Appendix C: User Testing Report

Team 3 presented 4 different components of the following mockups to the user to determine which features to use in the final product.

These mockup plans include:

Each mockup design was presented to the user. The user was then asked the following questions:

General Questions:

• Do you think the product is effective?

• What are your thoughts on the product?

• How would you improve the product?

• Are there any requirements this product does not comply with?

• Show me how you would use the product.

Specifically tailored questions:

• Do you respond better to vibration or sound?

• How easy is the product to use with one hand?

• Can the idea of the brightly colored markers be improved? Are they easy to see?

• How much do you need the product to adjust?

Questions for each mockup:

“Maxi Aid”

• Can he adjust this mechanism with one hand?

Measuring cup with color indicators

• Does Gregory recognize different colors easily?

• Would different colors help him recognize liquid levels?

• Which colors does he respond to best?

Adjustable disk

• Will this work for multiple sized containers?

• Is this mechanism useful for Gregory?

• Can he visualize the level of the liquid using this cup mechanism?

• Is the push motion easy for Gregory to use?

Introduction

In order to choose a final idea for the design concept, each potential design had to be evaluated. The best way to complete this goal was to have the key user, Gregory, determine if each design met his requirements. Gregory was able to test each design and provide feedback when asked certain questions. These questions prompted him to give his opinion on which design worked the best for him, and which parts of each design he liked or disliked. With the feedback gathered from him, the design concepts can be narrowed down to only the ones that fit his goals. These concepts can also be refined from the feedback provided, such as changing how concert design parts can be adjusted. His input, as the product was created for the key user, is vital in allowing our group to start transitioning from the ideation phase of the design to the stage of creating the prototype.

Methodology

Our team’s research methodology ​​consisted of online research, remote interviews, design mockup creation, and in-person testing. Our first research method, online research, allowed our team to gain a better understanding of the project overview as well as study parallel solutions. We also had two remote interviews with our primary user, Gregory. The objective of the first remote interview was to learn more about Gregory and gain any information that would be of help in the design brainstorming process. The second remote interview was more observational. During that interview, we observed Gregory in his kitchen environment and were able to collect more information to aid in the design process. Then with the information gathered from the prior remote interviews, we came up with four designs and created a mockup for each one. We then took those mockups and presented them to Gregory during an in-person testing session and received preliminary feedback on each design. Switched off between different teams mockups during the session.

Results

During our primary user feedback session with Gregory and Susannah, all four teams in our section switched off on testing various mockups and collaborated on the way we extracted information; thus, the results from this user feedback session consist of the relevant and helpful feedback received from all four groups’ testings. Our team, Team 3, tested three distinct mockups to garner specific opinions and feedback from Gregory. These consisted of a mockup with an adjustable prong to simulate how Gregory would use a version of an adjustable MaxiAid, a mockup that was essentially a glass pot with brightly colored indicators, and a mockup that simulated the up and down motion of initializing the volume of liquid desired in a vessel. In terms of deciding whether he liked to initialize the liquid volume desired by adjusting a prong or using a device that could be pushed up and down, Gregory said he would prefer the adjustable prong method in terms of ease. He personally liked the process of adjusting a prong rather than adjusting based on an up and down motion. When testing the brightly colored markers, Gregory was able to see when the water level got to the colored marker that we prompted him to stop at, but Susannah suggested that although he was able to see when the water got to certain markers, an auditory alert would have quicker response times and would be better received by Gregory. There was a visible concern from her that markers would not be as consistent in pouring the desired liquid level. She emphasized that she feels an auditory component is necessary in the final design idea, and went even further to say that a kitchen timer sound would be ideal for Gregory after hearing multiple options for ringer alerts.

In terms of the other information gathered from the entirety of our section's user feedback session, we determined that pliable loops and clips were relatively easy for Gregory to use with one hand and well received by him and Susannah. Sliding the sensor up and down the liquid vessel is also preferred, and Gregory could gauge the level of liquid he wanted before the liquid was poured in by sliding a makeshift sensor to that particular level. He was easily able to clip and remove things from the sides of pots and cups, but expressed concern about the clips scratching the paint, sealant, or film on his pans, pots, cups, and mugs. Additionally, Gregory liked the idea of having an adjustable lid that water would be filled to, however Susannah prefers dishwasher safe design ideas.

The final new information we learned regarding the project was the type of liquid vessels Gregory owns, which are dark or silver pots, cups, and mugs (which are opaque or glass on the inside). The measurements of his particular pots and mugs are below:

Pots:

10” wide by 7” high

11” wide by 6” high

8” wide by 5” high

Mugs:

3-4” wide by 3.5-5” high

Discussion

Gregory was able to correctly determine when the liquid had reached the color marker, which was not expected based on his proprioception issues. He told us that the color wasn’t even what he used to know when to stop; he was just watching for the water to reach the color marker. This means that he didn’t need any additional cues to help him determine when the water had reached the proper line. However, Gabrielle poured the water into the pot, not Gregory, so that may have made it easier for him to determine the liquid level. The goal is for Gregory to be able to pour liquids on his own and determine the amount, not have someone else pour them for him (though a pump/dispensing system could possibly accomplish an external source pouring liquid while still allowing Gregory to use the system independently). Susannah also noted that Gregory is not always able to properly determine measurements; he can do it correctly sometimes, like he did for us, but other times, he is incorrect, so he has inconsistency in his measurements. Gregory also seemed to enjoy the MaxiAid mockup the most out of all of our designs, and he indicated that though he is usually a visual learner, auditory alerts are necessary because he cannot perceive visual information as well due to his decreased proprioception, so an auditory alert would be ideal for our design.