After our various brainstorming and initial need-finding research we came up with a prototype that was based entirely in Google sheets where users filled out their user information manually in different tabs. The features we really wanted to offer with our first prototype were as follows:
We tried to separate students into small groups of five to represent realistic friendship cliques students might form naturally. We didn't want to "pool" or facilitate a giant network of students that would stop focusing on class and just start chatting among each other in class.
Our evaluation for each prototype consisted of a question session and a feedback survey. After we finished our prototype, we opened discussion to the students to see what they struggled in or what they enjoyed to gain qualitative feedback on our prototype. For the feedback survey, we formulated the questions based on our evaluation plan to determine the success and thoughts on our prototype that may have not been covered in our discussion. We agreed to meet up physically after every prototype session and analyze feedback from the past prototype, reassess from that feedback what our new focus should be, and divide the work in an even fashion that would benefits the strengths of whomever was working on it.
Image of our first prototype (profile picture malfunction)
Image of our second prototype (most favored feature)
Question Session/ Observations
Feedback Form
Lesson Learned
Initially, the students had trouble with inputting their information especially the profile images. A lot of the images appeared choppy or did not appear at all. We realized that, since the users know each other, it is not necessary to have a profile picture. Adding a direct link to the Facebook would suffice to connect the students. Having too many extra features like other classes, profiles pictures, and email address might just clutter the information and prevent our app from functioning efficiently. To simplify the overall process of filling out their information, we decided to take Gus's advice and use a google form instead of a google spreadsheet. By doing so, we were able to lessen the cognitive load for the students and they were able to focus their attention on the intention of our prototype.
We wanted to include chat function but we realized that it actually just confused the students. Instead of competing against Facebook as a message app, we wanted to piggyback off of Facebook so we decided to eliminate that function. Also, having a chat feature would cause distraction in a classroom setting which was brought up by the TA. Additionally to the chat feature, having a mutual friends feature would create a larger network of people which we thought would take attention away from class. Therefore, we decided not act upon that feedback in our next prototype. Our intention for this app was to create a natural connection between students rather than pool a huge group of people into a social atmosphere.
Question Session/ Observations
Feedback Form
Lesson Learned
In first prototype session we had a few of students get hung up on linking their profile image and having their inputs display the way they wanted. To simulate chat functions we had students use the chat features embedded in google sheets. Bought up almost immediately by students during the prototype session and in the form feedback we collected afterward, was that students didn't want to us a different chat feature they were not accustom to. So we decided to piggyback chat on Facebook messenger which seemed to be the most popular and widely used chat program. It seemed that users were not only reliant on the connectivity that Facebook offers, but users did not want to shift from the robust features messenger has to offer like spellchecking, image and video embedding, account hyperlinking, and emoji and GIF displaying.
The User Interface of the application would have to be extremely intuitive to communicate to the user what the interactive space is supposed to facilitate. During both prototypes users were confused not necessarily how to use the application, but why they would use it. After explaining the space and setting in which students would benefit from the application they understood and agreed they would use it, but bridging that gap of explanation is key to instilling a smooth intuitive transition, which the UI might be able to facilitate.
The form based user input really helped minimize user error and speed up jumping directly into the application. This increase in input speed seemed to be because users have a performed this type of action for many different technological applications in the past. By removing the distractions of other sheet tabs and dashboard, we funnel the attention of the user to only focus on inputting personal data, and once it's inputted the application takes the user to the interaction section automatically.
One problem we found with the user feedback is that about half of the users said they would use the application for situations we were purposely trying to design around. Although some of the user feedback might have been in just, they suggested they would use the application to make jokes, hit on other students, and genuinely distract themselves and other students from the lecture, which is something we also wanted to avoid. One could argue that with communication comes all the possible negative uses and that they are unavoidable, but it is why we designed the application to target small group of friends that would more likely to provide each other with beneficial communication, and why we focused on making the application funnel communication after class in the form of getting food or studying.
After conducting both prototyping sessions we learned: