Project Completion

The project has been successfully completed. Final things like neatening up the exposed wiring and final testing has been completed. It is noted that the Adafruit stripboards were not included within the final implementation as the wiring was secured onto the breadboard. The wires were insulated using plastic, and once the electronics were inserted into the system., they were padded around and sewn up so are not removable. The switches are exposed at the rear of the system.

Manual

A short demonstration video has been created which shows the system working on youtube here.

The exposed switches on the bottom of the bears is below.

Below: labelled externals.

Below internal wiring.

Tiger

Monkey 

Version 4 Survey

A survey was created over a 48 hour period.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LYW56YM

The DECIDE framework was utilised.

Teddy Share Survey

Exit this survey

 

'Share Bear' Questionnaire

 

Hi,

Thanks for participating in my degree project evaluation.

An exciting new system titled the 'Share Bear' has been created. It is a new way to say 'I'm thinking about you' involving two interactive soft toys. The system is for friends and family members who are separated short or long term. You record an audio clip i.e. a song in a cuddly Tiger, and give it away. Whenever you miss that person you close the arms in a 'hug' motion on your monkey which triggers the audio to play in your friends/family members tiger. They hear the know and know that you are thinking about them RIGHT NOW, enjoy the music and the rest of their day. It means that you don't have to make excuses or say anything but 'I miss you'.

I'd really appreciate your views on the system and your feedback on how it could be improved. This survey should take no longer than 10 minutes.

Thanks,

Siobhan

These are the two soft toys

This is a storyboard of how it works

1. How old are you?

How old are you?  Under 18 18-25 25-40 40+

2. Do you understand the system?

Do you understand the system?  Yes No Maybe

3. Would you use the system?

Would you use the system?  Yes No Maybe

4. Who would you use it with?

Who would you use it with?  Friends Family Partner Other (Please Comment)

Other (please specify)

5. What audio would you put on it? Please add more detail if you can i.e. Music 'My favourite song'

What audio would you put on it? Please add more detail if you can i.e. Music 'My favourite song'  Music Stories Jokes Other

6. What improvements would you make to it??

What improvements would you make to it??

Powered by SurveyMonkey

Summary

Survey Evaluation

The final stage of prototyping evaluation was survey research. It was intended to gain a large range of results from as many people as possible.  Quantitative evaluation was used less than qualitative until this point so this methodology has been useful to triangulate the findings. The survey was not solely restricted to 18-25 year olds so that feedback from other user groups could be evaluated.

The system as a whole was well-received and users understood the system, and most would use it. The context of use was varied with almost as must variety as there were responders. What is good about the system is the fact that it can be easily customised and used in many different contexts.

There were 29 responses, and 9 people answered questions in more detail. What was interesting was that nobody said they would use it with friends; just family and partners. Only 65% of respondents were 18-25, and most of these would use it with partners whilst 25-40’s were more likely to say that they would use it with family, and two mentioned their children. 96.6% fully understood the system, whilst one was unsure which suggested that the concept was explained quite well.

51.7% of people said they’d definitely use the system whilst the rest were undecided, but nobody said no at this stage. This suggests general interest in the system if it was to be made commercially available.  

Music was favoured above other means. Some people suggested that they’d actually like to receive it as a gift themselves. As indicated in previous testing, users would have liked some kind of response system and also to be able to play more than one clip. This verifies the findings and one person suggested that they’d like a choice between other soft toys.

In summary this methodology has been successful in validating my findings and producing qualitative data. In conjunction with the other two evaluation methodologies I can draw the conclusions that people would actually use it (by receiving feedback from over 30 people in total) and that they understand how they system would work . Users can envisage application within their own lives which is extremely important.

Version 4 observation analysis

Version 4 Observational Analysis Findings

DECIDE methodology is used.

D: Goals – Assess manual & Interaction. Suggest improvements

E: Questions - Below

C: Evaluation paradigm – Observation & Interview

I: Practical issues – Data Collection & Analysis

D: Ethical Issues - Anonymity

E: Evaluation & Analysis – Quantitative & Description

User screening: Age, technological understanding, if they relate to the concept and haven’t used the system before. Online screening will be conducted before invitation. Would be useful if the two users know each other as a better simulation of the real system in place.

