Boonjour NM4210!

Setting Up The IA Framework
The emphasis for this week is on mounting the Information Architecture (IA) for the project. Heeding Mr.Reddy’s advice for an improvisation of various IA techniques to encompass an maximum coverage on user’s partiality, we decided to go for a hybrid of our own IA style: Improvising cardsorting + persona-focused, observation + common task analysis + storyboard. Why a person-focused cardsorting, you might have asked? Because our idea is a novelty, we really wanted it to zoom into our target users, hence person-focused cardsorting would make our IA more target-focused.

Our IA Approach

* Cardsorting
We did a preliminary analysis, brainstorming all possible attributes that could come out from our head, that would connect with our carparking theme, effectively coming up with a content inventory of approximately 40 odd items. We then filter the inventory list by striking off either duplicated or highly similar items. With that, the list was shortened further and eventually identified 30 main items for users to perform the cardsorting on.

Needless to say, cardsorting itself is a useful tool that is exceptional in identifying how users group data, as well as how they would make the data flow. As what was mentioned previously, we are going for an improvised approach in gather user groupings of data: Targeted persona card sorting. As such, we will be approaching users directed from our Advanced and Novice personas, but voiding Anti-Users since instinctively due to credibility issue; they wouldn’t be keen on our proposal anyway, hence their results might be highly biased and pre-disposed. With all the settings in placed, we arranged for 12 sessions of cardsorting, a mixture of online (generic, overview) and offline (targeted, focused) sessions.

For the offline (targeted) group of users, we have actually prepared the materials: physical sets of 30 cards and coloured stickers beforehand, for them to physically perform the cardsorting process. We begin the sessions by briefing them, highlighting our intentions of this test, introducing the tools (cards) and showing them a quick demo on how to do it: grouping by pasting colour tabs onto item cards. For this specific group, we also kept a close eye on their actions, observing their expressions and reactions when card sorting. We felt that it was necessary to study the context in which a task is being performed by observing and experiencing tasks as from that, we can identify which are the tasks that are really intuitive and which requires closer thoughts.

As we hope for more user feedbacks for identifying common groupings between user, we decided to branch out our IA to more people via the online group. We discovered a great tool, that’s free of charge, interactive and helpful in results consolidation into excel: the online cardsorting exercise via Optimalsort.com. We setup our cardsorting questionaire on OptimalSort.com, including some introduction and highlights that would guide them through on our exercise. They are then required to name classification categories, of how they would group the items by dragging and dropping into these categories. Through this online group, we would be hopeful of settling the disparities that could arise between diff point of views in classifying certain items, which would indirectly help in better establishing the majority’s common perspective.

* Common User Task Analysis
The online results were compiled similar to that of offline card sorting sessions. The OptimalSort results consolidation tool made life simpler for us, so what we eventually did was to use eye-ball analysis to identify common groupings between users. Out of which we discovered readily the following groupings:

a. Carpark Info
b. Booking Info
c. Member Details
d. Statistics
e. Viewing of live Info
f. Search
g. FAQ

With the above common groupings identified, it made life easier for us as we are able to analyze further and identify the common user tasks associated with them. Identifying common user tasks are essential because they would be what that what defines the system and associates the user with the system. As such, the 6 key user tasks, based on what we unearthed in the previous sections are:

1. Search
2. Log In/Out
3. Registration
4. View Info
5. Website Booking
6. SMS Booking

* Storyboarding
These 6 common user tasks would be pivotal in our next step: Storyboarding of information workflows. With common groupings and common user tasks in place, we analyzed all possible workflows, refined and derived a flow chart of information/procedural flow for each common user task. Each flow chart would be analogous to that of a procedural cycle. As such, we have to down key details such as process descriptors, user’s interaction, process input and output, so as to fully document the storyboard. The storyboards (an example shown below for booking) would be particularly vital in the next phase: prototyping, which we are really excited about.

