1. Final Presentation August 4, 2004
TireTracks
Final Presentation
August 4, 2004
Sarah Culberson Jim McCullough Kenton Kline Jesse Kriss Jina Huh

2. HOOK

3. Our Mission Statement
Design a jukebox car stereo that is usable, desirable, and safe in the car context, taking in account constraints from our client (technical, design, schedule)

4. Project Strategy Identify user intents
2. Address intents through design and functionality
3. Iteratively refine designs to optimize usability, desirability, and safety
Learn and explore mental models, motivations, usage scenarios for representative users
Create innovative concepts that address as many intents as possible
Design desirable concepts
Minimize critical incidents
Maximize intuitiveness and learnability

5. Process

6. In a nutshell…

7. Step 1: Identify User Intents
Initial brainstorming
Background research
Competitive analysis
Analyzed 25+ current stereos
Identified what’s currently in the marketplace
Interviews with digital music owners and commuters
16 interviews
Identified mental models and user intents

8. Step 1: Identify User Intents
Maximize and make my commute good
Create or enhance mood
Easy access to music
Easily organize music
Listen with minimal effort
Don't get sick / bored of the same music
Enjoy same music everywhere effortlessly
Use car as opportunity for customization
Be safe

9. Step 2: Address Intents through design and functionality
Paper prototypes
Designed by category and use cases
50+ designs
6 unique design exercises
Digital Prototype
Implemented a consolidated design in a physical prototyping environment (Java/ Flash)

10. Step 2: Address Intents through design and functionality

11. Step 3: Optimize usability, desirability, & safety
User Testing (Phases A & B)
18 TA studies
Tested usability of Ripping, Playback and Playlist Creation concepts
Built Driving Simulator
User Testing (Phases C & D)
12 TA studies
Tested usability, desireability, and safety of entire interface and individual paradigms

12. Final Design

13. Overview Major concepts More like this Managing information
Shallow browse
Favs
“Find more songs like this”
“I wonder what song is coming next”
“Let me find…”
“These are my favorite songs”

14. More Like This

15. More Like This

16. More Like This Intents addressed: Easy access to music
Listen with minimal effort
Create or enhance mood
Don't get sick / bored of the same music
Be safe
Maximize and make my commute good

17. Evolution of More Like This

18. More Like This Rationale:
Support mood: Addresses people’s desires to listen to large libraries of music by mood instead of a specific song
React to the song: Allows a listener to “react” positively to a song by generating a list of similar songs
One button access to smart list

19. Managing information

20. Managing information

21. Managing information Intents addressed: Easy access to music
Listen with minimal effort
Don't get sick / bored of the same music
Use car as opportunity for customization
Be safe

22. Evolution of managing information

23. Managing information Rationale:
Customize the interface: Giving users the opportunity to customize their interface and experience by two distinct states
One button toggling between the two states: Labeling the button as ‘Display’ is easier for the users to understand and use
Some people want to browse songs often depending on their moods
Some people wanted simple interaction/ display
Users don’t necessarily have to understand what the two states do in order to switch back and forth in between

24. Shallow Browse

25. Shallow Browse

26. Shallow Browse Intents addressed: Easy access to music
Listen with minimal effort
Create or enhance mood
Don't get sick / bored of the same music
Be safe
Maximize and make my commute good

27. Evolution of Shallow Browse

28. Shallow Browse Rationale:
Quick access to desired groups of music: Double press button to generate a new list of the same genre, artist, album and playlist
Support browsing by genre, artist, album or playlist

29. Favs

30. Favs

31. Favs Intents addressed: Easy access to music
Listen with minimal effort
Don't get sick / bored of the same music
Be safe
Use car as opportunity for customization

32. Evolution of Favs

33. Favs
Rationale:
Music repository: For a good balance of flexibility and complexity in a car interface
One button press to save, and access favorite music

34. Results (how did we do…?)

35. Interactive Prototype with User’s Own Music

36. How did we gather data?
User test video Snippet here

37. … how usable is it?
Need creative foto – hammer and nail

38. Usability Goals Minimize serious problems (critical incidents)
Difficult to set specific numeric goals

39. Iterative Testing and Redesign Drives Improvement

40. Iterative Testing and Redesign Drives Improvement

41. Usability Usability tested very well overall in final user test round
Some areas needing more research:
Seek button is confusing
Push-turn knob not easily discoverable
Text truncation – we suspect this could be issue even though it wasn’t for our users

42. … is it safe?

43. Safety Goals Qualitative: "Trajectory of simplification”
Quantitative: < 20 second total glance time per task

44. Simple Tasks Meet Criteria
Lower  Complexity  Higher

45. Complexity vs. Skill Level
<
>

46. Safety “Arbitrary” browsing not safe while driving.
Shallow browsing and simple queue operations show high safety potential for expert users (need to test) but makes novices feel unsafe
Designed to support a range of intents from “control” to “simplicity”
Shallow browse versus More like This, Scan, and Seek.
Will users be able to decide the correct feature for their context? Long-term study needed.

47. … is it intuitive and learnable?

48. Button Label as Cue to its Use
“Without touching the interface, please explain what you expect each of the buttons to do”

49. Confusing Functionality Becomes Clear with Practice

50. Intuitiveness and Learnability
Most button labels offer strong cues as to their underlying functionality
Feature that were not initially obvious seemed quite learnable with exploration and practice
Seek functionality needs more work to build user’s mental model with the label

51. … do they like it?

52. Encouraging Results…

53. Desirability
Addressed usefulness / desirability through designing to user intents
Initial study indicates comparable experience to car radio
Study of six users in Phase D
Measured as degree of enjoyability / frustration
Positive signal considering the short time they used the interface.
Need long-term study to really assess this

54. Conclusion

55. Recommendations More Like This algorithm Dynamic playlists
Offline playlist management
Ability to transfer playlists by cd
Music Transfer
Steering wheel functionality
Audible feedback
Say letter or name when hovering
Beep when queue changes
music transfer - include keychain

56. Lessons Learned People Moods vs. specific music
Organization vs. listening
Range of values from control to simplicity

57. Lessons Learned Client Interaction Concurrent timelines inefficient
Lack of domain knowledge in the car stereo and overall car safety domain made it unrealistic for us to develop and test specific, numeric metrics (especially with regard to identifying safety goals)

58. Lessons Learned Process Process design is iterative
Information visualization is essential
Co-location was crucial to success

59. Thank You.