PHASE 2: Prototype testings and results

We tested our 3 different prototypes among 6 different people, each person tested out at least 2 of the prototypes. We allowed each person to decide for themselves which prototypes to test out – this was to determine each prototype’s appeal/popularity.

All prototypes are aimed to promote recycling, based on our previous research done through surveys, role-playing, and observations. It is important the testers felt it was convenient, simple and straightforward, and conscious of how they dispose their waste.

PROTOTYPE 1
Online code finder (web interface):

Tester comments:

This tester skipped reading the instructions page, he didn’t need to read them to use the interface. However, he found it confusing to use Prototype 3, as the non-recyclable items without indicators were confusing. The tester remarked that even though the online interface is simple enough, it is inconvenient.

Our analysis:
• Least popular due to the inconvenience of having to check online first before disposing unwanted items
• Prototype is straightforward and easy to use
• Easily accessible as it’s on the Internet

PROTOTYPE 2
Barcode scanner (smartphone camera app):

Tester comments:

This tester liked the idea and the convenience, however, the instructions has to be more clear.


This tester also thought the instructions had to be better to understand how to scan barcode with the camera.

Our analysis:
• Most popular idea – the novelty of using your phone to scan the barcode is appeals to people
• Convenient as many people own a smartphone, it’s instant information at your fingertips
• Might be difficult developing one app for different types of smartphones (iPhone, Blackberry, Samsung, etc)
• Further development for clearer instructions is needed
• People without a smartphone won’t have access to it

PROTOTYPE 3
Recycling indicator (green labels stuck on recyclable items):

Tester comments:

It was difficult for this tester to focus on the barcode via the smartphone camera (Prototype 2). For this idea, she knew what to do when she saw the recycling indicator, but when the other items without the sticker (which are meant to represent non-recyclable items), she was confused.


This tester was unsure about how to use his smartphone camera to scan the barcode (Prototype 2) and found this method easier. However the tester also suggested indicators for non-recyclable items as well.

Our analysis:
• Producing the indicators means producing more waste material
• Straightforward as long as both bins and disposable items are both labelled with the respective indicators
• The most convenient – as anyone can use it

OVERALL RESULTS:
• Prototype 1 (web interface) Simple to use, but not convenient or interesting/appealing to people
• Prototype 2 (smartphone app) is the most popular, most of the testers agreed it’s interesting/creative
• Prototype 3 (indicators) is the easiest and most accessible to use – a “no brainer”

Authors:
Kylie (Siu Ning) Tsui
Karter Kantaphon Y.
Vicky K.
Bui Thao
Natalie Ho

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Design Process, Reference, Research, results. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s