Embedded Files
Introduction
Introduction
At the end of our last milestone, we had conducted a diary study with 5 users and sent out surveys to our colleagues to gather information about how they interact with their workspaces, including any pain points they have with their current workspaces. This alone was not enough data to shape the development of our product however, as all we had really gathered was user pain points and not necessarily detailed information on how we should approach feature design. Therefore, in this milestone, we aimed to get a deeper understanding of how users want their workspaces modified in order to come up with more refined features of our product. Our goal was to see what level of proactivity users would like with a tool that enhanced their workspace. To this end, we used user enactments to test what kind of enhancements users would like made to their workspaces, and what level of automation they would like brought into their workspaces.
Using the results from our UE study, we narrowed down the criteria our product should fulfill, and brainstormed features that would fulfill those criteria. Before beginning our user enactment study, and based on feedback from our peers, our group selected the flexible screen for our final product, as we believed this product had the highest level of practicality and reasonable use cases. We used our criteria to come up with a system and demo proposal for our system, which we are naming Flexiscreen.
Study Design
Study Design
Overview
To help us come up with user enactment scenarios, we completed a speed dating activity in which we defined three dimensions our product would consider. This resulted in a total of 27 scenarios. We then selected 5 that were the most different from each other, and that utilized different potential features of the product. Our scenarios can be found at the end of this Study Design section.
To come up with scenarios, we focused on the following dimensions:
User familiarity with the product
Level of automation
scenario/situation
Our team was interested in how our product could be accommodated to user’s workspaces as well as how automated and "smart" the product should be. Since our product supported the home workspace, we are interested in the type of situations our product would be used.
Research Questions
Our team set three main research questions for our user enactments:
How do users feel about the level of automation of the product?
In which situations would the product be most useful?
How would users make the product fit in their (limited) workspaces?
While we didn't have clear expectations for what features the users would prefer, we expected that users will expect some extent of automation and context-awareness from our product, and that users would generally prefer to do “less work” setting up the product to fit their workspace. Through the UE study, we hoped to get a better understanding of this extent, as well as which situations users would find our product most helpful.
Set-up
Because our teammates are currently located in different areas, we each conducted our own user enactments. Three teammates conducted their user enactments in person with people they are living with, while one teammates conducted them remotely due to COVID limitations. For our in-person testing, we used a poster board to act as the product, and paper prototype to act as our interfaces. One team member tested using a tablet instead of paper prototypes. For each scenario, we read out the scenario, set up the prototypes appropriately, and prompted the user to speak through what they were thinking as they went through the actions involved with our scenarios.
Debriefing
After each enactment, we conducted debrief interviews. we asked their feeling about interaction, having similar scenery while they work, or the level of automation.
Props for remote user testing
Screenshot from a recording. Remote user testing was done by reading out the scenarios, showing scenario's product flow on paper prototypes through the video camera, then asking users their thoughts on the scenario, flow, and the designs they saw.
Scenes from in-person user enactments
Participants
We conducted UEs with 6 participants, all of who were in their twenties and currently either studying or working at home.
Scenarios:
SCENARIO 1 :
Research questions: How should the product be set up? Should the product be highly automated, or customized to the user’s preferences?
Situation: User is setting up the product for the first time
" You have just bought the FS because you heard from your co-workers that it helps them organize their workspace. You unfold it to set it up, and it automatically connects to your computer. The FS prompts you to sync up to your Google calendar to FS."
SCENARIO 2 :
Research questions: What do users think about the system having detailed access to the user’s information? What do they feel about the level of automation?
Situation: User is opening and interacting with the product as they would on a daily basis
" Imagine it’s 10 in the morning on a Tuesday. You’ve had a good breakfast and coffee and are just about to start work for the day, but you don’t have any meetings or assignments to get to right away. You approach your FS which is attached to the wall from your previous work, touch it to turn it on, and see a view identical to the one on your laptop (which you haven’t opened since the previous day). "
SCENARIO 3 :
Research questions: How should the FS enhance user’s workspaces? How desirable or effective is displaying scenery when FS is not being used for work?
Situation: User is about to actively use the product for a remote class
" You have a class at 9 AM so you want to have both your laptop and FS on your desk. Since you have a small desk, you fold it to a small size. When you turn on the laptop, FS automatically turns on and syncs with your laptop via Bluetooth to your display. After connecting to a known device, it asks you if you want to connect to the zoom call for their upcoming class. You will click ‘yes,’ after which the Zoom opens up on FS. You then open up notes on our laptop."
SCENARIO 4 :
Research questions: How much control should the FS have over itself? Should it make decisions for the user? Do users want that sort of automated assistance? Or do users prefer to be totally in control at the cost of added assistance?
Situation: User is using the product for space enhancement
" You already have the FS up on your wall from previous work. You have just finished 3 work meetings in a row. You don’t have any more meetings until the end of the work day, but you still have a lot of work left to do. The FS displays a relaxing vista scene for you to help you finish your work in a more “open” environment."
SCENARIO 5:
Research questions: What do users think about the moment of “turning on” their FS? Do they wish for more proactivity? Do they want more at the moment of connectivity between laptop and FS?
Situation: User is in a time-tight situation
" You are in class and the Professor is acting like it’s High School and that they dismiss you, not the bell. You have class in 2 minutes, but they are insisting that you stay and finish the in-class assignment. You’re worried about being marked late in your next class, because the Professor only gives 2 minutes of leniency to not be marked late. Your FS can tell that you have class soon, so it automatically pops up a new browser window with the “Join Call” for the Zoom meeting for your next class."
Study Results
Study Results
After conducting our 6 user enactments among our 4 team members, we individually compiled a list of notes and photographs from our respective user enactment studies. We then met together as a team to share our notes and discuss our findings. We analyzed the data we got by clustering similar observations into high level themes, which we used to come up with our final list of findings below.
1. Users want to have control over the system and not have it be completely automated. In scenarios 1 and 2, we found that while users thought that the product automatically connecting to their main system was helpful and helped them save time, they would rather have control over which items got synced. We also found that the productivity tools that people preferred to use were varied, further suggesting that users should choose which tools they would like to sync to the screen. One user mentioned that they would like to see a “more detailed syncing system” as well as let them know which system they are syncing to, as this user had 2 laptops and an iPad they could potentially sync the screen to. In short, the users wanted the automation to supplement their workspace experience, rather than take control over it.
“This [automation] takes a lot of overhead off me, but I would like to know what data it is getting [from my main system]”
2. Most users found it helpful that the product had its own dashboard system, but they would like for it to be more intuitively designed. Users believed that the dashboard would help them use the product more efficiently, but some were confused by the designs we used. Users believed that the dashboard design can have more potential, such as showing the user’s most recent and frequently used apps.
“I don’t understand what the ["connect to laptop"] button means”
“It would be great to have the dashboard suggest the apps I can use right now...it’s kind of like an assistant”
3. Most users were enthusiastic about our scenery projection idea, but they do not want it to interrupt their work pattern and display a scene when the screen is in fact being used. Users mentioned that this feature would help them “change up the work environment the best as possible in this [COVID] situation” and “help [them] relieve stress.” One user mentioned that it was like a desktop wallpaper without the icons, which is something they want to “enjoy the pretty space.” However, users also mentioned that they would not want it to automatically display scenes for them because they may want to use the screen for work. One user mentioned that they would probably not use this feature, as they would rather use it to display a calendar or reminder tool for work.
“ I really like the scene showing because it’s hard to disconnect from work.”
“...What if I want to use the screen for something else?”
4. Users displayed several gestures for performing actions on the screen. Three users treated the screen as if it had a power on/off button. One user touched the center of the screen to turn it on. One user slid the windows to the screen, and one user closed screens by dragging them toward the center from a corner. This finding suggests that haptic interaction should be a key consideration for our design.
5. Users were enthusiastic about the screen being able to fold into multiple sizes, and they were further curious about how many windows the screen can support. While we did not include displaying multiple windows onto the screen as a part of our user enactments, users mentioned during the study that they would like the screen to display different apps at the same time.
“I would like to display everything I have, like messengers, textbooks, and Canvas.”
Ideation and Selection
Ideation and Selection
Using our high level themes above, as well as several supplementary insights gathered from our user enactment study, each member came up with a list of around 10 criteria that we believed our product should fulfill. This resulted in about 30 unique criteria and feature ideas. We then ranked these criteria and chose the top 5 along with each criteria’s respective potential design features. Along with considering our team members’ rankings, we placed great emphasis on making sure our criteria aligned with the findings from our user enactment study. We then cleaned up our list to come up with the final criteria below.
Our criteria:
1. Privacy. Along with privacy being a common concern with pervasive technologies, in our studies we found that despite the convenience of automation, users would like to have control over what the product did or did not sync so that they know what data they are giving to the product.
Feature fulfilling this criteria:
Allow users to choose which tools from their main system they want to sync instead of having this process be automated.