Reflections
IA is probably one of the dullest phases that we had anticipated before its arrival. As mentioned in the previous post, being students in Computing, we rarely seek feedbacks from users, and it had somewhat affected us in our entrance into this IA phase. We (Alvin and I) often felt that IA is redundant, that we can also decide for the users, such as ‘Now these are the links, these are exactly what you have to do to reach this step’. We wanted to organize the content for the website or application directly, often having the urge to go straight into doing our way, but were often reminding ourselves to focus on users. Hence, we thought it would be a ‘formality’ procedure. But we were proven wrong. We were somewhat surprised by the outcomes of cardSorting. Some of the classifications are really what we never thought of, and it seems to be such a good remedy for a few of our dilemmas. What we would have done, is really different from what the users have provided us. It really brought us another perspective, which is really more ‘accurate’, since it would be really what the users one. This provides valuable input for understanding the natural categories people have for the content before we begin the design of the new structure.

One point that we constantly remind ourselves is to observe the users, and it’s a really useful technique for our cause. The notes that we took down while observing our offline users helped a great deal in our decisions for identify common user’s task. Furthermore, we realized, as programmers, sometimes our point of view is confusing for users. This is very true indeed, after observing and comparing how users group and how we will do it our way. We are also thankful that we sought the feedbacks from the online group of users, as it really aided us aplenty in concurring the disparities arising between the offline targeted users. We achieved greater insights into what the common groupings will be. However, we sincerely believe that for massive projects, we really need to conduct and consider the inputs from users (targeted):

Reflection quote of my own: Every users are unique; everyone have different ways of grouping, but most have something in common. Hence, even when it’s impossible to please all, we should at least try to please the common majority.

Laying The Groundworks
With the Needs Analysis last week seemingly won over the class of the car-parking idea’s potential, we progressed to the next phase of the project: drafting out the requirement specifications for the product. To assist us in gathering forthright insights into user’s need and expectations of our impending solution, we gathered users (mainly drivers) for a focus group to get their open feedback and initial reactions as well as hear them discuss their preferences for our solution.

The focus group yielded a fruitful session, where we can evidently notice significant needs in the final product. The more noteworthy ones that are more central to the product UX are as follows:

• Timeliness: car-park information should be realtime and up-to-date (status, availability).
• Directions: booking procedures should be clear & succinct.
• Credibility: for booking, user must be notified and assured of the lot acquired
• Navigation: ease of browsing (organized and intuitive).
• Accessibility: alternatives way to access information (Internet & SMS).
• Speed: service should have minimal latency.
• Affordability: service should be free or of minimal cost.

Having laid the groundwork for user’s expectation in the impending solution, we then have to formalize our target users, ascertaining them as drivers who visit frequently during the packed out hours the car-parks that will be implemented in our service. Within them, we categorized two significant groups of potential users: namely the convenience seekers and price conscious, whose characteristics are pretty implicit.

Specifying The Requirements
Now we’re right on track for the serious business! Adopting a user-centric design approach in drafting the functional requirements , we track back and refer to an important document that we had done up previously, the informal list of user’s needs. From them, we formulate 3 main genres of requirements that would be definitive for our eventual product: the aesthetics, workflow and interactivity.

To be concise, aesthetically, users are hoping for a clean and visually pleasing website that has a balance of visuals and animations, yet bearing the element of simplicity. Information should also be organized and should be too cluttered up. Workflow wise, users seems to be justifiably frustrated with having to navigate deep into websites to acquire the things they want in their previous experiences. Hence, they do not hope to see this problem happen in our implementation. Clearly, they are seeking for minimal navigation effort (minimal clicks to intended service or option: we’re hoping for less than 3 levels of navigation). As a plus point, they would also hope to have different alternative modes of accessing the system. In terms of interactivity, users emphasize on design concepts of affordance and mapping. They hope to manipulate the website in a fashion that us familiar to them. They hope to receive prompt feedbacks through friendly sound and animations rather than typical error message, as well as the ability to interactively manipulate statistical information when comparing carparks. As such, we have to utilize appropriate animation & user interaction to enhance user experience.

Keeping these 3 categories in mind, they will vital in guiding us in keeping to the right track in the later stages, notably design and prototyping phases to deliver the user experience that we hope to bring out.

Emergence of Solution
One more step ahead! We’re finally ready to define our impending solution.
We hope to deliver an informational and booking system that will integrate car-park information across the various car park venues & operators. Target venues would be car-parks that are already digitally installed, such as town and CBD areas (and in future, we could expand to neighbourhood areas like AMKHub, Tampines which are digitally installed).

The product should empower drivers to plan ahead without having to be physically present in the car-park vicinity to check the status. It should also allow users place bookings effortless which, in a way, grants assurance of being able to acquire a lot, that would negates the sense of uncertainty that they previously encountered. The product would also present various alternative modes of operation – Internet & SMS so that information can be readily accessible anywhere, anytime. More importantly, the product itself should provide a definitive car park-ing experience by overturning present negative car-parking attitudes into a pleasurable and positive car-parking experience.

Staging Experience Strategies
Now, we’re lacking a very important fraction of our product specifications. What good is a UX product if it does not encompass good experience strategies? No worries, We had it all covered. Inspired by Apple, we felt it was necessary to establish dynamics that ensure the product achieves the feel that we hope the user to uniquely experience with our product. To be short and snappy, these are the more vital ones that is pivotal to our experience strategies.

• Key Differentiator
  - Users’ pleasurable experience of acquiring car park lots
  o without being physically present and laboriously sourcing for one
• Sensorial Aspect
  - An experiential approach of satisfaction
  o Sense of achievement, comfort and relief
  o Saving time and physical effort
• Symbolic Aspect
  - Novelty to date
  - Combining physical car park with technology
  - New experience of car-parking
• Meaningful/Practicality Aspect
  - Convenient and efficient one-stop driver guide and tool
  - Provide timely and prompt information
  - “You’ve got it” sentiment

To conclude the product specifications: ultimately, we hope to present a solution that would transform car-parking experience into a pleasurable and assuring experience.

Peer Feedbacks
As we did not bring in GPS into our presentation, questions were raised on the exclusion of GPS in our solution. We actually included GPS in our implementation, but besides the lack of time in implementing it for this module, the adoption rate of GPS also isn’t that widespread in Singapore as yet. That is why we are shelving it GPS implementation off for now, deciding to focus on the 2 channels that are already common utilized in SG (SMS & Internet). Nevertheless, it was a good point raised by as we too, foresee that GPS in Singapore will be commonplace in years to come, and an imminent GPS implementation of our system would definitely enhance the user experience of car-parking to a higher level.
(For more insights on the increase in adaptation of GPS, please refer to the article quoted in my teammate (Alvin)’s UX blog)

Reflections
Honestly speaking, I’d learnt a great deal in the preparation for the deliverables for this phase. User-centered approaches are indeed advantageous, although I felt it was rather tedious and time-consuming, as it is indeed a laborious iterative process: every week we have to get back to the users, and then analyze and evaluation findings.

As part of computing students and programmers, very often we do not seek user’s opinions in our projects. We do not understand or even bother how the things we develop will affect the users. Hence, many times in this project, I often have the tendency to sway away from seeking user opinions, thereby needing the extra effort to keep reminding myself to keep probing users. It was only till the interactions with the users, that changed my standpoints entirely. I felt that delving deep into user’s needs and requirements did gave us surprisingly new and different insights to explore, sometimes they are really useful suggestions and even perspectives that I had never and perhaps could never envision before. However, as we’re still dealing with a very small sample size of users, there might be a need for more users to participate to get a more balanced evaluation. That aside, I would really think that it is through these users, who could be turn out to be our eventual end-users, that we can develop a product whos functional specifications is exactly something that is really close to their heart. And perhaps, that’s what defines a fine User Experience.

After all the turmoil last week, we finally hit the road and got off to developing a more comprehensive Needs Analysis for a ‘mock’ pitching proposal and pitching presentation to the class as users. This is a vital phase as it’s supposedly a make-or-break instance: we have to justify the need and convince the class that this is indeed a need to unravel, before we can ultimately advance and develop the product.

The Preparation
My team went into another enduring session of brainstorming early in the week to get ready the contents for the proposal and presentation. We took a systematic approach, researching into present car-parking experience: identifying target users, a preliminary investigation into the problems of present car-parking experience, possible modes of delivering, and the potential benefits of solution. With that, we laid the foundation of a mini literature review as well as the overview concept of what we hope to materialize.