Framework

1.       Explain Concept: ’This system allows you to record an audio clip i.e. a favourite song in the Tiger, give it to a friend or family member who lives away from you, and then trigger it to play remotely. You can record a song, a story, a joke or absolutely anything. It lets you say  ‘I miss you’ or ‘I’m thinking about you’ in a new way. You close the Monkeys arms in a ‘hugging’ motion which triggers the system in the Tiger to start playing. The beauty of the system is that you don’t have to ‘say’ anything else or make up an excuse to contact them. It is quick and easy to use and is a new way of connecting with a person. It is meant for use in the home between friends, partners or even parents with children going away from home.‘

2.       Explain evaluation: You will be given the manual and asked to see if you can execute the device based on this. It is a test of the manuals effectiveness, not of your skills. If you are unsuccessful it means that the manual is ineffective. You will then be interviewed and findings will be recorded in note form.

a.       Note: this takes pressure off the user and lets them know that if they fail it is the systems fault, not theirs.

DECIDE framework

D-Goals; Assess the manual and understanding of interaction. Suggest improvements.

E-Questions; below

C-Evaluation paradigm; observation & interview (brief)

I- Practical issues; data collection

D-Ethical issues; anonymity

E-Evaluate & Analyse – Qualitative & Descriptive

Controls: the setting will be in the home. The users will be asked to sit on separate sofas with a chair in-between them to simulate separation.

Users: Found a couple in the correct age group

Questions;

1.       Did you understand the manual? Do you understand how the system works?

Both users understood the manual.

2.       Please use the system.

Both users executed the system correctly, although had to re-read the on/off switch control protocol in the Tiger to ensure it was done correctly. This is a challenge to the learnability, but the user said out loud ‘BLACK WHITE… WHITE BLACK’ and this helped them remember it. I asked the Tiger user to reuse the system at the end of the session and they repeated this phrase and executed it correctly. The Monkey was much simpler to use than the Tiger for this reason. They both said that it would be much easier to use it there was only one switch. This could have been done by using a 4 terminal switch which turned them both on and off at once.

3.       Do you like the interaction of the ‘hug’ and the design of the bear?

Tiger owner: Yes, it’s like sending them a hug. I think it’s more realistic than pushing a button on a screen and you feel more involved.

Monkey: I like the way that a song is played. It’s different to getting a text with the same sentiments, and the song that is played would remind me of all the good times I had with him. If I just got a test I’d be like ‘awww’, and move on, but this makes me really think about our history together and takes me back to good times I had with him.  

Tiger: I really like the idea. I could put her favourite song on it and she’d hear it. There’s no other way to send audio like that with her getting it AT THE TIME I’m thinking out her. The only other alternative is to phone and play a song through it which is quite low quality and I’d feel a bit silly, or request it on the radio but I’d have no idea if she was listening or when it would be played!

4.       What do you think could be improved?

Tiger: I think it would be good if you didn’t have to turn the system on in such a specific way as it made me feel a little stressed.

Monkey: The fancy switching system luckily doesn’t affect me so I could quickly turn my monkey on and play it without those restrictions. I think it was important not to have these restrictions. It if was there  it would put me off as it would ruin the moment.

Tiger: It does put me off a little, but I guess I’m just waiting for receive a message and there’s less urgency to it.

5.       Would you have preferred a 2 way system where you could send audio back?

Tiger: Hmm, no I wouldn’t want to send one back straight away but I’d like to be able to send him a song at another point without having to buy another set.

6.       Do you have any further comments?

Tiger: Would it be possible to get different designs or the design the other way round? I prefer the monkey.

Thanks for participating

Summary

Findings: Users would prefer a two way system and the two switch system was a challenge to learnability. However it doesn’t ruin the immediacy of the interaction with the monkey as it is only involved with the Tiger. A 4 terminal switch could not be found so isn’t implemented. All users would like to customise the soft toys to suit them and this would definitely be possible.

Version 4 Improvements

Following heuristics it was noticed that when the system was switched off (previous testing involved the batteries being pulled out), current was allowed to flow through the MP3player and it turned on. This was a massive problem.

To fix it the MP3 player needed its own switch and the manual had to be changed. A white switch was soldered onto the yellow wire (anode).

This has to be turned on and off in a very specific way;

ON: turn on black switch THEN white switch
OFF: Turn on white switch THEN black switch

Not doing this could cause the system to behave unpredictively.

The system has also been reset to turn on/off for only 10 seconds for the submission.

Wires were insulated using plastic.

Version 4 Heuristic Testing

Heuristic Analysis of v4 Prototype

Resources

 Syntax 2.0: Heuristic Evaluation

http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html

http://faculty.washington.edu/jtenenbg/courses/360/f04/sessions/schneidermanGoldenRules.html

Summary

Two types of Heuristics have been used:; Normans 7 principles  and Schneiderman’s 8 Golden Rules

Problems: some of the heuristics apply to more complex or screen-based systems so some cannot be applied to the project. However, in large I feel that it was a useful analysis of the prototype. There is no room for error except of failure to interact, and the design offers informative feedback at every stage. There is help and documentation available and there is a low demand on the users memory.

