SAVIN COPIER REDESIGN INTERFACE

1
SAVIN COPIERREDESIGN INTERFACE

• Provided by Abiodun Tayo Akamo
• Student No 205617501
• Date 21/03/03
• Contact tayo_jim_at_yorku.ca
• Group Diamond (Copier)

2
Table of Contents

• Aim and Objective.4
• My Plan..5
• - Mapping.6
• -Affordance7
• -Feedback8
• -Reducing and recognizing user
  errors..9
• -Cognitive Psychology.10

3
Table of Contents

• Plans
• -Novice to expert continuum11
• -Functionality..12
• Task.14
• Procedural Analysis..15
• Approach of Design..18
• Conclusion.22

4
Aim and Objective

• Aim and Objective
• The aim and objective of this work is to
  redesign and make the top-level user interface
  of SAVIN COPIER more effective, safe, efficient
  and overall easily usable to serve the needs of
  the users, which include novice users who just
  want to photocopy a page or two.
• Also to make two principles of good human
  computer interaction strictly adhere to, that is
  visibility and affordance, In page 5 of Preece
  says controls need to be visible, with good
  mapping with their effects and their design
  should also suggest (that is afford) their
  functionality.

5
Aim and Objective

• My Plan
• In order to accomplish the above objective I
  have consider some computer interaction
  criterias in designing a good interface that are
  straight forward to use, means that my redesign
  have to think beyond merely what capabilities my
  system should have.
• They also need to consider the interaction that
  goes on between users and copier, this bring me
  to user interaction the aspects of the system
  that user comes in contact with which in turn
  means and input language for the user example
  button the user clicks e.g print, stop e.t.c on
  my redesign, and output like Your printing job
  is in progress that SAVIN COPIER will produce
  when another window pops up (page 7 Preece)

6
Plan (Criterias)

• Mapping
• In redesign the top level of my interface,
  mapping is one of the concepts I focus my
  attention on very well since mapping are said to
  be good if they appear natural and intuitive to
  the users. And what I did in my redesigned is to
  structure all my input in one side of the top
  level and merely looking at the links we also
  tell the users exactly the action they can
  perform with it. For example when a user click on
  print, the user expects to print and when click
  on stop expects all action stop. In my redesigned
  bad mapping seems to have been reduced to minimum
  level (page 280 Preece).

7
Plan (Criterias)

• -Affordance
• Under affordance, the new redesign top-level user
  interface has all the links working. The
  affordance that this new top-level interface
  provided it is ability to view this page in other
  language (mock up created at interface level).
  This help to capture entire user spectrum and
  eradicate any linguistics problems as the
  original interface had. (page277 Preece).

8
Plan (Criterias)

• -Feedback
• According to Preece on page 281, Feedback is
  defined as the sending back to the user
  information about what action has actually been
  done and what result that has been accomplished.
  In the light of the foregoing definition, what I
  have achieved in my redesigned is to have another
  window comes up the screen whenever the user
  perform any action on the redesign interface,
  reminding the user that some action is ongoing.

9
Plan (Criterias)

• -Reducing and recognizing user errors
• In my redesigned, I have minimize errors
  drastically by dividing top level interface into
  frames. The left frame on the top-level contains
  all the input and this will make the users
  comfortable since the users only need to focus on
  one area of the interface to get his her job
  done. Unlike in my first assignment 1 which have
  all the input scatter all over the place. And
  this will also make the users recognizing errors
  and when user click on the input another window
  will comes up the screen to alert the user
  exactly what the user is doing (page161 Preece).

10
Plan (Criterias)

• -Cognitive Psychology
• In my new redesign top-level interface, I make
  the appearance of my interface colorful by
  putting some colors in the background, since
  color can be attractive to people especially
  women (quoting Prof Paolucci). And this will make
  user paying more attention to what they are doing
  and in doing so , perception, memory, learning,
  thinking and problem solving are considered in my
  redesigned (page 39 Preece).

11
Plan (Criterias)

• Novice to expert continuum
• When learning a skill for the first time we are
  called novices. As we become more experienced we
  reach various levels of competence. After much
  practice and when we can perform the task without
  consciously having to think about each move, as
  we use our native language, we are considered
  experts (this is a quote from Preece page 163),
  what I achieved by using this concept in my
  redesign is to make my interface so simple that
  anyone can operate the copier and also have their
  language options since users can always choose
  the language they are familiar with.

12
Functionality

• Functional requirement need to be considered both
  what the system does and what human does. It is
  the process of TASK ALLOCATION. Alone side
  function requirements, functional constraints
  must be identified. Example, amount of memory the
  system should fit into, type of programming
  language that must be used to develop the system.

13
Functionality

• The main functionalities in my top level
  interface
• -English Take the user to English page.
• -French Take the user to French page.
• -Ready Telling the user that the copier is
  ready to copy.
• -Wait Telling the user to wait since the
  machine may be warming up.

14
Functionality

• - Enlarge Telling the user that he or she can
  adjust its margin to the maximum.
• - Reduce Telling the user that he or she can
  adjust its margin to the minimum.
• - Paper jam Telling the user that paper is
  jammed.
• - Help Telling the user a link a to help is
  around the corner.

15
Task

• Functions are activities, unlike functions, task
  define the activities required, used or believed
  to be necessary to achieve a goal using a
  particular device.
• -Print User can print or photocopy by click on
  this button.
• -Stop User can stop the copier by clicking on
  stop.

16
Procedural Analysis

• In my redesign as shown in the sketch below.
• ENGLISHFRENCH

SAVIN HOME PAGE WAIT READY PRINT ENLARGE REDUCE PA
PERJAM STOP
17
Procedural Analysis

• This sketch in the previous slide can be used to
  document how users currently carry out tasks
  (with or without tools) and this sketch also
  create and idealized picture of the process that
  typical user follow.

18
Approach of Design

• Im taking star model to perform my redesign.
  Evaluation is central in this method. All aspects
  of system development are subject to constant
  evaluation by users and by experts.
• I already did usability evaluation in my
  previous top-level interface in assignment 1.
  The next slide contains star design model.

19
Approach of Design

• Star model.

Task analysis Function analysis
implementation
evaluation
Requirement specification
prototyping
Concept design Formal design
20
Approach of Design

• Why using this approach
• My design this time is more on technology
  exploration, it means there is no particular
  target user and we invent imagination scenarios
  to apply it to. That is why I chose star life
  cycle approach. This system development may begin
  at any stage and may be followed by any other
  stages. This may seem weid but in reality is
  quite common (page 380, Preece).

21
Conclusion

• This new redesign top-level interface also took
  Gestalt theory into consideration. This idea of
  proximity closure, continuity, similarity in
  exception to symmetry have all some how
  manifested itself in this new redesign interface
  (page 79 Preece). Also the new redesigned page
  has demonstrated and excellent visibility and
  affordance, taking language into consideration
  and this allow more users to use the interface.
  Another important point to make is that my top
  level interface fail to pass Bobby and but pass
  w3 HTML validator, but my Bobby failed because I
  used frame to design my interface.
• Furthermore two people took a look at my
  interface and gave me A but they said I could
  have gotten A if I passed Bobby.