Applying User Centered Design Principles to Deliver Surface Water Data to Diverse Audiences Luke Buckley Master of Science Candidate – Montana Tech Data Systems Manager – MBMG 1
Applying User Centered Design Principles to Deliver Surface Water Data to Diverse Audiences
Luke Buckley
Master of Science Candidate – Montana Tech
Data Systems Manager – MBMG
1
Introduction
• Program Background and Timeline
• User Centered Design (UCD) and User Experience (UX)
• Usability Testing
• Data Analysis
• Future Research
• Conclusions
2
Project Background and Timeline
3
Timeline
4
Program Design Overview
5
User Centered Design (UCD) Focusing on User’s Needs
6
User Centered Design (UCD)
7
Identify Need
Specify Context of Use
Specify Requirements
Produce Design
Solutions
Evaluate Designs
System Satisfies
User Experience (UX)
8
Figure by Peter Morville. Retrieved Aug 2017 from semanticstudios.com.
Ethos
Logos Pathos
Website • DNRC real-time and other gages
• MBMG stream gages
• USGS stream gages
9
http://mbmg.mtech.edu/swamp
Visual Display
10
Site Level Data
11
Usability Testing
12
Institutional Review Board
University Clearance Needed
• Human subjects involved
• Explained and Justified Research Methodology
• Consent Form
• Project Approved
13
Designing for the User
14
Usability Testing – Round One
15
Task Definition
Video/Audio Capture
Screen Capture
Usability Issues From Albert and Tullis, “Measuring the User Experience”
• Behaviors that prevent task completion, take someone “off course”
• Expressions of frustration
• Not seeing something that should be noticed
• Performing an action the leads away from task success
• Misinterpreting some piece of content
• Choosing wrong links to accomplish task/navigation
16
Data Analysis
17
1. Find last measurement • Success rating: 100%
• SME ratio: 108%
• Interface: 67% map, 33% text
• Ease rating: 4.50 (5)
• Insights • Overall easy task, data located well
• Some slow system response
18
Participant # Tasks Completed Ease Rating (1-5) Time Per Task (sec)
1 0.00 5.00 142.00
2 0.00 5.00 246.00
3 0.00 4.00 126.00
4 0.00 4.00 82.00
5 0.00 4.00 89.00
6 0.00 5.00 115.00
Average 0.00 4.50 133.33
SME 2 5 64.00
2. System Update Frequency • Success rating: 67%
• SME ratio: 312%
• Interface: 100% text
• Ease rating: 3.33 (5)
• Insights • Text formatting issues
• Not easy to “scan”
19
Participant # Tasks Completed Ease Rating (1-5) Time Per Task (sec)
1 2.00 3.00 174.00
2 0.00 4.00 300.00
3 0.00 4.00 47.00
4 2.00 2.00 248.00
5 0.00 3.00 102.00
6 0.00 4.00 92.00
Average 0.67 3.33 160.50
SME 2 5 39.00
3. Download Data • Success rating: 100%
• SME ratio: 45%
• Interface: 100% text
• Ease rating: 4.33 (5)
• Insights • Location of options
• Error messages
20
Participant # Tasks Completed Ease Rating (1-5) Time Per Task (sec)
1 0.00 4.00 187.00
2 0.00 4.00 245.00
3 0.00 3.00 141.00
4 0.00 5.00 119.00
5 0.00 5.00 118.00
6 0.00 5.00 141.00
Average 0.00 4.33 158.50
SME 0 5 109.00
4. Find Ancillary Data • Success rating: 67%
• SME ratio: 170%
• Interface: 100% map
• Ease rating: 3.67 (5)
• Insights • System naming conventions
• Overall map display “busy”
Participant # Tasks Completed Ease Rating (1-5) Time Per Task (sec)
1 0.00 3.00 189.00
2 2.00 3.00 390.00
3 0.00 3.00 286.00
4 0.00 4.00 156.00
5 1.00 4.00 140.00
6 0.00 5.00 135.00
Average 0.50 3.67 216.00
SME 0 5 80.00
21
Summary • Ease of use: 3.95 (5)
• SUS score: 4.29 (5)
• Tasks 1 & 3: 100% success
• Tasks 2 & 4: 67% success
• Mean TTC: 668 sec (11.1 min)
22
0
400
800
1200
1600
1 2 3 4 5 6
Seco
nd
s
Participants
Time in Seconds to Complete Tasks
Task One Task Two Task Three Task Four
Future Research
23
Application Improvements
Resulting from Analysis of Use
• Fix large text blocks
• Database response times
• Date range selections
• Navigation issues
• Consistency in reports
Resulting from Informal Interview
• Daily average data stream
24
Highwood Creek. Taken by Luke Buckley, Nov 2016.
Next Steps Graduate School
1. Complete Round Two Usability Tests
2. Iteratively Publish Web Site Changes
3. Report and Defend M.S. (Apr ‘18)
4. Graduate (May ‘18)
SWAMP Work
1. Pilot Project (L&C/Gallatin)
2. Service-based Real-Time Communication
25
Acknowledgements
• Glen Southergill, Chad Okrusch, Todd Myse – Graduate Committee
• John Metesh, MBMG Director
• John LaFave, GWAP Program Director
• Power Users • John LaFave, Tom Michalek - MBMG
• Aaron Fiaschetti, Matt Norberg - DNRC
• Victoria Haraldson - Gallatin Local Water Quality District
• Katelyn Vennie - Bitterroot Watershed Forum
26
27
References Fogg, B. J., & Tseng, H. (1999). The elements of computer
credibility. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems the CHI Is the Limit - CHI ’99, (May), 80–87. http://doi.org/10.1145/302979.303001
Garrett, J. J. (2011). The Elements of User Experience. (M. J. Nolan, Ed.) (2nd ed.). New Riders.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2010). Universal Principles of Design.
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things. Basic Books. Tullis, T., & Albert, B. (2013). Measuring the User Experience,
Second Edition: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics (Interactive Technologies) 2nd Edition (2nd ed.). Elsevier Inc.
Wahl, K. L., Thomas Jr, W. O., & Hirsch, R. M. (1995). Stream-Gaging Program of the U.S. Geological Survey.
Surface Water in Montana
28
Missouri R at Confluence. Taken by Luke Buckley, 2 Aug 2017. Lake McDonald at Glacier Park. Taken by Luke Buckley, 17 Jul 2017.
Questions?
29
Luke Buckley M.S. Candidate Technical Communications Montana Tech Data Systems Manager MBMG (406) 496-4677 [email protected]