Applying User Centered Design Principles to Deliver Surface Water Data to Diverse Audiences

Luke Buckley

Master of Science Candidate – Montana Tech

Data Systems Manager – MBMG

1

Introduction

• Program Background and Timeline

• User Centered Design (UCD) and User Experience (UX)

• Usability Testing

• Data Analysis

• Future Research

• Conclusions

2

Project Background and Timeline

3

Timeline

4

Program Design Overview

5

User Centered Design (UCD) Focusing on User’s Needs

6

User Centered Design (UCD)

7

Identify Need

Specify Context of Use

Specify Requirements

Produce Design

Solutions

Evaluate Designs

System Satisfies

User Experience (UX)

8

Figure by Peter Morville. Retrieved Aug 2017 from semanticstudios.com.

Ethos

Logos Pathos

Website • DNRC real-time and other gages

• MBMG stream gages

• USGS stream gages

9

http://mbmg.mtech.edu/swamp

Visual Display

10

Site Level Data

11

Usability Testing

12

Institutional Review Board

University Clearance Needed

• Human subjects involved

• Explained and Justified Research Methodology

• Consent Form

• Project Approved

13

Designing for the User

14

Usability Testing – Round One

15

Task Definition

Video/Audio Capture

Screen Capture

Usability Issues From Albert and Tullis, “Measuring the User Experience”

• Behaviors that prevent task completion, take someone “off course”

• Expressions of frustration

• Not seeing something that should be noticed

• Performing an action the leads away from task success

• Misinterpreting some piece of content

• Choosing wrong links to accomplish task/navigation

16

Data Analysis

17

1. Find last measurement • Success rating: 100%

• SME ratio: 108%

• Interface: 67% map, 33% text

• Ease rating: 4.50 (5)

• Insights • Overall easy task, data located well

• Some slow system response

18

Participant # Tasks Completed Ease Rating (1-5) Time Per Task (sec)

1 0.00 5.00 142.00

2 0.00 5.00 246.00

3 0.00 4.00 126.00

4 0.00 4.00 82.00

5 0.00 4.00 89.00

6 0.00 5.00 115.00

Average 0.00 4.50 133.33

SME 2 5 64.00

2. System Update Frequency • Success rating: 67%

• SME ratio: 312%

• Interface: 100% text

• Ease rating: 3.33 (5)

• Insights • Text formatting issues

• Not easy to “scan”

19

Participant # Tasks Completed Ease Rating (1-5) Time Per Task (sec)

1 2.00 3.00 174.00

2 0.00 4.00 300.00

3 0.00 4.00 47.00

4 2.00 2.00 248.00

5 0.00 3.00 102.00

6 0.00 4.00 92.00

Average 0.67 3.33 160.50

SME 2 5 39.00

3. Download Data • Success rating: 100%

• SME ratio: 45%

• Interface: 100% text

• Ease rating: 4.33 (5)

• Insights • Location of options

• Error messages

20

Participant # Tasks Completed Ease Rating (1-5) Time Per Task (sec)

1 0.00 4.00 187.00

2 0.00 4.00 245.00

3 0.00 3.00 141.00

4 0.00 5.00 119.00

5 0.00 5.00 118.00

6 0.00 5.00 141.00

Average 0.00 4.33 158.50

SME 0 5 109.00

4. Find Ancillary Data • Success rating: 67%

• SME ratio: 170%

• Interface: 100% map

• Ease rating: 3.67 (5)

• Insights • System naming conventions

• Overall map display “busy”

Participant # Tasks Completed Ease Rating (1-5) Time Per Task (sec)

1 0.00 3.00 189.00

2 2.00 3.00 390.00

3 0.00 3.00 286.00

4 0.00 4.00 156.00

5 1.00 4.00 140.00

6 0.00 5.00 135.00

Average 0.50 3.67 216.00

SME 0 5 80.00

21

Summary • Ease of use: 3.95 (5)

• SUS score: 4.29 (5)

• Tasks 1 & 3: 100% success

• Tasks 2 & 4: 67% success

• Mean TTC: 668 sec (11.1 min)

22

0

400

800

1200

1600

1 2 3 4 5 6

Seco

nd

s

Participants

Time in Seconds to Complete Tasks

Task One Task Two Task Three Task Four

Future Research

23

Application Improvements

Resulting from Analysis of Use

• Fix large text blocks

• Database response times

• Date range selections

• Navigation issues

• Consistency in reports

Resulting from Informal Interview

• Daily average data stream

24

Highwood Creek. Taken by Luke Buckley, Nov 2016.

Next Steps Graduate School

1. Complete Round Two Usability Tests

2. Iteratively Publish Web Site Changes

3. Report and Defend M.S. (Apr ‘18)

4. Graduate (May ‘18)

SWAMP Work

1. Pilot Project (L&C/Gallatin)

2. Service-based Real-Time Communication

25

Acknowledgements

• Glen Southergill, Chad Okrusch, Todd Myse – Graduate Committee

• John Metesh, MBMG Director

• John LaFave, GWAP Program Director

• Power Users • John LaFave, Tom Michalek - MBMG

• Aaron Fiaschetti, Matt Norberg - DNRC

• Victoria Haraldson - Gallatin Local Water Quality District

• Katelyn Vennie - Bitterroot Watershed Forum

26

27

References Fogg, B. J., & Tseng, H. (1999). The elements of computer

credibility. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems the CHI Is the Limit - CHI ’99, (May), 80–87. http://doi.org/10.1145/302979.303001

Garrett, J. J. (2011). The Elements of User Experience. (M. J. Nolan, Ed.) (2nd ed.). New Riders.

Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2010). Universal Principles of Design.

Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things. Basic Books. Tullis, T., & Albert, B. (2013). Measuring the User Experience,

Second Edition: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics (Interactive Technologies) 2nd Edition (2nd ed.). Elsevier Inc.

Wahl, K. L., Thomas Jr, W. O., & Hirsch, R. M. (1995). Stream-Gaging Program of the U.S. Geological Survey.

Surface Water in Montana

28

Missouri R at Confluence. Taken by Luke Buckley, 2 Aug 2017. Lake McDonald at Glacier Park. Taken by Luke Buckley, 17 Jul 2017.

Questions?

29

Luke Buckley M.S. Candidate Technical Communications Montana Tech Data Systems Manager MBMG (406) 496-4677 LBuckley@mtech.edu