How and why the characteristics of the group affect the use of the system Tuomas Husu 2962010 Tuomas Husu Department of Computer Science 1 2962010 2 Tuomas Husu Department of Computer Science ID: 788171
Download The PPT/PDF document "The Usability of KONE DCS:" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
The Usability of KONE DCS: How (and why) the characteristics of the group affect the use of the system
Tuomas Husu
29.6.2010
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
1
Slide229.6.20102Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Research problem
Slide329.6.20103Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
What we did?
Slide4Group size2 persons4 personsDegree of acquaintance
“Friends”“Strangers”
DestinationSame
Different
29.6.2010
4
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
2
x
2
x
2 Factorial design
Slide5No.Combination
SizeFamiliarity
Destination1
A1 B1 C1
2
friends
same
2
A1 B1 C2
2
friends
different
3
A1 B2 C1
2
strangers
same
4
A1 B2 C2
2
strangers
different
5A2 B1 C14friendssame6A2 B1 C24friendsdifferent7A2 B2 C14strangerssame8A2 B2 C24strangersdifferent
29.6.2010
5
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
2
x
2
x
2 Factorial design:
Variable combinations
Slide629.6.20106Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Video 1
Slide729.6.20107Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Measures and covariates
Used left DOP
Problems: ID twice
T to DOP 3
s
T at DOP 4
s
Total time 20
s
Elevator B
Slide829.6.20108Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Measures and covariates
Used left DOP
Problems: ID twice
T to DOP 3
s
T at DOP 4
s
Total time 20
s
Elevator B
Used right DOP
Problems: no
T to DOP 2
s
T at DOP 7
s
Total time 22
s
Elevator B
Slide929.6.20109Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Measures and covariates
Used left DOP
Problems: ID twice
T to DOP 3
s
T at DOP 4
s
Total time 20
s
Elevator B
Used right DOP
Problems: no
T to DOP 2
s
T at DOP 7
s
Total time 22
s
Elevator B
Did not use DOP
Total time 16
s Elevator B
Slide1029.6.201010Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Measures and covariates
Used left DOP
Problems: ID twice
T to DOP 3
s
T at DOP 4
s
Total time 20
s
Elevator B
Used right DOP
Problems: no
T to DOP 2
s
T at DOP 7
s
Total time 22
s
Elevator B
Did not use DOP
Total time 16
s Elevator B Used left DOP Problems: no T to DOP 5
s T at DOP 3
sTotal time 15 s
Elevator B
Slide1129.6.201011Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Measures and covariates
Participant
Destination
Used DOP
Which DOP
Succeeded
Optimal
Elevator car
Missed the car
Was in time
Traffic jam
T to DOP
T at DOP
Elevator wait
Total time
12
8
T
R
T
T
BFTF2712258TLFF
BF
TT
3
4
0
20
4
8
F
B
F
T
F
16
13
8
T
L
T
T
B
F
T
F
5
3
0
15
Slide12Before and after29.6.201012
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
System usability scale (SUS)
…
…
Slide13Focus group interview afterwards Impressions about the system Objective of the system DOP: functions and ease of use Problems
Et cetera
29.6.2010
13
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Interview
Slide1429.6.201014Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Elevator Quiz!
Slide15On average: 22,4 seconds29.6.201015
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Total time
Slide1629.6.201016Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Total time
Slide1729.6.2010
17
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Total time
Slide1829.6.2010
18
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Total time
Slide19Interaction effect (total time)29.6.201019
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Total time
Friends
Strangers
Slide20On average: 84% used panel29.6.201020
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Did they use the panel?
Slide2129.6.2010
21
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Did they use the panel?
Slide2229.6.2010
22
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Did they use the panel?
Slide2329.6.2010
23
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Did they use the panel?
Slide24Interaction effect (share of people who used DOP)29.6.201024
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Did they use the panel?
