Making a “Usable” Learning Tool Project Retrospective
Design and Development Process
A website was selected for greatest accessibility, and Google Sites was chosen as the platform due to the familiarity with design and use. The intent was a user-centered product, with interactive elements selected for there familiarity to users and being ease of use and learning (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p. 20).
We were purposeful in wanting the configuration of the site to be an iterative process driven by the feedback of target users (Issa & Isaias, 2015; Woolgar, 1990). There was one intended element of user configuration, we wanted to empower and encourage youth to engage with science (our topic), increasing their capacity (Woolgar, 1990).
My role was the development of the ‘Success Stories’ and ‘Feedback’ pages and, after usability testing identified potential confusion, the instructions for the ‘Connect’ page. I also took on the creation of the Welcome/how-to video and the editing of project presentation video.
Usability Testing
Usability testing was conducted both by the design team and a very small group (five) of high school aged testers, our target audience, arranged by Dr. Ewart, feedback was provided through the Google form native to the site (Issa & Isaias, 2015; Woolgar, 1990).
What Worked
Feedback indicated our site is logically laid out, visually appealing and easy to navigate. The Welcome/how-to video was useful in guiding users through the site and aiding in the use of site elements (the video format was selected to make it accessible to the greatest possible audience). The interactive elements were well received, and users also indicated a desire to use the site as part of their school curriculum.
Didn’t work
To achieve the intended features, required embedding external programs, as the capabilities were not native to Google Sites, creating another level of learning for users, potentially impacting usability. Some of the features did not embed easily or cleanly, being little more than portals to external sites, meaning that much of the interaction and collaboration would have to occur outside of the site. One key request of our users was the inclusion of a screen reader, a feature not supported within Google Sites, requiring us to make recordings of the text and embed the audio files, these recordings did not include the interactive elements of the page a shortcoming to accessibility in a continually evolving resource; additionally, these recordings were only in English.
Would do differently
While the site was well received and functional, there is significant capacity for improvement in selecting a platform that would better support the intended features, as well as those requested by users – an attention bot, something that we were not able to achieve in this proof-of-concept stage, and the screen reader. Translation options would increase the usability and accessibility for users not fluent in English. One major omission was the lack of Indigenous perspectives and ways of learning, these could and should be included into the ‘Getting Started’, ‘Connecting with Others’ and ‘Resources’ pages of the site. To increase the likelihood of feedback, and aid in configuring the site, an incentive for feedback could be looked at.
References:
Issa T. & Isaias P. (2015) Usability and Human Computer Interaction (HCI). Sustainable Design. London: Springer. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1007/978-1-4471-6753-2_2.
Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials. The Sociological Review, 38 (1, Suppl), 58–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03349.x