We decided to probe further for our needs analysis, questioning more drivers this time round, and more probing into the problems they face with present car-parking experience: whether car-parking appeals to them as a positive or negative experience, what they would hope to be done to resolve this, and which are the things they will be looking towards for in the impending solution. From there, we move on to the collating the data of the user’s need surveys from all team members, analysis and evaluating them to produce a concise Needs Assessment.
A general synopsis of what we had analyzed from the Needs Assessment is the majority of drivers in Singapore actually have a negative perception towards car-parking in Singapore, particularly the town and crowded CBD areas. They felt that car-park lots are scarce and expensive, and the queue before entering the car-parks is particularly maddening. Very often the queue is often so long at peak hours and weekends, often causing traffic congestion as they stretch from the main road right to the entrance of the car-park, leaving them at a standstill, practically motionless and helpless. Worse still, they felt a sense of uncertainty and clueless about the then car-park status, and were at a complete loss at how long they have to wait to secure admission into the car-park, not to mention on finding the rare available lots within the car-park. As such, the mental states of these drivers generally perturbed, highly impatient and extremely exasperated, but they had no choice but to endure as this is generally the way of life for driving in Singapore, they felt. This is a very typical Singaporean issue indeed, and we are pretty positive that these user’s sentiments would be substantial in convincing the users that we will be encountering in the presentation.

The Day Has Come
Yes, the anxious day has arrived. Following the lecture, Mr. Reddy commenced the mock presentation. One by one, the groups pitched their projects in the hope of convincing the class of their ideas. To be honest, I was pretty shocked at the way the session had progressed, especially for the first few presentations (the ‘improved’ IVLE and Food ones in particular); the class was pretty heated u and hostile! To be exact, many groups were devastated when their presentations hit rock-bottom, hurled with never-ending ‘missiles’. Some audience apparently do not see eye-to-eye with the ideas, more often the part in concurring whether the idea was genuinely a need. Even though the group justified their stands, some audience persistently and critically questioned that most of their needs are not exactly needs, but more of ’self-wants’ and ‘improvements to existing implementations’, which are the needs for only small fraction of the community. For some, the benefits (product) of their needs seem to be of little significance to the community, which left the audience quizzical about the feasibility of team’s possible solution to the need. However, I felt this is way too premature to pronounce.

Crunch Time
Very soon, it was our time to present. With all the tension heated up, we were really uneasy, but were prepared and cautious. Thankfully, for our presentation, it was a breeze as most of the class got the gist of our needs analysis and were generally receptive towards it as a need. Although many of them aren’t drivers, they understand and were aware of the frustrations that their family encountered when trying to park in crowded places. Of course, there were some doubts on inherent physical infrastructure as well as the uncertainties surrounding the novel approach in making car-park ‘bookable’ online. For these queries, we had foreseen them coming and hence we were rather smooth at tackling them. With regards to the novel approach in making bookings online for car-park lots, its common that people will be skeptical but its still to early to tell, but we’re pretty convinced that it will work out. As for the physical infrastructure, it’s trickier. As we’re developing an interactive product to transform the car-parking experience, the physical infrastructure is something that we cannot possible lay our hands on, unless we’re really implementing it with the real official authorities that allows us to do so. But yes, although we can’t liaise with the authorities, we still did our homework in coming out with the various possible solutions and alternatives in modifying the physical infrastructure (subtle modifications so as not to affect too much on existing infrastructures).

But the most comforting moment has got to be instance after our presentation, our closer friends turned to us and commented “hey, great idea, one of the best in class!”, remarking that it’s indeed is a good need (and a real massive need that a solution to it would definitely entice the entire population). Ultimately, while there are a few reservations surround the implementation, the class generally felt that this might be the solution that would revolutionize car-parking experience for the better, which was good, exactly what we hoped to achieve!

REFLECTIONS
I strongly feel that there are plenty of UX issues out there that remained unsolved. However, we often fail to notice/ think of them, and more often, we complicate things by thinking that the UX remedies would be complex and knotty, but we did not realize how simple the need can be resolved. For our case, negative car parking experience is a prevalent issue, everybody knows that but seemingly everyone thinks that it would take a hero to resolve this tricky ‘experience’ issue. But the fact is that a more pleasurable user experience can perhaps be achieved, simply by providing accessible information for people to plan ahead. Though simple, it brings out a totally different (hopefully positive) user experience.

