S NAP I T !

SNAPIT!

MAX LARUE

(ME)

SAMRACH

NOUV

YIH SUN KHOO

(FACILITATOR)

(COMPUTER)

(OBSERVER)

OVERVIEW

REVIEW PROBLEMS AND TASKS

EXAMINE PROTOTYPE &

SCENARIOS

HOW WE DID OUR EXPERIMENT

WHAT WE FOUND OUT

WHAT WE CHANGED

THE PROBLEM

HOW DO WE EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY CREATE SEARCH TAGS FOR IMAGES?

…BY PROVING INSENTIVE FOR YOU TO EMPLOY YOUR EXCEPTIONAL HUMAN COMPUTING POWER TO ACCURATELY LABEL IMAGES WITH DESCRIPTIVE WORDS

THREE TASKS

-SIGN UP AS A NEW USER

-FINISH A ROUND AS A

GUESSER

-FINISH A ROUND AS A

SNAPPER

COMPLETE THE STEPS NECESSARY

TO…

TASK: REGISTERINGLEVEL OF DIFFICULTY: EASY

Max Max

************

******

Max

******

TASK: GUESSINGLEVEL OF DIFFICULTY: MODERATE

TASK: GUESSING (CONTINUED)LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY: MODERATE

TASK: GUESSING (CONTINUED)LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY: MODERATE

…

Max

******

TASK: SNAPPINGLEVEL OF DIFFICULTY: DIFFICULT

TASK: SNAPPING (CONTINUED)LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY: DIFFICULT

…

TASK: SNAPPING (CONTINUED)LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY: DIFFICULT

HOW WE DID OUR EXPERIMENT

EVALUATE PROTOTYPE

DESIGN

-DESIGNED TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM-PROTOTYPED THE BEST DESIGN-GATHERED DATA FROM THE TESTS-ANALYZED AND INTERPRETED THE DATA…REPEATED

HOW WE DID OUR EXPERIMENT-IN A CSE PROJECT LAB-THREE PARTICIPANTS: 1 FEMALE, 2 MALE-PARTICIPANTS WERE SELECTED SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE A WIDE RANGE OF GAMING EXPERIENCE AMONG THEM-PARTICIPANTS HAD VARYING DEGREES OF EXPERIENCE WITH THE iPHONE AND OTHER MOBILE DEVICES

WHAT WE FOUND OUT-THE SCRIPT SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED THE TASKS AND HOW THE GAME WORKED

-EVERY PLAYER WAS ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE EACH TASK

-PARTICIPANTS INTUITIVELY RESPONDED TO OPTIONS SUCH AS BEING ABLE TO GUESS MORE THAN ONCE

-PARTICIPANTS HAD LITTLE DIFFICULTY IN UNDERSTANDING HOW THE INTERFACE WORKED IN TERMS OF ITS FUNCTIONALITY AND NONE WERE CONFUSED

WHAT WE FOUND OUT-TESTERS WANTED MORE FEEDBACK ON THE STATUS OF THE GAME AND WHAT THE OTHER PLAYERS WERE DOING

-THERE WAS CONFUSION OVER WHO WAS THE SNAPPER

-USERS WOULD HAVE GONE TO AN INSTRUCTIONS PAGE HAD THERE BEEN ONE

-ONE USER RAISED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT E-MAIL PRIVACY

-IT WAS FOUND THAT A WAITING SCREEN IMPROVED TRANSITIONS BETWEEN TASKS

WHAT WE FOUND OUT-PARTICIPANTS GOT PROGRESSIVELY MORE EFFICIENT

-RELATIVELY LOW AMOUNT OF SUGGESTIONS REGARDING GAME FUNCTIONALITY

-MOST OF THE FEEDBACK FOCUSED ON EFFICIENCY AND MINIMIZING BUTTON CLICKS:

-CHECKING FOR NAME AVAILABILITY-SUBMITTING WORD GUESSES-CHECKING WORD VALUES

-THE FOLLOWING CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE USER INTERFACE AFTER ANALYZING USER FEEDBACK

WHAT WE CHANGED:

0

GUESSERS INTERFACE

WHAT WE CHANGED:

0

SNAPPERS INTERFACE

WHAT WE CHANGED:

0

READY ROOM

WHAT WE CHANGED:

0

MAIN LOGIN

WHAT WE CHANGED:

0

INVITE FRIEND

SUMMARYWE SUCCEEDED IN IMPROVING OUR

INTERFACE MAKING IT MUCH MORE TASK ORIENTED AND ERROR FREE. SPECIFICALLY, WE MINIMIZED BUTTON CLICKS, BRIDGED GAPS WHICH MIGHT DISRUPT TASK FLOW, AND INCREASED RESPONSIVENESS AND INTERACTION LEVELS BY UPGRADING THE ROLE OF THE STATUS LINE. THIS WILL ALLOW US TO BETTER SOLVE OUR PROBLEM OF CREATING A FUN AND INTERESTING GAME FOR TAGGING IMAGES.

SUMMARYIN CONTRAST TO THE FIRST, THE

FINAL PARTICIPANT WAS ABLE TO ZIP THROUGH EVERY TASK WITH EXTREME EASE AND EFFICIENCY, CONFIRMING THAT THE CHANGES WE MADE WERE FOR THE BETTER AND THAT LOW-FI PROTOTYPING IS A POWERFUL AND EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR FACILITATING ITERATIVE DESIGN

Q?