Heuristic Evaluation of Team Happily Ever After - HFID

Heuristic Evaluation of Team Happily Ever
After
Completed by Jenn Cross, Jon Inman, Paul Mandel and Lyndsey Stadtmueller
Summary of Interface Issues:
Overall we thought the implementation was good and liked the idea of being able to look up dynamic maps to check
that you were going the right way if you didn't have a mobile device. The most severe usability issues we
encountered centered around the payment process. We believe that the lack of pricing information could discourage
users from using the interface, and were concerned about the inability to cancel the entire session at the print and
payment screen without going back and clearing the session oneself. The other issues we encountered were mostly
concerned with the consistency of information and the way buttons are used across screens, and were largely
cosmetic.
Table of Problems:
Heuristic Type Totals
H1 1
H2 2
H3 2
H4 5
Severity Level Totals
Level 1 7
Level 2 6
Level 3 1
Level 4 1
H6 1
H6 2
H10 1

Complete List of Problems:
# H# Severity # Evaluators Descriptions
1
[H1 Visibility of system
status] 1 1
The enter location screen does not say where "here" is.
This is likely known by the user, but whether or not the
machine is functioning properly and knows where it is, is
uncertain.
2
[H2 Match between
system and the real
world] 4 2
On the “Go Where?” search screen there is no “enter” or
“search” button to initiate the search – not next to the
search bar or on the on‐screen keyboard. Users without a
traditional keyboard will be unable to complete or perform
a search.
3
4
[H3 User control and
freedom] 4 3
[H3 User control and
freedom] 2 3
Nowhere previous to this screen is any mention made of
payment. People may approach this kiosk thinking it is a
free service and feel betrayed by the system, causing them
to abort.
There is no “escape” offered to a user on the “Print and
Pay” screen. The consistent “cancel” button is not
displayed on that screen. If the user chooses to not
purchase the map, they would need to "back out" of the
interface.
5
6
7
[H4 Consistency and
Standards] 1 1
[H4 Consistency and
Standards] 2 2
[H4 Consistency and
Standards] 1 2
End address is not present on the Route Summary screen.
Should be there for consistency.
On the “Go Where?” search results screen, the user may
expect the “back” button to return them to the original “Go
Where?” screen (with the museum, etc. icons); instead this
button moves the interface back to the “Enter Locations”
screen
On the “Go Where” search results, the user is presented
with seemingly familiar arrow buttons. However, it would
appear that these buttons are used for scrolling while they
previously indicated a means for reorganizing the
destinations. These different purposes could be confusing
to the user.
8
[H4 Consistency and
Standards] 2 4
The color and location of the back button changed. This is
confusing because it again creates more ambiguity as to
the function of the ‘Back’ button.

9
[H4 Consistency and
Standards] 1 1
The start destination is not provided with the four icons
(arrows, pen and “do not enter”) that are given with the
other destinations. While there is potential that the user
will not desire to remove their starting location, it is visually
unusual that this is not an option. Alternatively, the
destination below the start should not have a "move up"
option.
10
11
[H6 Recognition rather
than recall]&[H10 Help
and documentation] 1 3
[H7 Flexibility and
efficiency of use] 2 1
The four icons which appear next to destinations are not
clearly marked with their purpose. Users will probably
correctly assume that the arrows will reorder the locations
but the actions of the pen and “do not enter sign” are less
clear. Since the interface is language adaptive, a small text
labels would be useful.
If a user has only one destination in mind they still must
return to the main page rather than proceeding directly to
a preview and print screen. in general the process is very
linear, with all back or cancel buttons returning to the main
screen.
12
[H7 Flexibility and
efficiency of use]&[H2
Match between
system and the real
world] 2 1
The user is given incomplete options on the “Pay and Print”
screen. There is a potential that the user will want to print
multiples of the same map or go back to print reverse
directions for the return trip. The current interface would
require the user to pay, repeat the process and pay again –
consolidation of searches, printing and payments would
increase efficiency.
13
14
15
[H10 Help and
documentation] 1 2
[H2 Match between
system and the real
world] 2 1
[H9 Match Help users
recognize, diagnose,
and recover from
errors] 2 1
There is no obvious help or additional information provided
by any of the interface’s screens. A completely novice user
may need addition directions for the use of the interface.
The icon to the right of the “location” bar (the green box
listing your starting location or one of your destinations) is
unlabeled and unclear. If I had to guess what it meant, I
would guess ‘Edit,’ but I wouldn’t be confident enough to
click on it.
The aesthetics of the ‘Back’ and ‘Cancel’ buttons are the
same, but they do not have the same function. This could
be confusing to users who are working quickly and focusing
on the visuals of the screen to provide function cues. It
also creates ambiguity as to the function of both the ‘Back’

