1. 11/08/051 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering, November 08, 2005 Team Stilton Blue: Zach Brock,Luis Diego Cabezas, Alex Dorsk Faculty Adviser: Prof. Lynn Andrea Stein

2. Goal: to learn about interface design by designing a more usable car sound system for people in their mid-twenties. Our design process Our current design Lessons learned 11/08/052 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Overview

3. User interviews Identification of design goals Creation of test personas Making initial designs Testing initial designs with personas and through low-fi prototypes Design refinement Making hi-fi prototypes 11/08/053 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Our design process

4. We interviewed passengers and drivers. We asked them What they do in their cars How they use their current sound systems What they want their sound systems to do 11/08/054 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue User Interviews

5. Identified from the user interview data. Specific goals unique to our users: Being able to drive safely while using a system Being able to use auxiliary music players (i.e. iPods) while driving Being able to use cellphones while driving 11/08/055 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Design Goals

6. We then created test personas in order to test our designs. The personas: College-aged, but varied Different levels of expertise Different goals Different expectations 11/08/056 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Creating Test Personas

7. 11/08/057 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Test Personas

8. Our first designs had features such as: Large, graphical mode buttons and a touch screen Steering wheel controls Integration with a car’s main computer Integrated auxiliary device controls Cellphone controls 11/08/058 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Initial Designs

9. We tested our initial designs in the context of our personas. We also used low-fidelity paper prototypes to test our designs with real users. 11/08/059 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Testing Initial Designs

10. 11/08/0510 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Low-fidelity Prototypes

11. Tests with personas and paper prototypes told us how we could refine our designs. We decided to: Simplify displays Maintain standard modes in our design display only interface components for the current mode 11/08/0511 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Design Refinement

12. We then narrowed our ideas into a single design and created a hi-fidelity prototype that could be used for testing. 11/08/0512 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Hi-fidelity Prototype

13. Feedback led to the following choices: Make the design minimalist Reduce number of options in each mode Don’t replicate auxiliary functions Keep information density low 11/08/0513 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Feedback and Changes

14. Attempted to maintain familiar interactions The dynamic panel physically rotates to provide a different button layout in each mode The static panel contains the options and controls available in all modes 11/08/0514 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue First Interactive Prototype

15. Is easy to use and learn The simplicity limits errors Maintains mental model of radio Physically separates different modes 11/08/0515 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Advantages

16. Limits range of interaction Requires adapting to current mode before using There is an imposed time delay due to the physical changing of modes 11/08/0516 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Disadvantages

17. Let’s see what the first interactive prototype looks like… 11/08/0517 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Demo of Interactive Prototype

18. Testing early with users helps Doing test run-throughs (walking through the script, etc.) helps make tests effective It’s hard to think of new ideas when you have ideas that work, especially in existing or mature systems KISS: Keep it simple, stupid 11/08/0518 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Lessons Learned

19. 11/08/0519 Olin CollegeHFID – Team Stilton Blue Questions?