I’m setting expectations early on this post as it will probably not be heavy on this week's content. This has been a pivotal week for the project and one with a lot of highs and lows. The week continued in a similar vein to week 9, I’ve been feeling massively overwhelmed by everything, including the workload and the expectations I have put on myself. I kept telling myself I just needed to get to a point where I could test the concept with users, but I felt embarrassed about how little progress I had made for the amount of effort I had put in. I can’t stress enough how difficult I found it was to replicate the functionality I was trying to achieve, particularly the drag and drop and delete.
This was made all the worse because I haven’t felt I’ve had the head space to be able to pivot (or the time), especially without any real-life user data and I wasn’t able to see a way to out of it. The issues I faced included:
Being weeks behind with the prototype, even though I’d been working on it and the weekly content.
Being behind with the blog, although I had kept my reflection in note form.
I don’t feel empathy for the user persona.
I still feel the colours and typography need work.
How can I maintain positivity?
My mental health has also been a concern, as I feel I’m nearing burnout. I’ve worked at such a frenetic pace for the last 15 months that I’m not sure If I can keep it up, particularly with family and work commitments. This has triggered anxiety attacks which forced my hand and made me reevaluate my approach to the project. After a discussion with my Tutor and Student Services, they were able to grant me extenuating circumstances for a week on both the prototype/case study/video and the CRJ posts. It was a decision I did not take lightly and have not used before. On the one hand, I feel relieved I have more time, but on another I just want it to be completed. I also want to do the best I can, but this is not on display at the moment. I now have a month to turn this around and try to get excited about it again.
Usability Testing
I finally reached a point where I felt comfortable with the user test. I wanted to ensure that the results were consistent with the persona, so I decided to invite back the participants from the user interviews in week 2; of the four original participants, three agreed.
To recap on the question I formulated in week 7:
Show me how you would endorse John Smiths' cooking Skill
Show me how you would search for and apply for a new volunteering opportunity
Show me how you would add the skills of Blogging and Copywriting
I had yet to flesh out the endorsement section but I couldn’t wait to test any longer, the skill section had taken more time than expected and I need to push forward to obtain useful insights. I decided to update the questions to better reflect where the wireframe are at this stage, with the hope that I could gain enough insights to see a way forward:
Show me how you would set two skills during the onboarding process
Show me how you would apply for a volunteering opportunity that requires the recruitment skill
Show me how you would add two new skills
Show me how you would delete two skills
The results
During the usability testing, I really struggled to maintain objectivity and although I feel I maintained a professional approach, I was crestfallen on the inside. Watching users struggle with my application and questioning areas where I had not been confident in my design choices was hard, and perhaps I was not in the best place to receive the criticism, no matter how constructive.
Regarding the quantitative data, I stopped timing users when they attempted the second task - applying for a role as it took over 7 minutes, which exceeded my 2-minute goal. Users were not perceiving the content hierarchy as intended. One user didn't see the value of the LinkedIn integration, which had been a crucial aspect of the concept. They questioned the desirability of importing skills from LinkedIn, blurring their volunteering and professional activities. Fortunately, other participants found value in the integration but suggested that the concept should prioritise skill-building over utilising existing skills. One user mentions the app as not being fun to use. Using Sigma 6, I was finally able to get out of them that the app felt too much like a management tool rather than something they would consider picking up and using in their spare time. The incomplete onboarding screen and uninspiring copy, with placeholders for imagery clearly also left them cold and this could be an opportunity to set the tone with a good first impression with the next iteration.
Users also had difficulty finding the delete button and then saving after removing a skill for task 4, because it was off the screen and not close to the skills cards at the top. This oversight violated the Gestalt law of proximity (Yablonski, n.d.) and one of Jakob Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics, the visibility of the system (Nielsen, 1994:153) - there was no direct correlation between the button to remove and the items that needed removing. Two users suggested alternative conventions for deleting: swipe to delete and hold to delete. I hadn’t thought of these but was hesitant to use them once they had been suggested because they lacked signifiers that the functionality is there (Li, 2017). The emphasis is on the user, violating Don Norman's principle of discoverability (Norman, 2013:11). One possible idea would be to add a red line on the edge of each skill card to indicate the swipe-to-delete functionality, but this will need testing.