and ‘Cancel’ buttons.
16
17
18
19
[H4 Consistency and
standards] 2 1
[H4 Consistency and
Standards] 2 1
[H3 User Control and
Freedom] 4 1
[H8 Aesthetic and
Minimalist Design] 2 1
The interface uses the same color motif for both ‘Start’ and
‘End’ and ‘Cancel’ and ‘Print and Pay.’ This again creates
ambiguity and confusion because the interface uses the
same color cue for multiple functions.
The ‘Payment Accepted’ dialog follows the same visual
format as previous error messages. This could be
confusing, because the user doesn’t want to think that their
payment being accepted is an error.
The interface doesn’t inform the user how much the user
will have to pay. This could cause abandonment of the
system because users do not know how much money to
put into the system. Also, users would be unlikely to
insert a credit card without prior understanding of how
much the user’s credit card will be charged.
The second row of ‘Address’ icons seems unnecessary.
This may have been part of plans to expand the interface,
but since none of them work anyway, these should have
been left out of this version to avoid confusion and clutter
on this screen.
Suggested Revisions:
Our overall impression is of Google maps in a public kiosk with a printer attached. The public kiosk aspect is a
brilliant and market‐worthy idea, but keep in mind that the place searching interface is likely being compared
with Google maps (or maybe mapquest) so any small flaws may be accentuated because they don’t exist in a
similar current system.
For the sake of consistency and faster navigation, some kind of navigation bar or menu that stayed constant
throughout your interface might be helpful and prevent the issues we noted with the back button. It could
update to show the state of the interface if needed, but if it didn’t change it would still give the user a level of
constancy that doesn’t exist right now.
The payment process needs a little work, in that it should probably be obvious up front that there is payment
involved, but only for printing, or have people pay by the minute they’re using it. Just something so that
payment doesn’t surprise anyone. Or if there is a different plan such as a sign on the actual kiosk, let your
testers know.
Your current color scheme doesn’t seem ideal, especially given the large chunks of red and green on the
route summary screen. More toned down colors might work better, so that the reader focuses on the task
and not the association of the colors with their favorite holiday. kuler.adobe.com has many color schemes
you could use.
Unrelated to the interface, but certainly worth noting for future testing, most of our group had trouble
getting your php code to work on Chrome, IE and Firefox. When we tried to add another destination, nothing
would happen. This needs to get fixed ASAP, because it was really obnoxious to text a marginally functional
prototype.
Individual Heuristic Evaluations Attached:

HFID Personal Heuristic Evaluation of Team Happily Ever After
Jennifer Cross
1 [H4 Consistency and Standards] (Severity 1)
There is a color usage discontinuity between the back and cancel buttons. On the “Go Where?” screen
the “back” button appears in red (which from prior screens was reserved for the “cancel” button), in
later screens the “back” button appears in blue. Users may be briefly confused by a “back/cancel”
association – potentially believing that pressing back will undo certain changes. (Back button also
appears as red on the “Pay and Print” screen.
2 [H2 Match between system and the real world] (Severity 3)
On the “Go Where?” search screen there is no “enter” or “search” button to initiate the search – not
next to the search bar or on the on‐screen keyboard. Users without a traditional keyboard will be unable
to complete or perform a search.
3 [H4 Consistency and Standards] (Severity 2)
On the “Go Where?” search results screen, the user may expect the “back” button to return them to the
original “Go Where?” screen (with the museum, etc. icons); instead this button moves the interface back
to the “Enter Locations” screen
4 [H9 Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors & H4 Consistency and Standards]
(Severity 3)
On the “Enter Locations” screen, if the “Here” button is accidentally selected there is no option to
recover from that selection and replace the “here” with another location. Where for all similarly
appearing buttons for the various destination selections, when clicked permit editing. There is no way
for a user to recover from that selection without returning to the welcome screen.
5 [H6 Recognition rather than recall] (Severity 2)
The four icons which appear next to destinations are not clearly marked with their purpose. Users will
probably correctly assume that the arrows will reorder the locations but the actions of the pen and “do
not enter sign” are less clear. Since the interface is language adaptive, a small text labels would be
useful.
6 [H4 Consistency and Standards] (Severity 1)
The start destination is not provided with the four icons (arrows, pen and “do not enter”) that are given
with the other destinations. While there is potential that the user will not desire to remove their starting
location, it is visually unusual that this is not an option.
7 [H10 Help and documentation] (Severity 2)
There is no obvious help or additional information provided by any of the interface’s screens. A
completely novice user may need addition directions for the use of the interface.
8 [H7 Flexibility and efficiency of use & H2 Match between system and the real world] (Severity 2)
The user is given incomplete options on the “Pay and Print” screen. There is a potential that the user will
want to print multiples of the same map or go back to print reverse directions for the return trip. The
current interface would require the user to pay, repeat the process and pay again – consolidation of
searches, printing and payments would increase efficiency.
9 [H3 User control and freedom] (Severity 2)

HFID Personal Heuristic Evaluation of Team Happily Ever After
Jennifer Cross
There is no “escape” offered to a user on the “Print and Pay” screen. The consistent “cancel” button is
not displayed on that screen.
10 [H4 Consistency and Standards] (Severity 2)
On the “Go Where” search results, the user is presented with seemingly familiar arrow buttons.
However, it would appear that these buttons are used for scrolling while they previously indicated a
means for reorganizing the destinations. These different purposes could be confusing to the user.

