The title says it all.
Project was submitted and presented during week 10
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
Week 9 Status Report
Week 9 Status Report
Tasks completed:
-Compiled user testing data from week 8 testing (Pat, James : 90 minutes)
-Built PowerPoint presentation for Monday's demo (team : 120 minutes)
-Polished off application for submission (Pat, James : 60 minutes)
Next week's tasks:
-Submit project (team)
-Presentation
Problems:
Still going well, no serious problems.
Tasks completed:
-Compiled user testing data from week 8 testing (Pat, James : 90 minutes)
-Built PowerPoint presentation for Monday's demo (team : 120 minutes)
-Polished off application for submission (Pat, James : 60 minutes)
Next week's tasks:
-Submit project (team)
-Presentation
Problems:
Still going well, no serious problems.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Week 8 Status Report
Week 8 Status Report
Tasks completed:
-Built user walkthrough surveys and scripts (1.5 hours) Pat, Adim, James
-Performed 10 walkthroughs (3 hours) Pat, Adim, James
Next week's tasks:
-Submit project (team)
Problems:
Still going well, no serious problems.
Tasks completed:
-Built user walkthrough surveys and scripts (1.5 hours) Pat, Adim, James
-Performed 10 walkthroughs (3 hours) Pat, Adim, James
Next week's tasks:
-Submit project (team)
Problems:
Still going well, no serious problems.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Week 7 Status Report
Week 7 Status Report
Tasks completed:
-Heuristic evaluations during Wednesday's class time (45 minutes)
-Prototype completed (Team) ~4 total hours
Next week's tasks:
-Begin user testing (team)
-Work on Assignment 4 (individual projects)
Problems:
Still going well, no serious problems.
Tasks completed:
-Heuristic evaluations during Wednesday's class time (45 minutes)
-Prototype completed (Team) ~4 total hours
Next week's tasks:
-Begin user testing (team)
-Work on Assignment 4 (individual projects)
Problems:
Still going well, no serious problems.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Week 6 Status Report
Week 6 Status Report
Tasks completed:
Tasks completed:
- Test Plan Document prep work (~1-2 hrs a piece):
Jimmy - Usability evaluations goals / Schedule
Adim - Concerns / Data collection methodology
Pat - Target audience background / Subject selection background
Matt - Logistics / Materials design
- Most of this week was spent working on Assignment 3 deliverables, so
in turn it was a rather light week on our project.
Next week's tasks:
- Assignment 3 continuation (individual)
- Assignment 3 continuation (individual)
- Heuristic Evaluation
- Deliverable 3 for Friday
Problems:
Still going well, no serious problems.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Week 5 Status Report
Week 5 Status Report
Tasks completed:
-Built Design document (Written by Pat, with feedback by team, 2 hours)
-Interface design patterns (Jimmy, Pat, Adim, 1 hour)
Next week's tasks:
-Assignment 3 (Broken teams)
-Prep for exam (Individual)
-Begin looking into testing planning (Matt, 1 hour)
Problems:
None so far!
Tasks completed:
-Built Design document (Written by Pat, with feedback by team, 2 hours)
-Interface design patterns (Jimmy, Pat, Adim, 1 hour)
Next week's tasks:
-Assignment 3 (Broken teams)
-Prep for exam (Individual)
-Begin looking into testing planning (Matt, 1 hour)
Problems:
None so far!
Monday, April 6, 2009
User Feedback
From our interaction with user walkthroughs in class last week, we got the following feedback:
Our current mouse layout is a little confusing. The previous layout had a single arrow for minimal mouse movement, and an arrow with a bar for larger movement. Users thought the arrow with bar implied the mouse would be moved to the edge of the screen. This was replaced with something like this:
> >> >|
Now you can have minimal movement, larger movement, and then jumps to the edge of the screen. This should alleviate any user confusion. These changes were reflected in Pat Day's assignment 2.
Our current mouse layout is a little confusing. The previous layout had a single arrow for minimal mouse movement, and an arrow with a bar for larger movement. Users thought the arrow with bar implied the mouse would be moved to the edge of the screen. This was replaced with something like this:
> >> >|
Now you can have minimal movement, larger movement, and then jumps to the edge of the screen. This should alleviate any user confusion. These changes were reflected in Pat Day's assignment 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)