Focus:
The focus of this session was to test the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of participants when using a microwave.
Process:
Just as the previous sessions have been structured, we decided to begin this activity by splitting into small groups of three to ensure an efficient flow new and/or expanded ideas. However this time, we would maintain the groups throughout the whole process as there were many tasks to complete in the process.
Step 1 — First, we brainstormed different tasks that a user would typically use on a microwave for example time cook, timer, or the popcorn function. Then, we thought about how we might test the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of how that function performed from the user’s perspective. At first we just wrote down every idea that came; then began to review and filter out the ideas that wouldn’t give as specific results. We decided to test the usability of the microwave’s cook time, timer, and usability in the dark. Next, we planned how to instruct the participants of the tasks and how to question/evaluate their experience with the microwave afterwards. We decided to measure quantitative data by asking the participant to rank the task on a difficulty scale of 1–10, mark the time it took to complete the task, and the number of steps they took. We measured qualitative by asking the participant what they liked and disliked about their experience with the product and if they would change anything about the product design to make tasks easier. By measuring both qualitative and quantitative data, we would be able to get a more accurate feeling to how the participants felt about the product and its functions.
Step 2 — Testing: We asked three college students who had never used the specific microwave we were testing to be our participants. In order to make sure gender didn’t cause any biases, our team decided to invite participants of both genders to take part of this study. To ensure uniformity for the participants, we decided that one person should consistently stay the moderator so that phrasing, voice, and other factors would not obstruct our results. I was my team’s moderator, and the 2 other members were note takers to document data about the participant’s quantitative and qualitative experiences.
Step 3 — Analysis: Lastly, our team created a presentation about the data we collected, what we learned from it, and how the product could be improved based on these results.
Reflection:
At first I thought testing a different product would be much more interesting and yield more interesting, applicable data. However after completing this usability test, I have actually come to appreciate the simplicity of the product we tested. Even with such a simple everyday product, we had obstacles as we were completing each step of the process. For example although we thought about we would instruct the participant, amongst ourselves we had context and understood the instructions with ease; however when we began with the first participant, we immediately had to add clarifications to the task at hand. Had we tested a more complex product with this minimal amount of participants, our data would be even more inaccurate and instructing the participant would have been even more difficult. Choosing such a simple product was a great way to ease ourselves into the usability testing process. Further, due to time constraints and the resources available to us, we were only able to conduct our usability testing with three participants completing three tasks which did not give us a wide enough range of data to calculate an accurate average time, number of steps, and level of difficulty to complete each task. In order to get a more accurate grasp on how the average consumer would feel about a product, we would have to do much more extensive testing across a wider range of backgrounds.
Next Step:
With the experiences I’ve gained from designing and operating my first usability test, the biggest thing I would like to improve on for my next usability test is scripting more specific instructions to give the participants. By scripting clearer instructions, this will eliminate need to repeat or rephrase the instructions which may cause inconsistencies across the other participants’ results. For future tests, I would also like to put together a larger group and range of participants. In this test we only tested people of one demographic while testing people from different demographics would yield more expansive results. By surveying a larger group, we might also be able to see patterns in how one demographic uses/feels about the product while another demographic may feel another way. In the future, I would also like to test groups differently by rearranging the order of the tasks asked of the participant. During our process, we learned that task 2 proved relatively easy because most participants had accidentally completed task 2 while attempting task 1 and thus already learned how to do task 2. Before completing this process, I thought the usability test results of a product would be easily predictable. However now I realize that it only seemed predictable to me because I had a lot of experience with said product or products similar. It’s clear that people with different day to day lives approach products differently and that’s why usability testing is important — to ensure usability across as many demographics as possible.
