1 / 13

EasyChair Reviews, comments and meta-reviews

EasyChair Reviews, comments and meta-reviews. Interim Presentation Team: Super -Chairs Aaron Donk, Vatsal Shah,  Ammar Taki El-Din, Gilberto Bardales. Activities so far. 1 prototype with minimal change and most adaptable to the existing website

Télécharger la présentation

EasyChair Reviews, comments and meta-reviews

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. EasyChairReviews, comments and meta-reviews Interim Presentation Team: Super-Chairs Aaron Donk, Vatsal Shah,  Ammar Taki El-Din, Gilberto Bardales

  2. Activities so far..... • 1 prototype with minimal change and most adaptable to the existing website • 1 prototype with substantial changes to the web layout but still in consistency with original website • Pilot Studies • 2 total (1 cancelled, planned for 3) • Subjects were asked to navigate through 5 tasks on the original website as well as the 2 prototypes. • Followed by interview and critiquing session • this was complimented by showing the subject the webpage in question in order to recollect their memories of the experience.

  3. Plan of Action • User reactions to prototypes. • what is better? • what is worse? • is the interface usable? • where did the users have problems? • Make necessary changes in the prototypes' designs. • make a layout of everything that users liked from both prototypes. • add what users wanted. • follow relevant HCI guidelines • Implement new design.

  4. First Impressions Users thought... • the website was too crowded • the website contained too many links • the website contained irrelevant and multiple links with different names • the website was inconsistent as new menu items were added in between a list of existing items -- this confused the user and forced them to scan all the links again • the website was too wordy and that it was unnecessary to read all the text

  5. Pilot Study #1 • The site is generally navigable • Subjects did not read all text • Pre-filled text boxes were misunderstood • Did not mind ratings including both numerical and word representation • The "show reviews" portion of the site took the longest to understand

  6. Pilot Study #2 Original Website • Too cluttered • Too wordy • Default selections led the user to not make additional changes • Pre-filled templates led the user to believe that nothing needed to be changed • Notation next to the 'First name' was never understood and was confusing throughout the website; user did not read the instructions for it • '*' notation was commonly interpreted as a required field • User was confused between 'Review Form' and 'Add Review' • All notes next to text fields were usually ignored as the their attention was focused on the text box itself • User was bothered by inconsistency  in the numbering system as some measures included negative numbers • Confusion between two separate 'Comment' boxes and their usage • Didn't know what the comment was for (meta-review?)

  7. Pilot Study #2 cont. Prototype Websites • Simpler main page (less crowded and less words) • More visibility of options without much need of scrolling • Confused between papers already reviewed and those that weren't • Worried about disclosing author information (same with original website) • Inconsistency between numbered grading was replaced in 1 prototype and the user liked that feature reasonably well • More relevant options were displayed towards the top in order to reduce user effort and users really liked that • Consistent menu items and increased afford-ability with use of buttons instead of text links • Overall issues with technicalities for rating papers 

  8. Design and Prototype EasyChair Prototypes

  9. Updated Timeline

  10. Overall Problems • Misunderstandings with website layout • Issues with testing software • Scheduling conflicts • Unreliable subjects • Difficulty in finding subjects • Lengthy study times • Scope for improvement is large but time constraint is small • Too many webpages to study and analyze

  11. Upcoming Decisions and Changes • 1-2 more prototypes based on results from up-coming subjects • User studies (7 subjects) • Recruitment and selection has already been done • 3-4 extra/back-up subject selected as well • Improvised script for user study in order to shorten time period of the study • Fewer interview questions • Further implementation of final product • Based on prototype that was most appreciated and liked by the users • Documentation • Final Report

  12. Risk Analysis • Rescheduling of subjects • Time conflicts between subjects and teammates due to class-time restrictions • Subjects leaving in between due to other commitments, boredom, etc. • Subjects refusing to do a post-study interview • User needs are higher than technological capabilities allowed for the modification of the website • Conflicting user opinions lead to stagnant progress as prototype cannot accommodate conflicting changes • End result may end up being similar to original website if users find no problems with it

  13. Thank You! Question?

More Related