2. Productivity. In our previous milestones, we considered several aspects of the home workspace experience to enhance, including mental wellbeing, social interaction, and team collaboration. After further consideration, our user enactment studies, and feedback from instructors, we decided to focus our product on enhancing self productivity because this was an area we believed our product could target the best.
Feature(s) fulfilling this criteria:
A seamless moving-over/transition of screens between the main system and screen through a drag and drop interaction.
A dashboard on the user’s main system indicating the status of the screen, including which apps are open on the screen, battery level, etc. The dashboard includes options of controlling the screen straight from the user’s main system.
3. Mobility. This is one of the main criteria that differentiates our product from a general monitor. In our user enactment study, users expressed enthusiasm about the portability of the product, stating several use cases where they believed this feature would be helpful. We want to design the product so that it can be set up anywhere and is easily moveable.
Feature(s) fulfilling this criteria:
Have the product be made out of easily foldable/snappable material.
Have the product be stickable onto walls.
Have the product be standable.
Have the product be battery-powered so users don’t have to search for a plug when using it in public spaces.
4. Versatility. Our user enactment findings suggest that users should be able to freely choose which systems they would like to sync to. Our UE study also suggested that the screen should be able to display multiple screens at once if the user desires.
Feature(s) fulfilling this criteria:
Allow users to choose which system they would like to sync to.
Allow users to sync to multiple systems simultaneously.
Have the user be able to “tile” multiple windows on the screen.
5. Affordance. It is likely that our product will visually look like any other technological device due to its main functionality as a screen. Therefore, we need to make the product obvious that it can be folded. Our UE study also revealed that there should be an obvious call-to-action for activating the system.
Feature fulfilling this criteria:
Hash marks or dotted lines indicating where the screen can be folded.
Include a power on/off button for activating and deactivating the device.
System Proposal
System Proposal
Overview
Our proposal is our foldable screen idea, Flexicreen. The screen would be easily attachable to walls and could be unfolded or collapsed to various sizes. With the ability to act in tandem with users' desktop/laptop computers and applications, the foldable screen would extend and enhance workspaces in a number of ways. Namely, it would:
Offer users an adjustable increase in screen space, which our research shows is correlated to decreased stress and increased productivity
Offer increased portability; users could easily bring the screen with them wherever they go and use it in a variety of places and situations, including: mounted on a desk, attached to a wall, or between their fingertips
Offers a new primary or secondary monitor, or "tiles" within monitors, which could be used alongside a computer or as a standalone device: users could sync their desktop applications to their foldable screen and then use their foldable screen without their desktop machine
Combined, these features would empower each user to create their ideal workspace: to choose where they work, and customize their screen size to suit their space and match their posture.
We envision a series of square screens attached at their sides by hinges, with content being displayed across the unfolded screen space. By unfolding each screen at a given hinge, users could adjust their screen size to one of many pre-determined WxH ratios. We anticipate technology that would enable us to build this device will be available within 10 years time, if it is not already. We think the biggest technological challenge to overcome would be getting the device to display content across screens connected by hinges, which could be possible using information-transferring wires or magnets nested at the sides of each sub-screen/within each hinge.
Interaction between main system & Flexiscreen:
Our UE findings revealed that users preferred to go through a detailed set-up procedure and know exactly which apps they are syncing. We therefore came up with the following set-up flow and dashboard design:
To facilitate the smooth transferring of screens from the main system to the Flexiscreen, we designed the following Flexiscreen dashboard for the user's main system:
Storyboard
The following storyboard illustrates the general user interaction of our system:
Demo Proposal
Demo Proposal
We will create a low-fidelity prototype to simulate the user experience of the folder screen. For this we need some physical materials and software that are, thankfully, already on hand or very easy to get.
Physical Materials:
Tablet
Foldable cardboard
Paper “screens” for the foldable screen
Tape
Scissors
Poster board
LED light to display the sync status of the foldable screen
Software:
Figma - We will be using figma on the tablet to mimic the experience of the foldable screen when it is folded up to be as compact as possible.
Particle Dev - We will use particle dev to program the LED light to light up and display the syncing status of the foldable screen.
How the Demo will be done:
Conclusion
Conclusion
As our team conducted user enactments, we clearly understood how our product could integrate with users' workspaces and the level of automation that users expected. They thought our product would be useful to enhance the productivity of their workspace but they want to control the systems. Our users expected to see the product's own screen and wanted to choose the scenery if they want it to. To fulfill our users' needs, our product would be foldable and its display showed users' status. We used the dashboard to increase accessibility to our products and used LED light to show its syncing status. Our next step will be further building the prototype, demonstrating our system, and implementing our demo.
Page updated
Report abuse