Usability Testing Report
INTRODUCTION
The Lester Volunteer Community Project aims to facilitate seamless interaction between volunteers, event organizers, and participants through an intuitive online platform. To ensure the system’s effectiveness, usability testing was conducted to evaluate the Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) of the platform. These are key measures in understanding how users interact with the system and how well it meets their needs.
Perceived Usefulness (PU) refers to the degree to which a user believes the system enhances their ability to perform specific tasks, while Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) measures how easy it is for the user to navigate and interact with the system. Both factors are integral in determining the overall user satisfaction and the likelihood of continued use of the system.
The rationale behind the usability testing is to ensure the platform is intuitive, effective, and easy for the intended users to navigate. By collecting feedback from a diverse range of participants, the test aims to identify potential improvements to the platform that will increase its adoption and overall effectiveness.
Key terms:
• Perceived Usefulness (PU): The degree to which a user believes that using the system enhances their effectiveness in completing tasks.
• Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU): The degree to which a user believes that using the system is free of effort.
• Usability Testing: A method to evaluate a product by testing it with representative
users.
METHODS & PROCEDURES
Tasks and Scenarios
Participants were asked to complete the following core tasks within the system, which are
representative of the platform’s main functionalities:
1. Logging In - To evaluate the ease of initial engagement and system access.
2. Exploring and Creating Events - To assess the user experience in event
management and navigation.
3. Tracking Volunteer Participation - To test the functionality and usefulness of
tracking volunteers for events.
4. Joining Events - To evaluate the process of viewing and registering for events.
5. Setting Reminders - To test the reminder and notification system’s usability.
6. Providing Feedback - To measure the effectiveness of the feedback collection feature
post-event.
Each task was designed to address key features of the platform, allowing for a comprehensive
assessment of both PU and PEOU.
Testing Metrics
To quantitatively assess the system’s usability, the following metrics were tracked:
• Task Success Rate: The percentage of tasks completed successfully by participants.
• Time on Task: The total time participants took to complete each task.
• Perceived Usefulness (PU): Rated on a Likert scale (1-7), with participants providing
feedback on how useful they found the system.
• Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU): Rated on the same scale, measuring the ease with
which users navigated the platform.
These metrics allowed for both quantitative analysis and qualitative insights, providing a
balanced view of the system’s usability.
Tools and Equipment
• Desktop Computers: The usability test was conducted on desktop systems, with the
live prototype of the volunteer management platform.
• Phone Recordings: Audio and screen interactions were recorded to capture user
feedback and interactions in real-time.
• Survey Tools: Participants were asked to complete post-test surveys evaluating PU
and PEOU to gather direct feedback on their experience.
Procedures
1. Preparation: Prior to the test, participants were briefed on the system’s features and
provided with tasks to complete. They were encouraged to verbalize their thoughts
throughout the process.
2. Test Execution: Participants performed the tasks in a controlled environment, with
their actions and feedback being recorded for further analysis.
3. Post-Test Survey: After completing the tasks, participants filled out a survey rating
their experiences based on PU and PEOU.
4. Cycle Iteration: The usability test was conducted over two cycles, with refinements
made between cycles based on initial feedback.
3.0 RESULTS
Phone Recording
During the usability testing, phone recordings were used to capture the actions and feedback of three participants as they interacted with the prototype. The recordings included:
1. User Interactions: Navigation through the system and task completion.
2. Verbal Feedback: Participants: thoughts and suggestions while using the prototype.
3. Audio and Video Evidence: Clear documentation of user actions and reactions.
These recordings provided valuable insights to identify usability issues and improve the
prototype design.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[https://youtu.be/uA1FaE8eaa4]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The video highlights the testing process with all three
participants.
Task Success Rates
• Cycle 1: Task success rates varied, with participants struggling with the "Setting
Reminders" feature and "Providing Feedback" task.
• Cycle 2: Success rates improved significantly after modifications, particularly in the
reminder system, which was made more intuitive.
Time on Task
• Cycle 1: Participants took longer to complete tasks that involved event creation and navigation through the volunteer tracking system, indicating some confusion with the flow.
• Cycle 2: Time on task decreased after making the interface more user-friendly,
simplifying event creation and tracking processes.
Perceived Usefulness (PU)
• Cycle 1: Participants rated the system moderately on PU, citing that while the platform had potential, it required more intuitive features for efficient use.
• Cycle 2: Ratings for PU improved as users found the system’s functions to be more
aligned with their needs, especially the event tracking and joining process.
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)
• Cycle 1: PEOU ratings were mixed, with users finding certain features, like the event creation and feedback sections, difficult to navigate.
• Cycle 2: PEOU ratings increased as modifications were made to simplify navigation
and clarify instructions, particularly in the event management and feedback collection
areas.
4.0 IMPROVEMENTS/ACTIONS TAKEN
Before Cycle 1:
• Complex Event Creation Process: The system required user struggled to create an event, causing confusion among participants.
• Difficulty in Joining Events: The event listing was not easily discoverable, leading to frustration.
• Inconsistent Feedback Process: Users struggled with providing feedback, and the process was not clearly explained.
After Cycle 2:
• Simplified Event Creation: A more straightforward form was introduced, reducing the number of steps needed to create an event and enhancing user experience.
• Improved Event Visibility: The event listing page was redesigned for better visibility, allowing users to browse and join events more easily.
• Clarified Feedback Section: Instructions were added, making it easier for users to provide feedback post-event, with an updated design that streamlined the feedback submission process.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The usability test revealed important insights into the Lester Volunteer Community Project’s platform, particularly in the areas of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use. While the system had solid potential, user feedback highlighted areas requiring refinement. The improvements made in Cycle 2 such as simplifying the event creation process, improving navigation, and clarifying the feedback system led to a noticeable increase in task success rates and participant satisfaction. Moving forward, the system should continue to iterate based on user feedback to ensure it meets the needs of all users, optimizing both its utility and usability. These findings and actions align with our goal to enhance user experience and increase engagement with the volunteer platform.
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment