Evaluation

In order to evaluate our website, we conducted 10 user evaluations using a between subjects design with counter balancing to reduce the ordering effect. We showed each participant the paper prototype, the wireframe, and the original website. While looking through each iteration, we asked participants about their experience and feelings and then asked overall questions about their experiences at the end.

We found that our interactive map function was well liked by users. One stated that "people are lazy and may prefer the visual" instead of having to look through other possibly out of date articles which may be more spread out across other sources. Most users enjoyed how simple it was to understand what was happening. One user noted that the information displayed on the map could lead to privacy issues if lots of users false report to one specific location. The history function was generally liked by users. One noted how it would be a good resource for young people and allow them and those outside of AAPI culture to learn about the community's history. This could also motivate people to become more fervent supporters of the cause. We also saw users place emphasis on the speed of reporting an incident. Users found that the original website's reporting was took too long and users complained that they did not know how long it was going to take. One user also pointed out that reporting could be traumatic for some since it could make them relive the horrific actions taken against them.

Overall, users found that with a significant userbase, the website would help people visualize how wide spread AAPI hate is and could help rally people to stand up for AAPI culture. Users believed that the site could help people feel less alone and isolated after experiencing a hate crime. Some users did express concern with splitting a user base with the original website.

Here we see two charts showing some of the answers to the general questions answered by participants after using all of the prototypes. Again, we found that users disliked the reporting of the original website with no one giving it above a 3. We also found that people perfered our prototypes to the origianl website with no participants choosing the original website as their prefered prototype.