves using a small set of evaluators to examine an interface and judge it s compliance with a set of recognized usability heuristics or principles (Nielsen 1994). We used Jakob Nielsen s (1994) ten usability heuristics seen in table 1 to conduct the heuristic evaluation. Table 1. Ten usability heuristics H 1. Visibility of system status The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time. H 2. Match between system and the real world The system should speak the users' language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than systemoriented terms. Follow real-world conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order. H 3. User control and freedom Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked "emergency exit" to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo. H 4. Consistency and standards Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions. H 5. Error prevention Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a problem from occurring in the first place. Either eliminate error-prone conditions or check for them and present users with a confirmation option before they commit to the action. H 6. Recognition rather than recall Minimize the user's memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate. H 7. Flexibility and efficiency of use Accelerators -- unseen by the novice user -- may often speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both inexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions. H 8. Aesthetic and minimalist design Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility. H 9. Help users recognize, diagnose, Error messages should be expressed in

5 and recover from errors plain language (no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution. H 10. Help and documentation Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to search, focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large. Although it is recommended to use three to five evaluators for heuristic evaluation in our situation we only had one evaluator because the other members on the project team were unfamiliar with the technique. The expert evaluator first reviewed the ten usability heuristics, then explored and inspected the interface at least three times with the list of the ten usability heuristics. The evaluator noted discovered problems on a form (Table 3). For each problem recorded the evaluator also recorded what heuristic the problem violated and where the problem occurred in the system. After the evaluator had conducted the heuristic evaluation the team came together to discuss the problems found. We discussed each problem and assigned each problem a severity rating from 0-4 based on the ratings seen below. Table 2: Severity ratings for errors found 0 No problem 1 Cosmetic problem 2 Minor usability problem 3 Major usability problem; important to fix 4 Usability catastrophe; imperative to fix Findings In this section we present our findings for our competitor s electronic mall guide. We evaluated the interface using the heuristic evaluation technique and listed the usability problems found on table 3. Table 3: Usability problems found, heuristic violated, location and severity Places(s) where problem occurs No. Heuristic Problem Description Violated 1 H1: Visibility Users are not aware of their current H10: Help and location on the map. documentation Map 3 2 Toggle switches for HUD no visible enough H1: Visibility Map 2 3 Toggle switch to collapse store H6: Recognition directory not visible. Map 2 4 Clicking on the stores on the map provides no information to the users. H7: Flexibility Map 3 5 Users may not be aware that the map could be dragged using HUD tools or by dragging the stylus on the map. H7: Flexibility H10: Help Map 3 6 Clicking on the text in the directory Store directory 3 Severity Rating

6 does not expand the list. Double clicking does, but is not apparent. H3: User control H7: Flexibility 7 History feature is useful but the name H2: Matching used conveys only one function. H7: Flexibility Menu 2 8 Users may not be aware of how to add stores to history H10: help Store directory 3 9 No universal reset feature for clearing the map. H3: User control Application 2 Implications The findings reveal that the competitor s product has a functional interface but suffers from lack of visibility and help for users of the system. Our product would clearly aim at incorporating features that work from the evaluated system and improve/extend them to enhance functionality: Location awareness- Our design proposal would excel in the location awareness by implementing technology and user-interface elements to communicate to the users their current location on the map. Store directions- We would extend this location functionality further by providing directions to the stores. Flexible interface- The map would be designed to facilitate clicking directly on a store on the map to retrieve information in addition to the directory pane. Contextual help- We would provide floating help text either in a form of a toggle screen that provides description of functions or as floating help labels right beside the buttons when someone starts up the interface. Enhanced store info- Instead of providing generic store information, we would take it one step further by letting the user know popular sales items at the stores they choose. Intuitive icons and labels- instead of using words like history we would extend functionality by letting users make a custom list of stores of their liking. So every tie they look at the map they could be reminded of their choices. Shopping list- There is value in letting users make a shopping list of product types and they system would fetch stores and rank them by popularity, pricing ($,$$,$$$) etc. Customizable paths: Users would have the ability to constraint navigation paths by adding mall services they would like to use on their way to the store to minimize detour. For e.g. visit an ATM machine or restroom.