New URL: http://whatsmygrade.info/screen-6e567fbb8f-indexhtml.html

    The heuristic evaluations gave us a good, objective look at some of the more prevalent errors in our interface design. From the evaluations we received there were a lot of useful comments about the parts of our design. The comments ranged from catastrophic to cosmetic but all impacted the overall usability. We tried to tackle some of the more glaring errors for this iteration.
    We started by taking care of the easier errors concerning layout and immediately visible areas. There was a spelling error on one of our buttons and a slight visual clash between the text used in some of the containers. We made sure to pay close attention tot he style guides for minimizing the use of different text modifications to create a logical path looking through the data. There were a few more regarding the wording or layout of some of the written sections such as centering the text sections. We got rid of the “New Class” titles in all caps because it is distracting. The remainder of the errors were more complex that needed a deeper consideration.
    When creating a class you have to add the various grading areas to a new class in order to put in grades. In our prototype it was not clear how this was accomplished. There was an input field labeled “field 1” intending for the user to enter an initial field to be graded on. It was brought to our attention the ambiguity so we changed it to be a few examples for data to enter in the area. The other issue had to do with adding these areas to a class. These were due largely to the limitations of the prototyping tool but we tried to address these concerns. There was a plus sign below the grading areas that have been listed to signal the users to continue adding to the class but it was ambiguous. We changed the button to be “add new grade area” so it was clear what pressing the button would do. Other evaluators were concerned with the fact that adding an area would erase data but that was a limitation of the prototype not the design.
    Another common topic was the grouping of the classes. It was our intention for all the classes to be the same and the grouping was merely due to the divisions from the drag and drop tool we were using. We are currently investigating ways to improve the layout within our limitations. We would ideally like to eliminate the faded lines around groups to eliminate the belief that they have to be related or that they differ in function. We tried to expand the boxes to be more evenly distributed to artificially create this effect.
    The heuristic evaluations of our computer prototype was a great way for a fresh perspective to pick up on certain violations. We thought the flow and descriptions were clear but the other evaluators exposed our hidden assumptions and we were able to catch them in time. It was good that this was done early to deal with them as effectively as possible and get a good start on the iterative process.


Team Roles:
Rich: Head Interface Developer, Business Analyst
Mitch: Assistant Interface Developer, Business Analyst, Web Developer
Dennis: Head Business Analyst, Process Analyst, Assistant Web Developer

 


Comments




Leave a Reply