Table 1: Severity Rating; used to rate problems identified

0 - don’t agree that this is a usability problem

1 - cosmetic problem

2 - minor usability problem

3 - major usability problem; important to fix

4 - usability catastrophe; imperative to fix

Tasks:

A.    Turning on the prototypes

B.     sending the message

C.     receiving the message

D.    receiving feedback that the message was sent

As the system is so small, the tasks will be analysed as a whole rather than individually. Individual analysis was attempted, see below but it was noticed that it this was a less effective method of analysing the system.

Task	Heuristic	Analysis	Problems	Severity
A.    Turning on the prototypes	1 Visibility of system status	On/off switch has o/1 indicator.	No	n/a
	2 Match between system and the real world	n/a -it is a tangible interface
	3 User control and freedom

1 Visibility of system status

The system provides feedback at each of the four task stages. The receiving (Tiger) system sends feedback communication prior to the playing of the audio track, so the end user knows that the other user is aware that they got the message if they hear the audio playing. The system is very simple. It is useful that the two feedback systems (LED and Buzzer) are different in their form to remove any confusion.

2 Match between system and the real world

The system is not screen based, which is different to many of the interactive systems that users would have had access to. Whilst this poses some problems, users are generally familiar with soft toys. Information doe appear in a logical order, and in the same way each time.

3 User control and freedom

The user only has the option to interact in a single way, so the only error that can occur is the failure to interact at all.  There is no support of undo or redo. My severity rating: 0

4 Consistency and standards

There is no ambiguity within the interface; the two feedback systems in the Monkey are distinct i.e. one is sound and one is light. This was an improvement from testing on the the version 3 prototype.

5 Error prevention

Because of the limited amount of errors that can be made, there is little error prevention. However, to prevent people from thinking that they have interacted with the monkey when they haven’t, there is an indicator buzzer. It is the same with the light validation of the message reception.

6 Recognition rather than recall

The system is fairly simple, but it is not self-explanatory. This is one of the security features; anyone stumbling upon it would not necessarily know how to use it. However, once a user has been introduced to the design it is so simple that it is difficult to forget, and the visibility of certain physical elements i.e. metal contacts in the hands would help users to recognise how to interact with it.

7 Flexibility and efficiency of use

There are no accelerators for experienced users due to the simplicity of the design

8 Aesthetic and minimalist design

The design has no dialogue, but the equivalent here is the light/buzzer feedback system which does not contain anymore information than is required.

9 Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors

The system uses a deductive error handling technique; the user is not told ‘the other user isn’t there… here’s what to do, they simply do not get an indication light if something goes wrong. There are error symptoms instead of statements. Severity=0

10 Help and documentation

Error handling is included separately in a manual which helps users with heuristic 9. There is a troubleshooting section which specifically deals with error systems. An ideal system supposedly needs no documentation, but this does due to the specialism of tasks and the need to illustrate its purpose and functionality. Users cannot relate it to anything else, so they have no conceptual model to compare it with. This system has to have a manual by default, so the severity rating=0

Normans Heuristic Analysis

1 Strive for consistency.
Only a single action can be executed, so this heuristic does not apply.
2 Enable frequent users to use shortcuts.
There are no shortcuts to the simplicity of the interface.
3 Offer informative feedback.
Description: For every operator action, there should be some system feedback. For frequent and minor actions, the response can be modest, while for infrequent and major actions, the response should be more substantial.
There is system feedback for every operator action. However error feedback is deductive; where there is no feedback the user knows that there is a problem. Another way to address it would be to provide a specific indicator if a message received confirmation is not received by the monkey within a certain length of time. Severity=1. This possible improvement could be implemented, but the need would be determined by further user testing.
4 Design dialog to yield closure.
Description: Sequences of actions should be organized into groups with a beginning, middle, and end. The informative feedback at the completion of a group of actions gives the operators the satisfaction of accomplishment, a sense of relief, the signal to drop contingency plans and options from their minds, and an indication that the way is clear to prepare for the next group of actions.
There is only one set of actions; sending a message and then receiving conformation that it was sent and then successfully delivered. There is feedback once this is completed so I feel that it meets these requirements.
5 Offer simple error handling.
Description: As much as possible, design the system so the user cannot make a serious error. If an error is made, the system should be able to detect the error and offer simple, comprehensible mechanisms for handling the error.
The only error that the user can make is either forgetting to turn the system on, or not successfully closing the Monkeys hands together. Error handling is provided by the manual, and there are straightforward solutions.
6 Permit easy reversal of actions.
Description: This feature relieves anxiety, since the user knows that errors can be undone; it thus encourages exploration of unfamiliar options. The units of reversibility may be a single action, a data entry, or a complete group of actions.
There is no room for error, just of failure to execute tasks. Reversibility would go against the concept of ‘transient memory’ so this cannot be implemented. Severity=0
7 Support internal locus of control.
Description: Experienced operators strongly desire the sense that they are in charge of the system and that the system responds to their actions. Design the system to make users the initiators of actions rather than the responders.
The operators roles are designed as one initiator and one responder.
8 Reduce short-term memory load.
The limitation of human information processing in short-term memory requires that displays be kept simple, multiple page displays be consolidated, window-motion frequency be reduced, and sufficient training time be allotted for codes, mnemonics, and sequences of actions. 

The systems simplicity removes any memory load on the user. The user only has to remember how to execute the single action correctly.

Version 4 Testing Prep

This is the final prototype, so i'd like to gather as large a range of data about it as possible. The best way to this is probably through surveys, and i may also conduct an interview and an observation of two users using it to see whether they understand it and to get their feedback on it. I will triangulate this feedback.


What do i want to find out?
The manual: does it make sense, does it explain the prototype well enough for them to use it alone?
Would people use it?
How would they use it?
What improvements they'd make to it.


The survey


DECIDE framework will be used again

1. Determine the goals
2. Explore the questions
3. Choose the evaluation paradigm and techniques
4. Identify the practical issues
5. Decide how to deal with the ethical issues
6. Evaluate, interpret, and present the data

1. The goals are to see if people like the prototype, understand it, and how they would use it

2. The exact questions

EXPLAIN THE PROTOTYPE VISUALLY & DESCRIPTIVELY FIRST

AGE

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM

WHAT ARE YOUR IMMEDIATE RESPONSES

DO YOU LIKE IT

WOULD YOU USE IT

WHO WOULD YOU USE IT WITH

WHAT IMPROVEMENTS WOULD YOU MAKE TO IT

WOULD YOU LIKE A 2-WAY SYSTEM

3. Survey, will be conducted online using surveymonkey but a pilot survey will be conducted on paper first

4. practical issues-distribution, how to clarify the concept. use a visual storyboard or do an instructional video?

5. ethical issues-data protection & anonymity; make this clear to users

6. evaluation will be largely quantitative for this

Observation & Interviews

This will be conducted in natural settings with two users who are unfamiliar with the prototype. They will be given the prototype and the manual and then seen how they interact with it. They will then be interviewed and their feedback analysed. The goals for the interview are the same as with the previous focus group. The observation will be recorded through notes. I'd also like to ask them if they'd like a two way system where both users are present at purchase and involved in the audio embedded in both. This would make it less of a surprise, but in a way it might make them feel more connected through this joint experience. The receiving user will also be asked if they'd like to be able to provide feedback themselves i.e. saying 'thankyou'. .

These two methods will allow for final evaluation of the prototype, and planning will be conducted for the observation/interview. An informed consent form and prep sheet will be made the observation/interview.

I may also conduct a predictive evaluation.

version 4 prototype

Improvements to the v4  prototype

• The manual should say that the bear should be left on only when a user is home. 
• An on/off switch should be integrated to prevent the batteries from burning out
• The breadboard should be replaced with strip board to stop the wiring falling out

The first thing that was worked on was the on/off switch. The positive lead of battery adapter was split to sever the current, and the switch soldered onto it. The switch was put onto long wires as it needed to be accessible.  The switch was purchased from maplins.

The next thing was moving the project onto strip board. These were purchased from eBay. They were mimics of the arduino half size breadboard, which made it easier to transfer the wiring across than using a standard stripboard. Extra solder wire had to be bought, and the process was very time-consuming.

The final thing that needed doing was changing the manual, which is completed below. The battery life was mentioned as a justification for turning it on/off. The leaflet states that the person buying it is the person who is wants to send the message for someone else to recieve. They may be the one going away from home, or the person who is left behind. Either way the person buying the system is the one who has to record the audio. Users will be asked if they would have liked to have audio in both, where both users record a track for each-other. This could be useful in developing an initial shared experience which could be extremely valuable. 

The wording was changed to 'soft toys' from 'teddies' as it was confusing and other small tweaks were made.

I had to make a decision about where to put the switch, which will be evaluated through user testing.