ZAPT Lo-Fi Prototyping and Usability Testing Akshaya Venkat Michael Zhou Tom Lehmann Brenna Smith

OVERVIEW  Overall Problem/Solution  Representative Tasks  Lo-Fi Prototypes  Experimental Method/Results  Suggested UI Changes

THE PROBLEM/SOLUTION ProblemSolution Lack of knowledge about exercising/workouts. Personalization of workout depending on goals. Proper tools/equipment/resourc es. Settings personalized goals. Customized workout plans + Tutorials for novices. Getting results report.

3 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS  Profile Setup and Body Scan.  Learning new exercises (Tutorials).  Getting interactive exercise feedback.

INTRODUCTION SCREEN

TASK 1 : PROFILE SETUP AND BODY SCAN

GOAL SELECTION 

TASK 2: LEARNING A NEW EXERCISE 

IF “YES” WAS SELECTED

IF “SKIP” WAS SELECTED

TASK 3: GETTING INTERACTIVE FEEDBACK

AFTER WORKOUT IS COMPLETED

EXPERIMENTAL METHOD: PROCESS  3 different participants.  Gender wise  Workout experience wise  Goal wise  Laid out paper prototypes screen by screen + script for voice interaction  Screens differed for each participant.  Video taped each participant for later analysis  Asked questions/took notes.

EXPERIMENTAL METHOD: PARTICIPANT 1 Male Rarely exercised Goals: balance, coordination, endurance. Provided us insight on how new exercisers would see the learning an exercise task (tutorial) which is mainly targeted at them.

EXPERIMENTAL METHOD: PARTICIPANT 2 Male Exercised occasionally Not a dedicated exerciser. Goals: strength/resistance/endurance. Liked outdoor activities.  Provided us insight on how a casual semi-experienced exerciser would perceive the application.

EXPERIMENTAL METHOD: PARTICIPANT 3 Female Exercised everyday Goals: endurance. Liked running/core workouts.  Provided valuable feedback on how experienced users who may know much of the information presented perceive the value of the application.

TEST MEASURES  Main concern: ease of voice vs. touch interactions.  Kept track of users looking confused during the interface flows.  Kept track of how long tasks took and if they were intuitive.  Voice vs. Touch preferences.  Asked questions at the end about hybrid interface.

GENERAL EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS  3/3 Easy to understand and had a good flow.  2/3 Touch over Voice (Although both convenient).  3/3 Voice feedback was helpful.

TASK 1 RESULTS PROFILE SET UP AND BODY SCAN  Participant 1: Body scan was awkward.  Participant 2: Knew how to use body scan and pick goals immediately.  Participant 3: Performed it fine but had some issues with picking goals

TASK 2 RESULTS LEARNING NEW EXERCISES (TUTORIALS).  1/3 Skipped tutorial and went straight for the stretch.  2/3 Said tutorial was helpful / easy to understand  3/3 Enjoyed performing the task. Voice feedback was “amusing” / “helpful”

TASK 3 RESULTS GETTING INTERACTIVE EXERCISE FEEDBACK.  3/3 understood how to get body status feedback/ used it well.  3/3 Clicked home page button to complete the test  3/3 questioned the purpose of “X” on last screen.  3/3 understood purpose and found it useful/ innovative.

SUGGESTED UI CHANGES  Removing “X” from last last screen- redundant.  Being thrown back to the goals menu after choosing one goal was confusing  Drop down menus instead of popups.  Having a “status” button to click on instead of saying “status”.

THANKS FOR WATCHING!