Also, with regards to all the presentations in general, it seems apparent that user experience and needs does varies from people to people. While some finds certain issues a need, some don’t, due to different inborn settings, upbringing, perspectives and experiences.

Ultimately, I felt that life experience and exposure is a factor in UX receptivity: to justify users of their needs, as well as for the user to understand and be convinced.

The Early Blow
My team and I began brainstorming on ideas way ahead before the official commencement of the project. Inspired by the physical product that Mr. Reddy mentioned: the Kneon beer bottle, (as we thought that creating a physical product would be more interesting than creating interactive web content), we went towards that direction of creating physical products, coming out with a lengthy shortlist of ideas comprising of: a multi-functional female urinal (of various designs), 5-way highlighter that is slim and handy, shirt hanger that digitally adapts to fit the varying sizes of shirt, and even rebranding of Thinkpad laptop through LED screens on the laptop cover to change perception of Thinkpad as a hideous and unexciting laptop.

We were really keen on presenting these ideas on that preliminary proposal session with Mr. Reddy, but was devastated (really shattered) when these initial ideas were utterly slammed and rejected. An entire month of effort was practically wasted! Mr. Reddy did not agree with our multi-function female urinal as he felt this product already existed and adding functions to it will not be appealing, and he went strongly against the idea of rebranding Thinkpad, as he felt rebranding isn’t the focus of ‘needs’, particularly this module isn’t about branding.

The Wise Man Speaks
Mr. Reddy raised up an important pointer that entirely changed our perspective of the final project (for the better). Instead of going in the direction of creating the new products first, then addressing the need, the focus should start with identify user’s needs; REAL needs that existed, and then focus on solving them through the product. It only made sense, and woke us up entirely as we were blindly heading in the wrong direction! It was very true as we had the dilemma of having a new product that we tried to forcefully add interactivity to it and then tried to convince ourselves it was a need.

It shouldn’t be that way.

Nature Took Its Course
That really woke us up and gave us a correct direction to head to. Now comes the big brainstorm: identifying user needs in present setting. I was pretty frustrated initially as I realized all possible needs that I can think of seems to be already solved, and sometimes they are solved so simply. Yet, I firmly believe there must be a need somewhere, which we never realized. Deciding to reflect on common needs relevant to my social circle (as commoners in the population), I realized a rather significant need that’s commonplace which I’d overlooked: the need to transform car-parking negative experience. There are plenty of antagonists in Singapore who are really frustrated with parking in town (some do not even want to drive but take public transport to town areas), and the uncertainty when queuing only makes driving n parking unpleasant and annoying. This struck my mind and gave me a surge of motivation: Why hasn’t someone tried to resolve this problem? Maybe I’m the first? Went on to research online on such systems, no results! Not in Singapore, not even in other countries, I guess I’m creating a novelty, something that I’d never thought of, but this might be it!

Conveyed the idea across to the group and they seem rather excited by this need. To double-confirm, we followed up with some quick dialogue with our family and friends, whom we asked just one simple question: is car-parking during weekends frustrating to you? A unanimous ‘YES’, certifies that it indeed is a need. Furthermore, when they knew that we’re developed a product to alleviate this issue, their face lit up surprisingly but pleasantly, seemingly glad with the idea. It really is intuitive; focus on real user’s need, product would naturally prove useful.

At the same time, Alvin came up with the iCalorie suggestion, which was also an ideal need, due to health concerns reported in both TV News and Newspaper that Singaporeans aren’t health conscious in the food they are taking in. Stuck between the 2 ideas and undecided, we arranged a crunch-time consultation with Mr. Reddy to seek his opinion on the feasibility of these 2 ideas. He seems fine with both ideas as they both seems promising, but he has a preference for car-parking as he felt more strongly that the car-parking need would prove rather fruitful. He was supportive and interested towards it, furthermore it was something that was unique and different from the previous batches. Thus, that marked our start (finally, after so many ‘bumps’ and ’swells’ mentally), and our progress for this novelty got underway. We are excited!

A good lesson learned indeed: Mr. Reddy’s wise reminder of the approach of examining needs ahead of products, eventually made the process all so natural and convincingly for the eventual product, that naturally requires interactivity.