CPSC 444 L2B FacilityFinder - Blog Update #7

This blog post will contain the final conclusions and recommendations for the FacilityFinder app. The post will also include reflections on the design process and the experience of designing an interactive system.

7a. Overall Project Conclusions and Recommendations

Our interface caters to a diverse user base, addressing the needs of both everyday users and those with specific washroom requirements. For users with no specific washroom needs, we have implemented gamification elements as an engaging incentive. For users with specific accommodation needs, our interface provides the detailed information necessary for finding suitable washrooms. Our design approach enhances user satisfaction and usability while promoting inclusivity and accessibility.

One final insight was that participants emphasized the value of the application for individuals in marginalized communities. The sentiment was shared by both participants that did intend to use the app and those that indicated that they would not use it for themselves. This supported our original motivations for designing this app, which was to provide a dependable tool for underrepresented communities to find suitable washroom facilities.

While gamification elements such as points and achievements were generally enjoyed, additional elements could improve engagement and motivation. Furthermore, the external motivation for providing reliable information for other people and marginalized groups reaffirms the need for the continuation of this research topic and development of the FacilityFinder app.

Recommendations

Prototype Development

Our findings indicate that gamification may be a viable method of incentivising users to contribute washroom data to the created interface. One possible feature to consider in later iterations of the prototype is the ability for users to create custom tags (participant 0425), or information (p 1502). Accessibility isn’t one-size-fits-all. As such, there shouldn’t be an exhaustive list of features available to be chosen from. Instead, the interface should allow for users to add features that are important to them (and others). For instance, one participant highlighted the importance of distinguishing between heavy and light doors since heavy doors pose a challenge for individuals with mobility aids.

Next Steps

One possible area of refinement in our study would be to recruit a bigger sample, with a larger variety of diversity in washroom accommodation needs. Some suggestions include, but are not limited to, parents with infants that need change tables, blind individuals, individuals with short term injury. Running the study once more with a more diverse sample would validate our findings and further ensure that key user needs are being considered and met.

Big Picture Plans

Two key steps can be considered when developing steps towards actualising this app. Firstly, collaboration with UBC’s equity and inclusion office was recommended by one participant (p 2611). This cross collaboration would allow for Facility Finder to be promoted to the demographic in which it would most benefit. The office staff could provide valuable insight into challenges and approaches to realising an app such as Facility Finder. Further, recruitment for future studies could also be liaised in collaboration with the Equity and Inclusion office.

Another collaboration that could be explored is a system of cashing out points for rewards such as discounts at on-campus cafes. This encourages participation from members across the UBC community, thus spreading the responsibility of maintaining washroom information. More usage also increases the validity of information on the app since it’ll be confirmed or modified respectively.

7b. Reflection on the Design and Evaluation Process

User-Centered Design Process:

The user-centered design process provided several benefits for our project. While there were some aspects which did not work as well, ultimately user-centered design was invaluable in allowing us to create a well-designed interface.

Benefits:

User-centered design allowed for important insights into communities we were personally not a part of. By involving target users in the design process, we were able to better understand the unique challenges, motivations, and requirements they face. As most of us do not have accessibility needs, feedback from these users provided us with fuel for our design direction and ultimately shaped the basis of our final interface.

Drawbacks:

While user-centered design was integral to our process, there were some minor drawbacks to this approach. Due to the variety of participants, it was difficult to find unanimous opinions. While all data is valuable, some data points may be a single user’s personal preference and does not necessarily represent opinions from the broader population. Evaluating and figuring out which data points to prioritize was a challenge we encountered due to this design approach.

Interface Changes due to User Involvement

Through our field studies, there were several changes that were made between the lo-fi and med-fi prototypes. The most significant change was the separation of the “Add/Update Washroom” page into two separate pages. User expressed confusion around the function of the original page, and the change provided both clarification and a better system for users to update information.

Secondly, the creation of the tags and categories available were heavily influenced by user feedback. Common accessibility features, amenities, and building information tags were created after analysis of common requirements from interview responses during our initial study.

Lastly, there were logistical changes following user feedback to create a smoother user experience. This includes the addition of a “back” button in addition to swipe features, bigger text size, and increased color contrast to reduce user frustration.

Surprises

The biggest surprise during our study was the fact that gamification did not work for everyone. While most users expressed enjoyment at the points or achievements system, qualitative results showed that gamification was not always the biggest motivator for users updating washroom information. While the points were seen a nice bonus, altruism and the desire to help others proved to be a bigger source of motivation for some users when updating washroom information. Instead of providing information to achieve personal rewards, these users talk about a desire for others to have access to accurate information as a main source of motivation.

Evaluation of Prototyping and Evaluation Methods

Our approach to evaluation and prototyping was largely effective in achieving the goals we set for this version of our project. The process of conducting a field study, a pilot study, and then the experiment allowed us to iteratively refine our interface based on direct user feedback. The use of Figma enabled us to quickly make adjustments based on this feedback, and conducting the studies virtually increased our reach, allowing participation from a wider geographic area. While these decisions had some inherent drawbacks, they were generally understood and managed within the scope of our study.

What Worked Well

The virtual setup of our evaluation process was particularly effective given our constraints of time and resources. As many of our participants were students with busy schedules; the flexibility of virtual meetings made it easier to coordinate times for the studies and interviews. Using a virtual platform also helped to mitigate some of the user comfort concerns, especially as discussions of bathroom usage and preferences can be sensitive and personal. Using Figma for prototyping, allowed us to implement and test changes rapidly, meeting our time constraints. This flexibility was crucial in allowing iterative updates that closely followed user feedback.

Potential Improvements for Future Studies

There are a few areas where improvements could be made:

1. Broader Participant Recruitment: One of the most significant improvements could involve expanding our participant pool. Recruiting a more diverse group of participants would not only provide a broader range of feedback but also reduce the potential bias introduced by having friends and family members in the participant pool. Implementing targeted outreach efforts to include participants from different backgrounds, abilities, and regions could enhance the representativeness and validity of our findings.

2. In-Person Testing Opportunities: Although the virtual setup served us well, an in-person study could offer different benefits. Finding a private and accessible location for the study would provide a more realistic interaction environment and allow for smoother communication. The face-to-face interaction may also help with observing the non-verbal cues and interactions, which were hard to observe in the virtual setting. However, we would need to make sure that the space was fully accessible for the entire participant pool, and that discussions around sensitive topics were handled with the necessary discretion and respect for participant comfort.

3. Enhanced Prototype Functionality: While Figma allowed for rapid prototyping, many participants felt frustrated due to the limitation of Figma and their expectations for a fully functional app. For future studies, enhancing the prototype to include additional functionalities, such as the ‘edit profile’ page, could offer a more realistic user experience. Additionally, it would help to further improve the layout of the prototype, such as by making the back button more prominent.