From the tests, I was able to distill the following insights:
The app needs to be more fun
Use copy to convey a lighter tone
Colourful styles
Playful imagery
Highlight additional uses other than professional growth
The app needs to be simplified
Clearer indication of functionality
Streamline onboarding
Focus on learning skills rather than utilising existing skills.
Remove the sliders when adding experience to a skill as these can be gamed.
Be Clearer on what reprioritising means
Resize the opportunities cards to take up less screen space. It’s so big the call to action is off the page when loading.
The app needs to better use conventions
The delete needs to be more obvious. When deleting it needs to better communicate the visibility of the system.
The app needs a more defined identity.
The app needs to focus on an MVP.
I felt drained after the testing and somewhat dejected, but I got the insight I needed. This was the jolt it really needed and something I could work towards but I was still struggling with how to achieve this in the timeframes I have left.
What went well
This was a tough one as I felt that it was a perfect storm. I was able to keep my composure during the testing and I was able to ask questions that revealed where I needed to improve. I have the list and this is good data to action so I feel there are positives here.
What could have gone better
To say I hadn't prepared for the usability tests would be inaccurate, as I had created questions in week 7 and updated them this week to match the situation as it is now. Clearly, I'm doing something wrong with my approach to prototyping. I need a way to work smarter as I really can't work any harder. I'm going to have to scale back what I can expect from the final prototype. In week 6 I produced a feature inventory of what I thought the app could contain based on the sketches and the few wire flows I had. I may have to omit areas that don't showcase the app's more innovative features, such as the user profile screen, and focus on flows based on skills management and LinkedIn. I also really want to ensure the endorsements area is completed as this is a key element. It's just a shame I missed an opportunity to test it at this stage.
Help from Friends
I really value the friendships I have made on this course, and during the second half of the module, I have really come to rely on the support from Carie Ng and Claire Burn. We have a private Discord server and chat about how we are getting on, sharing design critiques and tips and morale boosts. We discussed my dilemma with my app and the arduous approach I was taking with multiple screens. Claire suggested looking into components as a solution. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard of components as I had watched a video on them for the previous module, but I was scared off by them as I think the one I saw was fairly advanced. Thankfully Carie and Claire were able to provide me with the resources that look like a good introduction(Figma, 2021). I don’t think they’re going to be the silver bullet I need for everything, but I can already see they’ll work well for the changes needed to be made to the volunteering opportunities results, which is high on the priority list to change, as this will need to be in several places on the app and I won’t be able to update dozens at a time.
Carie also mentioned auto layout as another feature that could help improve my workflow and provided me with a video to watch for that (Showalter, 2021). It’s now my intent to halt production where it is on the app and focus on learning Figma for the next couple of days. Previously I spoke about jumping ship to Protopie but I think where I am right now means that’s probably a luxury I can’t afford, whereas at least I have a base knowledge of Figma.
I can't thank Carie and Clarie enough, I think it's going to be a tough few weeks to get this finished but I have more confidence at the end of the week than I did at the start.
SMART GOAL
Watch the videos on components and auto layout and see how I can apply them to my design.
References
FIGMA. 2021 . Figma tutorial: Interactive components. YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReNbXhaL3Xk&t=33s [accessed: 01/04/23].
LI, Angie. 2017. Using swipe to trigger contextual actions, Nielsen Norman Group. Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/contextual-swipe/ [accessed: 30/03/23].
NIELSEN, Jakob. 1994. ‘Enhancing the Explanatory Power of Usability Heuristics’. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 152–8.
NORMAN, Donald. 2013. ‘The design of everyday things’. New York: Basic Books.
SHOWALTER, Jesse. 2021 . Figma Auto Layout | Getting Started with Auto Layout. YouTube. Available at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReNbXhaL3Xk&t=33s [accessed: 01/04/23].
YABLONSKI, Jon. n.d. ‘Law of proximity, Laws of UX’.[online] Available at: https://lawsofux.com/law-of-proximity/ [accessed: 01/04/23].
Figures
Figure 1: CLARKE, Daniel. 2023. Usability testing of the Search Functionality with Nathan Flannery
Figure 2: CLARKE, Daniel. 2023. Identified usability issue on the search results CTA related to visibility on screen
Figure 3: CLARKE, Daniel. 2023. Two Identified usability issue identified on the onboarding process.
Figure 4: CLARKE, Daniel. 2023. insights on the Skills HQ page from the usability test
Comments