Jon Inman
HFID Individual Heuristic Analysis
1. [H10 Help and Documentation] (Severity 1)
Some of the icons are confusing. Hover text maybe?
2. [H4 Consistency and Standards] (Severity 1)
End address is not present on Route Summary screen. The address for the start location is
available and should be included for the end destination for consistency.
3. [H3 User control and Freedom] (Severity 0)
No cancel or start over button on several screens. This was mentioned in the analysis of the
paper prototype as something that needed to be implemented.
4. [H4 Consistency and Standards] (Severity 1)
After you select a destination it still looks like a button in the destination queue. This could be
confusing to users as it prompts them to try and press it.
5. [H3 User Control and Freedom] (Severity 2)
Back doesn't always go back to the immediately previous screen. This is the assumption most
people will probably make, and it could be disorienting when it doesn't happen.
6. [H4 Consistency and Standards] (Severity 1)
What do arrows on pick destination screen mean? If they're for scrolling they shouldn't be the
same as the arrows that allow the user to shift a destination's position in the queue.
7. [H4 Consistency and Standards] (Severity 1)
Back button changes position on preview screen.
8. [H1 Visibility of System Status] (Severity 3)
The user is never notified how much they are charged.

Paul Mandel
HFID Individual Heuristic Analysis
1. [2 Match between system and the real world] (Severity 2)
The icon to the right of the “location” bar (the green box listing your starting location or one of your
destinations) is unlabeled and unclear. If I had to guess what it meant, I would guess ‘Edit,’ but I
wouldn’t be confident enough to click on it.
2. [H9 Match Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors] (Severity 2)
The aesthetics of the ‘Back’ and ‘Cancel’ buttons are the same, but they do not have the same function.
This could be confusing to users who are working quickly and focusing on the visuals of the screen to
provide function cues. It also creates ambiguity as to the function of both the ‘Back’ and ‘Cancel’
buttons.
3. [4 Consistency and standards] (Severity 2)
The color and location of the back button changed. This is confusing because it again creates more
ambiguity as to the function of the ‘Back’ button.

Paul Mandel
HFID Individual Heuristic Analysis
4. [H4 Consistency and standards] (Severity 2)
The interface uses the same color motif for both ‘Start’ and ‘End’ and ‘Cancel’ and ‘Print and Pay.’ This
again creates ambiguity and confusion because the interface uses the same color cue for multiple
functions.
5. [H3 User Control and Freedom] (Severity 4)
The interface doesn’t inform the user how much the user will have to pay. This could cause
abandonment of the system because users do not know how much money to put into the system. Also,
users would be unlikely to insert a credit card without prior understanding of how much the user’s
credit card will be charged.

Paul Mandel
HFID Individual Heuristic Analysis
6. [H4 Consistency and Standards] (Severity 2)
The ‘Payment Accepted’ dialog follows the same visual format as previous error messages. This could be
confusing, because the user doesn’t want to think that their payment being accepted is an error.
7. [H10 Help and Documentation] (Severity 4)
Nowhere previous to this screen is any mention made of payment. People may approach this kiosk
thinking it is a free service and feel betrayed by the system, causing them to abort.
8. [H8 Aesthetic and Minimalist Design] (Severity 2)
The second row of ‘Address’ icons seems unnecessary. This may have been part of plans to expand the
interface, but since none of them work anyway, these should have been left out of this version to avoid
confusion and clutter on this screen.

Lyndsey Stadtmueller
Individual Heuristic Evaluation
1. [H1 Visibility of system status] (Severity 1)
a. The enter locations screen does not say where “Here” is. While the user probably knows
where “Here” is, it is initially uncertain whether the kiosk is functioning correctly.
2. [H3 User control and freedom] (Severity 3)
a. Currently the payment screen does not display how much the map will cost. Users may
also wish to know how much a map will cost before going through the process. This may
be located on the kiosk itself, but it is essential in deciding whether the interaction is
worth the price of printing the map.
3. [H4 Consistency and standards] (Severity 1)
a. The location and color of the back button is not consistent which could increase the
amount of time it takes the user to find it.
4. [H7 Flexibility and efficiency of use] (Severity 2)
a. If a user has one destination in mind they must always select the destination and then
return to the main page, rather than selecting the destination and proceeding directly to
a preview and print option. In general the process seems very linear, and all back or
cancel buttons return to the main screen.
5. [H6 Recognition rather than recall] (Severity 1)
a. The icons to the right of the destinations lack indication of what their function is.
The graphic is fairly descriptive but it may not be adequate, especially if the user
does not wish to click on the graphic to discover its function.
6. [H9 Help and Documentation] (Severity 2)
a. The interface is straightforward and does not appear to need any extensive help
documentation, however an indication that there is some kind of guidance or
explanation available if necessary may be comforting to some users.
Overall the interface is straightforward, and doesn’t have excessive text or unnecessary detail. The
search feature is also similar to the Google maps interface many people are used to. The terms used are
obvious and technical terminology isn’t present. Additionally, features that aren’t yet implemented have
appropriate error messages.