Usability Group Project: Evaluation & Reflection

Please find my personal evaluation & reflection here: http://cklaveryatuni.wordpress.com/tag/04_usability-group-project/

 

Group SWOT Analysis

This is a quick SWOT analysis of our group. These are just my observations and reflective comments, but I think it highlights how well we have done over the past few months. Also it highlights some weaknesses which as a group we can reflect on so to improve, which I think is important as well.

STRENGTHS:

1. Good Communication within group – email, skype and meetings.
2. Good use of web based tools to help with working process – Wiki, Blog, email etc
3. Helpful, responsible manner of group make up.
4. Good planning meetings with agreed tasks and actions which helped.
5. We all took command at certain stages, but also stepped back when needed – good collaborative/democratic way of working.
6. Good recognition of our strengths and weaknesses and giving ourselfs achievable roles and tasks. Utilising skills.
7. We kept to task and developed the Music Game idea well.
8. Well organised and as a team we pushed the development well.

WEAKNESSES:

1. We maybe should of had a Team Leader/Art Director role so to oversee everything.
2. We did go in our own individual directions a little too much, therefore wasting some time.
3. We could have written down a set/agreed plan of action or design process from the start with deadline dates etc. However it was near impossible to do this in this project due to the realistic threats below. We did it in our own way.

OPPORTUNITIES:

1. Different skills of team members.
2. Bath Spa University Resources/support.
3. Supportive personalities of the team members.

THREATS:

1. This being a 50% project rather than a 100% project – lack of clarity with time frame/structure etc and only having Gordon for the first part.
2. All the team members work full time, have lots of committments, have free time to work on project at different times. Real group working logistical problems. Two members working remotely part of the time. Missed time through Health issues etc. Bearing this in mind I think we have done very well as a group.

 

Reflective Evaluation

Reflective Evaluation on the use of theory used to develop the Game’s Interface and to improve usability.

I’ve used guidelines developed by Jacob Nielsen related to web based design work, usability and also games. Such as ‘Usability of Web Sites for Children‘ by ‘Nielsen, Norman’ Group. Which provided useful tips for working with the age group 5-8 year olds, such as using animations, adding simple, fun animations so to hold the user’s attention etc. Which we acted on in terms of the game design and structure developing the animation as a reward. This as worked well. Using animation in games online is important. The Musical Garden could be developed as an online game so this I found useful along with other guidelines related to web usability, which I have related to our game in terms of screen based products that people are using. Also reflecting on lectures involving using Nielsen’s Heuristics for web design which have been useful in terms of the game’s interface and navigation. Making sure the game, user control, system status, language used, consistency in design and elements, readability and so on are effective and do not frustrate the user. I think the final prototype of the game works well in terms of these guidelines. Over several versions as a team we have solved issues and problems and moved the game on vastly in terms of usability, the users experience and playability of the game.

I have also used Steve Krug’s book ‘Don’t make me think: a common sense approach to Web Usability’ in terms of helping with the game’s Interface and Navigation. Examining theory on navigational conventions such as: knowing what to look for, primary and secondary information, where to look etc. Related to web based conventions such as: sections, utilities, local navigation etc. In terms of the game we have related these navigational guidelines to the navigation within the game: help, back, next, play again etc with great success. The tests/reports suggest the users find the navigation easy to use after several refinements. The use of visual icons also work well and provide clear instant understanding and communication related to accessibility. However there could be alt options maybe for the buttons.

All of us have looked at various keyboard designs and musical games etc so to get a grasp of the appropriate design of the keyboard and the interface which as developed well with the age group and the learning outcomes of the game as well as usability.

I have also read ‘Designing the User Interface’ by Ben Shneiderman and Catherine Plaisant. This as also developed my understanding of usability and interface design issues/guidelines, which through the blog and meetings I have been able to communicate to the rest of the group. Especially the colour coding of the keyboard and notes, and the overall interface which we have all progressed within this project. This as improved vastly over the versions of the game. There are good and bad points related to our design prototype and the theory in the above book.

Good points with our design:
1. Colour coding supports the task.
2. Consider the needs of colour-deficient users.
3. Be consistent in colour coding.
4. Use colour changes to indicate status changes.
5. Use colour for greater information density.

Improvements with colour in our game:
1. Use colour more conservatively.
2. Colour fidelity may degrade on other hardware.

I think the final prototype works well in terms of colour and other Interface Design guidelines, maybe its gone a bit to far with the use of stars etc and maybe could be toned down a little but this is only a minor issue.

We have all researched and gathered influences for the development of the game in numerous ways, which we have discussed in several meetings so to progress the prototype. This as worked well.

 

Group SWOT Analysis and Usability of Prototype Evaluation

If I get time on Wednesday I will produce/upload a Group SWOT Analysis and Usability of Prototype Evaluation. Really breaking down our strengths and weaknesses as a team and also looking at some theory. Which should help the evaluation of the effectiveness of our game prototype. I will use some theory and ideas from Jacob Nielson, Steve Krug, Ben Shneiderman and Catherine Plaisant.

 

My research and Influences / inspiration regarding collaboration and usability

Main Sources of Inspiration and Research (Adrian’s)

These are items which I have used in my research to help with the group project, however all the group members have used many sources – please view the group blog.

Web sites

1. Please view the Blog and ‘my delicious’ to see the many web sites I have used to further my knowledge and understanding, influences for this project.

Experiences

1. Gordon Plant’s lectures on Usability at Bath Spa
University, during 2006/7.
2. Working in the group with Penny, Mike and Clive and developing knowledge from each other. Successfully working as a team.

Books

1. The Digital Designer, S.Heller and D.Drennan, Watson-Guptill publications/New York, 1997.
2. Marketing Your Creativity: New approaches for a changing Industry, M.Perry and A.Melder, AVA Publishing, SA, 2004.
3. Don’t Make Me Think, Steve Krug, New Riders, USA, 2006.
4. Designing the User Interface, Ben Shneiderman and Catherine Plaisant, Pearson Education, USA, 2005.
5. Metaworx: Approaches to Interactivity, Association Metaworx: young swiss interactive, Birkhauser, Switzerland, 2003.