After conducting the low fidelity (lo-fi) prototype user interface test for my Blue View Pools Monitoring System program, I plan to use the feedback received from my practice users to improve my current design. My lo-fi prototype consisted of paper cutouts which represented a specific page on the program. Before starting the test, I had both of my practice users each sign a consent form and listen to a brief script which essentially gave them the purpose behind the activity and the rules. I asked both of them the same three tasks and carefully watched their progress. I would like to clarify that I decided to change the second task before starting the test, as the original question did not allow my users to fully explore the program’s options. The first task involved four commands and features, the second included seventeen, and the third included four.
During the test, User 1 appeared to be very confident in navigating throughout the program while verbalizing his thought process. The first task asked to find the amount of any chlorine neutralizer product needed to lower the chlorine in a pool. It only took him forty-six seconds to progress through the options to arrive at the correct answer. He successfully completed this task without any hesitation or error. The second task asked to print a final readings report for all variables. Once again, User 1 successfully reached the necessary destination without experiencing any problems. He quickly scanned the pages before selecting an option. I was surprised at how quick he was able to find the correct answer, as it only took him one minute and thirteen seconds to complete. The third task asked to find the proper procedure to clean up a vomiting incident. He effectively found the right answer once again, and it took him forty-seven seconds to arrive at the correct page. At the end of his test, User 1 recommended that I should include a search bar throughout the program so that it will speed up the process of finding specific information. I agree with this comment, as some pool workers or owners who need to resolve an issue in a short amount of time would really appreciate this feature. I realized after this third task was completed that I neglected to reset it to the previous task before filming. This actually demonstrated a real-life scenario of a screen remaining where the previous user left off. Despite this unintentional inconsistency, User 1 was able to logically navigate to the home page and go forward to the correct information. Overall, he made no errors, did not ask for help, made no positive comments, and gave one corrective piece of advice.
After the first test concluded, I reset the Lo-fi into its correct chronological configuration before calling in User 2. She carefully analyzed each page before moving to the next while speaking her thought process out loud. When completing the first task, she appeared to be very confident with navigating throughout the program. She made no errors during this task, nor did she hesitate at any point. It took her forty seconds to reach the correct answer. For the next task, however, she had some difficulty at printing the final readings report for all variables. She chose to select the “Standard Operating Procedure” tab from the home page instead of the “Adjustment Controls” option. While in the “Standard Operating Procedures” tab, she chose to go to the “Chemical Parameters & Procedures” tab. I noticed at this point that she hesitated and didn’t seem very sure of her choice through the tone of her voice. She was also rapidly looking up and down the page and had a confused expression. After seeing the “Chemical Parameters & Procedures” page, she decided to go back one page and click on “General Information.” She then went back again to the “Standard Operating Procedure” page and clicked on “Chemical Parameters & Procedures” again. At this point, I could tell that User 2 was lost since she made the same mistake as before. I decided to briefly tell her what she would expect to find on the current page being viewed without giving away too much information. After this, she then went back to the home screen and tried to figure out where to go from there. After a few seconds, she then determined the correct pathway to print a final readings report. During this portion, it took her two minutes and thirty-nine seconds due to what she felt were unclear choices. Afterwards, User 2 told me that by changing the tab “Adjustment Controls” on the home page to “Adjustment Controls and Readings Report,” it would make the process less confusing. She also told me that print options are not usually hidden in layers of analysis pages in laboratories, but are right up front as a choice and should be considered for all of my pages. After seeing the confusion that my User 2 faced, I will seriously consider this recommendation during my work on the high fidelity (hi-fi) prototype.
During the final task, User 2 chose the “Standard Operating Procedures” option and then the “Chemical Parameters & Procedures” option. After quickly looking around the page, she noticed that she did not make the right choice. She then tapped the back arrow and then chose the “General Information” option. User 2 then chose the “Biological Hazards & Cleanup Methods” option, which then brought her to the correct end location. Despite the one mistake, she completed the task in forty-three seconds. I noticed that User 2 demonstrated confusion and a lack of confidence while making decisions on the choices. After the recording, she suggested that I add an additional tab that should be titled, “Biological Hazards and Safety Protocols.” She explained that “General Information” should only include the specifications of the pool, as it was too ambiguous of a choice for handling serious situations. Overall, User 2 made four errors, needed help once, made no positive comments, and gave two corrective pieces of advice.
In addition to User 1 and 2 taking part in the lo-fi user interface test, I also received some constructive feedback on my wireframe from three others. User 3 expressed his admiration with the concept of my program, as he told me that if it were published, it would help him with tending to his own pool. As for critique, he recommended that I have an option on every page which brings the user back to the home page, whether it be the company’s logo icon or a distinct home icon. He stated that this would help with consistency throughout the program and would aid in navigating throughout the site. User 3 also stated that there was an issue with the profile page, as there is no way to exit the page without logging out of the program. He told me that not all of the pages had operational back arrows, but I believe he misunderstood that some pages were meant to be a dropdown box and not an actual page. The “-” symbol does in fact allow the user to go back, although the button is difficult to click on when hovering over it. I will make sure to fix all of the links and drop-down boxes and make a home option is available on every page in the hi-fi prototype.
User 4 viewed and critiqued my wireframe as well. She told me that my prototype works well and is in good shape for the final stage of the implementation. The one comment that she made was about the similarity between the “Chemical Parameters & Procedures” page and the “Adjustment Controls” page. I believe she did not understand that both are meant to look almost identical because they are in relation to the pool variables. The “Chemical Parameters & Procedures” page is meant to give information on how to adjust any one of the pool variables, whereas the “Adjustment Controls” page is where the user can make actual changes to the chemical and temperature settings.
User 5 was my last practice user. He expressed admiration for the overall design and layout. User 5 told me that he could see a pool cleaning app as a useful resource in the future. Much like User 3, he also recommended that I add a home icon on every page. I will seriously consider this recommendation when creating my hi-fi.