Friends
Strangers
Slide25On average: 2 persons per elevator29.6.201025
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Persons per elevator
Slide2629.6.2010
26
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Persons per elevator
Slide2729.6.2010
27
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Persons per elevator
Slide2829.6.2010
28
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Persons per elevator
Slide29Interaction effect (persons per elevator car)29.6.2010
29
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Persons per elevator
Friends
Strangers
Slide30On average: 74% succeeded by first attempt29.6.201030
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: DOP success rate
Slide3129.6.2010
31
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: DOP success rate
Slide3229.6.2010
32
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: DOP success rate
Slide3329.6.2010
33
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: DOP success rate
Slide34Interaction effect (DOP call success rate)29.6.2010
34
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: DOP success rate
Friends
Strangers
Slide35Changes in success rate during the test29.6.201035
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: DOP learnability
Slide3629.6.201036Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results
Slide37No.Question
AvgBefore
AfterChange
1
I think that I would like to use this system frequently
4,4
4,4
4,4
± 0%
2
I found the system unnecessarily complex
1,5
1,5
1,5
± 0%
3
I thought the system was easy to use
4,2
4,3
4,2
− 2%
4
I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system1,51,61,4− 10%5I found the various functions in this system were well integrated3,94,13,6− 12%6I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system1,91,9
1,9+ 2%
7
I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly4,2
4,1
4,3
+ 4%
8
I found the system very cumbersome to use
1,7
1,6
1,8
+ 10%
9
I felt very confident using the system
4,1
4,1
4,1
± 0%
10
I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system
1,3
1,3
1,4
+ 7%
29.6.2010
37
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: SUS
Slide38No.Question
AvgBefore
AfterChange
1
I think that I would like to use this system frequently
4,4
4,4
4,4
± 0%
2
I found the system unnecessarily complex
1,5
1,5
1,5
± 0%
3
I thought the system was easy to use
4,2
4,3
4,2
− 2%
4
I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system1,51,61,4− 10%5I found the various functions in this system were well integrated3,94,13,6− 12%6I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system
1,91,9
1,9
+ 2%7
I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly
4,2
4,1
4,3
+ 4%
8
I found the system very cumbersome to use
1,7
1,6
1,8
+ 10%
9
I felt very confident using the system
4,1
4,1
4,1
± 0%
10
I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system
1,3
1,3
1,4
+ 7%
29.6.2010
38
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: SUS
Slide39Premises, views and elevator interiors were awesome Elevators moved fast and smoothly The more people in the hall, the more difficult it was Elevator hall was too narrow
DOP was difficult to use (buttons etc) It was difficult to distinguish elevators
No clue what ★ and − buttons were (DOP)
29.6.2010
39
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Results: Interviews
Slide40Things become complicated if something goes wrong with DOP call DOP time is ~4 seconds if everything is ok, but easily 10-30 seconds when problems occur (Quite often something goes wrong)
Other people gets away with elevators while others are struggling with
DOP’s
29.6.2010
40
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Conclusion
Slide41They used DOP more loyally than we expected (over 80%)…29.6.2010
41
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Conclusions: What else?
Slide4229.6.201042
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Video
2
Slide43They used DOP more loyally than we expected (over 80%) DOPs were surprisingly difficult to use…
77% succeeded at once
62% succeeded at once without errors
29.6.2010
43
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Conclusions: What else?
Slide4429.6.201044
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Video
3
Slide45They used DOP more loyally than we expected (over 80%) DOPs
were surprisingly difficult to use 77% succeeded at once
62% succeeded at once without errors
Elevators were not easily distinguishable…
29.6.2010
45
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Conclusions: What else?
Slide4629.6.201046
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Video
4
Slide47They used DOP more loyally than we expected (over 80%) DOPs
were surprisingly difficult to use 77% succeeded at once
62% succeeded at once without errors
Elevators were not easily distinguishable
Because of narrow corridor and placement of
DOP’s
the movement was not smooth…
29.6.2010
47
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Conclusions: What else?
Slide4829.6.201048
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Video
5
Slide49They used DOP more loyally than we expected (over 80%) DOPs were surprisingly difficult to use 77% succeeded at once
62% succeeded at once without errors Elevators were not easily distinguishable
Because of narrow corridor and placement of DOP’s
the movement was not smooth
29.6.2010
49
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Conclusions: What else?
Slide5029.6.201050
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Design implications
Slide5129.6.201051Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Design implications:
“Premises and people flow”
Slide5229.6.201052Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Design implications:
“Premises and people flow”
My destination is 15
th
floor!
D
Ok! Where is elevator D?
Oh, there!
Slide5329.6.2010
53
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Design implications:“Premises and people flow”
Slide5429.6.2010
54
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Design implications:“
DOP’s
elevator indication”
Slide5529.6.2010
55
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Design implications:“
DOP’s
special functions”
Slide5629.6.2010
56
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Design implications
Slide57Delay (authentication) Button sensitivity Visual feedback (buttons) Response time Timeout delay
29.6.2010
57
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Design implications:
“
DOP’s
technical polishing”
Slide5829.6.201058
Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science
Discussion