Download Usability Testing Report - Soma Ray

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Discussion There are a few points of discussion that should be raised about our usability testing. First, our five usability participants had very similar demographic makeup; they were all women, caucasian, and American-born. It is important to note that this demographic likely falls within GastroMighty’s main target audience, however, diversity of participants in future tests would ensure that GastroMighty is meeting the needs of a greater user base. Likewise, due to geographic and time restraints, all of our participants were either friends of the research team or friends of friends. This may have introduced some level of personal bias to the feedback that could have been prevented were we able to test a different pool of users. There were two areas of the GastroMighty website that we were not able to test in-depth. First, we did not include the History page in our task list; we felt that its current functionality prevented us from devising tasks that would have a logical inclusion of history page’s functions. Despite that, some participants did still happen upon it during the test. They were glad to see that GastroMighty allows them to view past meal plans, but wanted more control over using this feature. One participant wanted to be able to move their meal plans like a widget around on the page. She also felt that the “bunched up” look of the meal plans on the History page was unappealing. As the History page is an important feature of GastroMighty, and participants responded well to the concept, we suggest GastroMighty review our previous heuristic evaluation and comparative analysis of the site in order to find ways to make this page as user-friendly as possible. The second area of GastroMighty that had limited testing was the mobile site. We felt it was important to test the website itself in order to confirm previous research and ensure that we were providing robust feedback about GastroMighty’s main product. Although we included the mobile site in one of our tasks, we did not test as in-depth as we may have if we were only focusing on this interface of the product. We also ran into some trouble during the testing of the mobile site, as the internet connectivity in our testing space was limited. Two of our participants had to use a moderator’s phone in order to complete the mobile task. Because the moderator was unable to sign out of their own account on the mobile site, they were forced to complete the task with the moderator’s account rather than the user testing account. Despite this issue, we feel that the interactions with the mobile site provided enough valuable feedback to include in this report. We strongly recommend that GastroMighty explore the usability of the mobile site further by conducting user research in the future that focuses only on mobile. Usability Testing Report 14
Conclusion In this study, our team conducted usability tests with potential customers of Gastromighty to understand the problems they might face while using the website. We recruited five participants for the study who had to complete a set of tasks using the desktop and mobile version of the GastroMighty.com. The tests gave us valuable feedback about how real users interact with the system, what they feel about the system and why. Overall, all of the participants liked the concept of Gastromighty and the problem it tries to solve. We uncovered problems relating to navigation and flow of tasks, usability issues with the shopping list and adding new recipe pages, bugs in the mobile website and other UI problems. We also observed that Gastromighty needs to make its user more aware about its learning capabilities, the effects of the rating recipes and commenting features. We recognize that this report is not exhaustive, and that further research is needed in many areas. However, the recommendations we provide, if implemented, would help GastroMighty better appeal to potential users as well as foster a sense of loyalty in those users. Usability Testing Report 15
Page 1 and 2: SI 622: Evaluation of System and Se
Page 3 and 4: Executive Summary In this study, we
Page 5 and 6: Methods The goal of our usability t
Page 7 and 8: Recommendations We recommend that G
Page 9 and 10: select options in this field while
Page 11 and 12: 5. Interface design should remain m
Page 13: available. Some of them asked if th
Page 17 and 18: Appendix A: Consent Form Consent Fo
Page 19 and 20: Task 3 A good friend of yours is vi
Page 21 and 22: Appendix C: Post-Test Questionnaire
Page 23 and 24: Appendix E: Additional Reference Ma
Page 25: Appendix G: User Data Logs and Post

Download Usability Testing Report - Soma Ray

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?