iServeInteractive Restaurant Menu at your ServiceCS 160 Group 2Pilot Usability StudyIan WangKristen WongJosephine ChoiJason KuoNovember 20, 2001http://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs160-aj/assign5.docIntroductionMethodParticipantsApparatusProcedureTest MeasuresResultsDiscussionParticipant C ResultsTask 1Task 2Task 3iServeInteractive Restaurant Menu at your ServiceCS 160 Group 2Pilot Usability StudyIan WangKristen WongJosephine ChoiJason KuoNovember 20, 2001http://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs160-aj/assign5.docIntroductioniServe is an interactive restaurant menu designed to take the place of standard paper menus and most of the waiter interaction. iServe is a web-based application that would run on a touch screen device placed at each table in an eating establishment. The diner would use iServe to browse and search the menu, order items, and pay the bill. Theuser navigates the menu much like an online shopping website, following links by touching them on the screen. In performing all the functions of both the menu and the waiter, iServe improves the diner experience by making it easier, more efficient, and ultimately, more pleasant.Usability tests were conducted with three participants in order to identify problems and ambiguities in the current prototype to improve the iServe interface. Since iServe is intended to make the dining experience as pleasant as possible, the usability tests were essential in ensuring that the application is straightforward and easy to use. With this experiment, we hope to identify as many usability problems as possible, to determine which elements of the current interface to keep and which elements to remove.MethodParticipantsWe tested the usability of iServe with three participants and three tasks. We wanted to find users with a wide range of Internet experience and restaurant dining in hopes of discovering a wider variety of usability problems. To this end, we looked for users with diversity in three areas: Internet use, Internet shopping, and experience at sit-down restaurants. Each of the users filled out a demographic survey with their age, gender, major, and profession. User A is a 22-year-old male with a Business Administration degree. User B is a 21-year-old female majoring in Cognitive Science. User C is a 25-year-old male majoring in Linguistics. The three participants represented a range of academic backgrounds outside of Computer Science. In addition, the survey asked the users to rate themselves in terms of the followingthree statements on a 1-5 scale: “I use the Internet”, “I shop on the Internet”, and “I go out to eat at sit-down restaurants”. One means “seldom”, and 5 means “often.” Our survey revealed good diversity: User A rated his attendance at sit-down restaurants a 3, User B - 1, and User C - 5. For Internet shopping, User A rated a 2, User B - 4, and User C - 1. In terms of Internet usage, User A put down a 3, User B - 5, and User C - 4.ApparatusTo test iServe, we used an IBM ThinkPad with the website opened in an Internet Explorer Window with the buttons and address bar hidden to mimic actual use in a restaurant. Users were instructed to navigate the application just like a regular website byclicking and following links. We conducted our user tests in one of the 6th floor lounges in Soda Hall, with only our group and the user present. The user sat in a chair with the laptop in front of them, and with observers placed both behind and in front of the user.ProcedurePrior to the actual usability testing, each participant was given a brief introductionto iServe and an explanation of the purpose in usability testing. Each user read and signed an informed consent form. Each participant also filled out a demographic survey.The participants received a demonstration of iServe illustrating its general structure and how to navigate through it. Participants were advised that for the sake of realism, group members would not provide help during the usability testing unless absolutely necessary. Participants were given the opportunity to ask questions before the usability testing began.For usability testing, participants were given a sheet of paper printed with the three levels of tasks. Initially, only one task was visible, as the other two tasks were covered with another piece of paper. As participants finished one task, we would reveal the subsequent tasks. We asked participants to read each task aloud and continuously verbalize their thoughts while working through each task. We also asked participants to verbally indicate when they felt that they finished a task.During each task, two group members acted as observers while one group member timed the user with a stopwatch. Another group member counted the number of steps taken to complete each task. After each participant finished all three tasks, the group reviewed the critical incidents with the participant. The participants were then asked to fill out a post-testing questionnaire about their general opinions on the iServe interface. At the conclusion, each participant was given a chance to ask questions about iServe and thanked for their participation in the usability test.Test MeasuresFor this usability test, we focused on measuring two dependent variables – the total number of steps and time it took for each participant to work through each tasks. Each time the page on the screen changes as a result of user action is counted as a step.For iServe, we calculated the minimal number of steps it takes to accomplish eachof the three tasks. By combining the total number of steps taken by users with the log of critical incidents, we hope to find parts of the iServe interface that may be confusing. Wealso wanted to note the total amount of time taken on each task to see how we can streamline the interface for certain tasks by combining certain steps. ResultsThe dependent variables we tested were time and number of steps taken to perform each task. We also took note of when users hesitated, or the comments they mentioned while performing the tasks. The following is a summary of our results:For task 1, User A took 1 min. 33 sec., User B took 47 sec., and User C took 1 min. 30 sec. User A and B both took 4 steps to complete the task, while User C took 5 steps. The optimal path required 4 steps. All three users showed hesitation at the “Send Order to Kitchen” step. User C mentioned that normally he would press “Continue Ordering”,
View Full Document
Unlocking...