The goal of Dynamic Scheduler is to take the weight of scheduling off our user’s backs. The last report left the team mainly focused on making the application a more convenient experience as well as adding features to better optimize the usability of it as well. Our main goal was to design a wireframe of our application that would satisfy each simulation of a user’s scenario.
We gathered Cognitive Walkthrough feedback from three external Usability Engineering students (n=3) using the two-question approach [Spencer 2000]. We received walkthroughs for two persona scenarios: Eric and Dave. To replicate this approach, users must document their walkthrough of the app, and give feedback on any issues or problems they faced by answering the questions:
- “Will the user know what to do at this step?”
- “If the user does the right thing, will the user know that they did the right thing and is making progress toward the goal?”
The Software team collected informal feedback by asking the class (n~30) what features they think would improve the app. Four Software Engineering students provided their suggestions after the demo.
Because we received feedback for two scenarios, there were two types of encountered issues.
- For Eric, users found that there was no way to log in (lack of wireframe page) or sign out. There was also no way to exit the profile page.
- For Dave, users found that there was no way to sign in and there was no way to get to the “add-edit event” page.
For our wireframe, users noted that either we were missing pages or clearly missing a button that would navigate them to the desired page. Aside from that, the rest of our wireframe design was easy to understand.
Regarding the informal feedback, the class of software engineers made the following feature suggestions:
- Interact with other common applications such as Google Calendar
- Color code tasks based on priority of task
- Give task prerequisites
- Share tasks and events with other users
Overall, users suggested improvements that would make use of the app much simpler and more convenient by connecting to a commonly used app. There was also a strong interest in the customization of task attributes that would complement the dynamic aspect of scheduling.
Our UX team realized the Dynamic Scheduler application currently resembles a standard calendar application. Its most unique feature, the algorithm that automatically schedules tasks into free time based on a user’s priorities is hidden in the backend. While the interface should function as a straightforward calendar, it is important to highlight a powerful backend functionality that differentiates our application.
Our design recommendations offered a lot of insight. There were several things our entire UX team overlooked, but it helped us see things from a different perspective and make the changes we need for better usability. Overlooked features included: giving more attention to our navigation, returning to previous pages, and including buttons to navigate to the user's desired page. Basically, we need to add a better flow to our wireframe that the user will feel comfortable with.
The software team's class suggestions showed that we can greatly improve ease of use of our app by adding color coding, based on the priority of the task, this way the tasks that users prioritize stand out on the app.
One significant caveat tied to the cognitive walkthrough was that our wireframe (at the time) was not ready for all scenarios. We decided that the wireframe could only accommodate Eric’s scenario. Fortunately, we also got feedback for Dave’s walkthrough, but that left Bob’s walkthrough without feedback. To add, because we did not have a complete wireframe, some of the feedback was summed up with “no way to progress further” which will not help us in the long run. If we wanted to correct this issue, we would need to collect more cognitive walkthrough data based on our updated wireframe to get the most useful feedback. To understand the findings, it is important to know that the cognitive walkthrough was a class assignment: meaning that we were limited with the amount of feedback we received. More importantly, we did not have a complete wireframe to appropriately perform a cognitive walkthrough on.
A noteworthy limitation that came from the informal feedback is that we only received suggestions on features we could add and not feedback on the current state of the app. This was due to our team asking what features would improve the app rather than what existing features could be improved. This is an issue we have addressed by sending the software team a question that focuses on the current features of the Dynamic Scheduler application.