First Feedback
The first user feedback that we received for the prototyping phase, prior to the low-fidelity prototype, is that there wouldn’t be a need for an ‘explicit’ search function. The background for this is analogous to that of Golden Village’s website, whose non-existence of a search engine did not seem to impair its daily operation. As such, users’ main search will be on car-parks, which is already available in our ‘View Info’ section. Hence, taking inspiration from this, we voided the idea of the search function in our website, which would not be in consideration for the low-fidelity prototype.
Design Overview
Our design theme was to bring the car-park feel to the cyberspace, which we realized through our research for similar sites on the web, is really non-existent. As such, we are really on the verge of creating a novelty UX experience. The theme of our design would include porting over the car-park elements as visuals in the website, such as the cars, car-park kerbs and lot markers, car-park gantry, etc to be interconnected with our Park-A-Lot (PAL) synergy. We have the idea of a unique UX experience on the back of our minds, only waiting to be hauled out in the prototyping (low and high fidelity) phase.
Prototyping Exercise
Moving on to the low-fidelity prototype, we followed pretty closely to the storyboard of information workflow that we have drafted our in the previous entry, and create a paper prototype of 12 screens, for users to trial and reflect on. We chose paper prototyping for its speed, as it is an incredibly fast way to mock up an interface for no coding is required. Another value-added point of paper prototyping is particularly relevant to our cause, to find a rather wide range of problems in our interface, including many which might be serious ones. As this is a really novel system, whose navigation and workflow could not readily be researched on the web, we have to really rely on users to provide us what how they would navigate. As such, we intend for the prototype to help in establishing the navigation and layout uncertainties.
Prototype Samples
Prototyping Feedbacks
We adopted a persona-targeted approach in gathering the users for our low-fi prototypes. On overview, the feedbacks did surprise us. Though we’re not expecting our prototype to be great with no flaws, but we did not expect to so many feedbacks! However, we felt it was great, as problems can be alleviated early in this design phase. Users did provide us with some really good feedback that we’ve overlooked. Great insights into how users would navigate and their different needs.
Due to the nature of paper prototyping, we were unable to acquire anything on the technical aspect of the systems, particularly the actual flow of the system (the correctness of info conveyed across), but we received clear, useful suggestions on enhancing our low-fidelity for the better. As there were really too many feedbacks to screen through, we will just exhibit the ones that we felt was critical and which we will really consider for the next prototype.
They commented that the layout of the site was somewhat peculiar. They questioned the need for so much space occupied by the navigation bar, as it looked too chunky/blocky. However, it was due to the fact that we are intending to create a more unique style of navigation, which requires more space and more graphics then the common practices of websites. It was really hard to pin it down on paper, so we just use blocky squares to represent them. Some also remarked on the visibility of ‘Back’ buttons for bookings. A good point taken, as we did overlook this aspect. Some do not understand the meaning of ‘Book-A-Lot’, however we felt, it was intuitive enough. Lastly, they were not impressed with the prototype’s feel. They preferred clean, neat and uncluttered layouts, while our seemed to be too cluttered, heavy and ‘abnormal’. The reason for a more unique layout was that we felt that approaching the website with a normal presentation would not provide users a distinct “UX” that’s true to our theme. We decided to go an extra mile to create a new UX that truly relates and complements to our novelty idea of car-parking online (bring parking to cyber world).
We noticed one disturbing problem throughout the various prototyping sessions. Most users, as this stage, prefer to take the safer option: opting for the normal/routine/common ways that they would accept. On hindsight, we are seeking for a different unique feel, and they find it hard to accept, at least in this low-fi prototype. Hence, we have the unsettling dilemma of: whether we still go for the unique way? Or should we go for the safer but more boring way? However, the nature of low-fi prototype was rather inadequate for us to present the visual style we would like to exhibit to the user, hence, we can’t lay out our judgments on this as yet, because they have yet to get the feel what how we want to present the website hence there’s still a need to develop hi-fi to give user the feel of what we hoped for.
The consultation session with Mr. Reddy was as usual, intriguing and beneficial. We received really good input from our UX guru, Mr. Reddy. There were particularly 3 great main ones, which we would definitely take into consideration. Mr. Reddy voiced out that: For seeking car-park information, rather than comparing two user-selected car-parks, he would prefer to see nearby car-parks generated by the system, to be presented along with the car-park that he had selected. That way, if that car-park is unavailable/full, he would not have to decide which one to go for next, as the system had already presented him the nearby ones. That would definitely give a pleasant UX to the user. Also, Mr. Reddy finds our prototype pretty normal for now, but he understood that due to the nature of prototype being low-fi, the visibility of X-factors would have to wait till high-fi prototype to be unleashed. He did encourage us, to try out new things though. Another critical and great point is that Mr. Reddy advised us to use regional booking rather than specific lot, very true indeed, solved a few of our perturbing issues with booking a specific lot.
Reflections
Despite having substantial benefits of low-fi paper prototyping, we realized a particular impenetrability. While we were drafting out the paper prototypes, we deeply felt that in paper prototypes, its really not easy to bring out our intended UX experience to users, as yet. Many a times, we wanted to put in more details on our design concept (to port over car-park feel to cyber world), but find it hard due to paper form. But that led us into appreciating the significance of high-fidelity prototyping: as it really made us keen to reach the high-fi prototyping phase as soon as possible, for that’s when we can finally bring out the design to the users and see if our designs gives them a new experience.
We also realized that paper prototypes are really a part of our iterative design approach, where we constantly need to evaluate and refine designs with the results of testing at each cycle feeding into the design focus of the next cycle. And indeed, more iteration meant more enhancements which could lead to definitely a much more focused and user-centric design. It also encourages creativity from the product team and users alike in realizing a better system; otherwise the idea would come to a standstill, which might be be all-covering.
Also, from the prototype, we finally realized what the lecture was trying to tell us. The perception of a product is based on the individual values of the user and the context of use. Indeed, perception of user experience is highly subjective, we receive so many feedbacks due to each user having different point of views. We felt that all feedbacks have to be screened through and considered, but not necessary to be implemented. Careful analysis and evaluation have to be taken into consider. Also, the intended feel that we hope to present to the user is often perceived wrongly by them, that explains wrong we often have to reiterate the design theme that we are applying so as to make them understand what we’re doing. This clearly is what the lect is trying to tell us too, intended experience is not necessarily the perceived experience.
Lastly, as we were stuck in a dilemma on whether to follow the classic website’s way of presentation or to risk trying out a new style of our own. After reviewing the lecture notes, and heeding Mr. Reddy’s advice, we decided to risk it, try out the style we always wanted to experiment. It might just turn out well. Hence, reflections quote of the week (from lecture notes), that really made sense to me now:
We create our own experience; don’t stick to rules, open up more perspectives, only then can new experience be derived. (Dead poet society)
