1 / 34

PROJECT

PROJECT. LYREBIRD. CATHERINE ERZETIC. INTERFACE DESIGN. USER EXPERIENCE. INTERIOR DESIGN. QUESTION. HOW CAN THE ENHANCEMENT OF MOBILE APPLICATION USER EXPERIENCE REFINE THE ARCHITECTURAL ITERATIVE DESIGN PROCESS?. Testing Effectiveness. Criteria. Design Methodology.

rmayer
Télécharger la présentation

PROJECT

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.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PROJECT LYREBIRD CATHERINE ERZETIC

  2. INTERFACE DESIGN

  3. USER EXPERIENCE

  4. INTERIOR DESIGN

  5. QUESTION HOW CAN THE ENHANCEMENT OF MOBILE APPLICATION USER EXPERIENCEREFINE THE ARCHITECTURAL ITERATIVE DESIGN PROCESS?

  6. Testing Effectiveness Criteria

  7. Design Methodology Research Methodology Customised Criteria set Tools to measure effectiveness User testing with customised criteria Comparison study Prototype A Prototype B Prototype C

  8. Design Methodology Research Methodology Customised Criteria set Tools to measure effectiveness User testing with customised criteria Comparison study Prototype A Prototype B Prototype C

  9. Design Methodology Research Methodology Customised Criteria set Tools to measure effectiveness User testing with customised criteria Comparison study Prototype A Prototype B Prototype C

  10. Design Methodology Research Methodology Customised Criteria set Tools to measure effectiveness User testing with customised criteria Comparison study Prototype A Prototype B Prototype C

  11. APPLICATION USABILITY PERFORMANCE AESTHETICS #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 Augment Graphisoft BIMX MagicPlan Ikea Catalogue Layar Ikea Home Planner

  12. PROTOTYPE A

  13. Design Methodology Research Methodology Customised Criteria set Tools to measure effectiveness User testing with customised criteria Prototype A Comparison study Prototype B Prototype C

  14. TOOLS TOMEASURE EFFECTIVENESS Experiment Field Study Surveys Inspection Methods Mixed Methods

  15. TOOLS TOMEASURE EFFECTIVENESS Experiment Field Study Surveys Inspection Methods Mixed Methods

  16. TOOLS TOMEASURE EFFECTIVENESS Experiment Field Study Surveys Inspection Methods Mixed Methods

  17. TOOLS TOMEASURE EFFECTIVENESS Experiment Field Study Surveys Inspection Methods Mixed Methods

  18. TOOLS TOMEASURE EFFECTIVENESS Experiment Field Study Surveys Inspection Methods Mixed Methods

  19. Design Methodology Research Methodology Customised Criteria set Tools to measure effectiveness User testing with customised criteria Prototype A Comparison study Prototype B Prototype C

  20. THE CRITERIA / “HEURISTICS” USABILITY AESTHETICS #1 Reasonable waiting times #2 Support user’s concept learning #3 Visual cues to influence experience #4 Clear warning / exit messages #5 Consistent button sizes #6 Navigation simplicity #7 Applies Gestalt laws #8 Multiple levels of detail #9 Aesthetic and minimalist design #10 Designed for context

  21. PROTOTYPE B

  22. Design Methodology Research Methodology Customised Criteria set Tools to measure effectiveness User testing with customised criteria Comparison study Prototype A Prototype B Prototype C

  23. USER-TESTING Experiment Participants 15 designers Quantification method Experiment + Inspection method Tasks a) Locate project page b) Open a new project c) Place a chair in the scene

  24. DEMOGRAPHICS COMPUTATIONAL DESIGNER GRAPHIC DESIGNER ARCHITECT MARKETING COORDINATOR RECEPTIONIST KNOWLEDGE MANAGER INTERIOR DESIGNER

  25. THE QUESTIONS USABILITY AESTHETICS • Was there a reasonable waiting time? • How familiar were you with the terms and symbols used? • Was the design suggestive of what you could do next? • Did you find the given tasks easy to do? • How consistent were the button sizes? • How simple was the overall navigation? • How aesthetically pleasing is the overall interface? • How well designed is the application for the purpose?

  26. PROTOTYPE A PROTOTYPE B RATING RATING QUESTIONS QUESTIONS

  27. PARTICIPANTS’ CHOICE 15 PARTICIPANTS

  28. PARTICIPANTS’ CHOICE PROTOTYPE A PROTOTYPE B 40% 60%

  29. MOST POPULAR RESPONSES COUNT QUESTIONS

  30. TIME TAKEN FOR TASK COMPLETION VS SCREEN TAP COUNT COUNT COUNT PARTICIPANTS PARTICIPANTS PROTOTYPE A PROTOTYPE B

  31. https://invis.io/5JE59E1C9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXCO6Guh19A#action=share

  32. COMPARISON STUDY USABILITY PERFORMANCE AESTHETICS #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 PROTOTYPE A PROTOTYPE B PROTOTYPE C

  33. FURTHER WORK ... Testing with a clientele demographic using similar experiment and procedures Translation between User Interface (UI) and Augmented Reality (AR)

  34. PROJECT LYREBIRD CATHERINE ERZETIC

More Related