The target table we created was influenced greatly by the work roles and user classes that we determined in the previous phases. We wanted to represent both the traveler and the business, as well as the sub-tree of user classes that fall beneath each of them, such as the leisure traveler, business traveler, restaurant, clothing store, etc.. Not only did we want to make sure that these different users were being accounted for, but we also wanted to make sure that we gathered data regarding new users and experienced users. 

In the last column of the target table, we suggest why we chose the benchmark tasks we did. For each benchmark test we evaluated, we also decided upon a UX metric, which would be how we measure the completion of the tasks. For example, for BT1, which is "add a place to your Wishlist" we chose "average time on task" as the UX metric to determine the effectiveness of completing this task. For each task, there was both a baseline and target level which suggested the benchmark value and expected value, respectively, when completing the task. We determined these values by taking into account the characteristics of our users, most of them would be young adults who we assumed would have prior knowledge of working with technology and other apps with similar features. 

Each of our benchmark tasks revolves around the user navigating through the app, trying to take advantage of all the different features. We measured user satisfaction and performance by giving them a questionnaire to take which would ultimately provide us with quantitative data.  This is an example of an empirical ("payoff") evaluation used in a summative setting, thus acting as a tool for helping us sum up the design. In addition to this questionnaire, which acted as an empirical evaluation, we also observed the users navigating through the app, thus acting as an analytic evaluation by using the design walkthrough method. Therefore, the data which was collected from these observations were qualitative. 

Ultimately, both of these evaluations, the questionnaire, and design walkthrough, were successful at providing us with quality feedback to help us recognize problems, understand underlying causes, and plan for changes. Furthermore, it has shown to be a paramount part of this iterative development process.