Eval presentation v04

Eval presentation v04

• 1.
  ALLEN COCHRAN A System Evaluation of Using an Automated Teller Machine THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY ALLEN J COCHRAN Integrated Systems Engineering 770 OSU Graduate Student, Design Professor Phil Smith.131 allenjcochran@gmail.com Autumn 2010 www.allenjcochran.com
• 2.
  Overview Task Overview User Group Method CriticalDefects Functional Positives Functional Negatives General Conclusions Design Recommendations Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 2
• 3.
  Task Overview Automated Teller Machine 1 2 Checking Withdrawing An Account Cash from Balance Checking Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 3
• 4.
  User Group Non-Specific Wide-rage of potential users Commonality of the task Interconnectivity of banking systems Estimated to be 14 years and older Used by a range of technologically savy people Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 4
• 5.
  Method & TaskAnalyzed Smart Guy Expert Review Critique of task oriented interaction with system System is specifically task oriented Users are on the go Pressure of time Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 5
• 6.
  Critical Defects ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM Trust ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM ATM Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 6
• 7.
  Functional Positives Well... thesystem seems to work Regularity of task performed Minimal learning curve with system Regardless of errors, if enough buttons are pushed, a positive result will be reached. Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 7
• 8.
  but maybe I’mjust being nice.
• 9.
  Functional Negatives Page titlesare misleading Graphics are confusing Too many haptic choices Directions don’t afford easiest solution No breadcrumb trails Lack of user awareness of location Confusing taxonomy, i.e. “transaction” Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 9
• 10.
  Functional Negatives Page titlesare misleading Graphics are confusing Too many haptic choices Directions don’t afford easiest solution No breadcrumb trails Lack of user awareness of location Confusing taxonomy, i.e. “transaction” Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 10
• 11.
  Functional Negatives Page titlesare misleading Graphics are confusing Too many haptic choices Directions don’t afford easiest solution No breadcrumb trails Lack of user awareness of location Confusing taxonomy, i.e. “transaction” Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 11
• 12.
  Functional Negatives Page titlesare misleading Graphics are confusing Too many haptic choices Directions don’t afford easiest solution No breadcrumb trails Lack of user awareness of location Confusing taxonomy, i.e. “transaction” Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 12
• 13.
  Functional Negatives Page titlesare misleading Graphics are confusing Too many haptic choices Directions don’t afford easiest solution No breadcrumb trails Lack of user awareness of location Confusing taxonomy, i.e. “transaction” Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 13
• 14.
  Functional Negatives Page titlesare misleading Graphics are confusing Too many haptic choices Directions don’t afford easiest solution No breadcrumb trails Lack of user awareness of location Confusing taxonomy, i.e. “transaction” Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 14
• 15.
  General Conclusions System issomewhat usable Significant room for improvement Graphics are poor and relate badly Too many choices of physical buttons related to too few on screen choices On screen reading is too much for regular time-on-task Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 15
• 16.
  Design Recommendations Label pageswith appropriate titles Use graphics or words, not both. If both graphics and words are used, combine as buttons Change to a touch screen, rather than multiple button panels and a screen Clarify actions so that one gesture affords an intuitive action Provide location awareness to users, such as page transitions or a breadcrumb trail Clean up taxonomical issues Combine screens when possible. Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 16
• 17.
  THANK YOU! Questions or Thoughts? Presentation Overview | Task Overview | User Group | Method | Critical Defects | Positives | Negatives | Conclusions | Recommendations 17