indiv

Results of Testing (~2-3 pages)  Each member’s heuristic evaluations  Select the usability guidelines you will use  Select the portion of the low-fidelity prototype  Provide a report of the findings and suggestions for improvement

- Refer to page 686 for heuristic evaluation principles Let's add this to our report before going into individual heuristic testing:

Sharp, Helen, Yvonne Rogers, and Jenny Preece. __Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction__. Chichester: Wiley, 2007.

"Heuristic evaluation is a usability inspection technique first developed by Jakob Nielsen and his colleagues, in which experts, guided by a set of usability principles known as heuristics, evaluate whether user-interface elements conform to the principles" (Sharp et al., p.686).

JESSICA

The usability guidelines I have followed for my heuristic evaluation included learnability, efficiency, and memorability to test the systems consistency and standards. To test the guidelines I have selected, I chose to focus on the “Manual Entry” portal. I selected these guidelines and this portion of the prototype, as the “Manual Entry” portal requires more steps than simply scanning an item, requiring the user to remember more steps. When testing the “Manual Entry” portal I have found that it is efficient as the names of the required information were given and there is a large space to write in a product name beside each requested requirement. The pop-up keyboard helps provide learnability as the keyboard is familiar in everyday life and the steps were clear even though they were not directly stated. The set-up of the screen to enter the product name and expiry date is similar to other layouts used in many computer programs. Also, how to get to the instructions to get to the “Manual Entry” portal is easy to remember as the default home screen has large icons that remain in static positions. By analyzing the above the information, it is clear that the heuristics of consistency and standards is used effectively. Instructions directed at the user are simple to understand and remain static. The “Manual Entry” platform also follows conventions from many common interfaces and keeps a similar look and feel to //FoodSmart's// other functions, which keep the user from getting confused. Also the distinct entry into the “Manual Entry” portal helps the user from understanding the different words and necessary actions from those of the other three portals.

AMANDA This heuristic evaluation analyzes //FoodSmart’s// Font screen of the Options menu by employing the usability guidelines of visibility and feedback, as well as of Jakob Nielsen’s heuristics of aesthetic and minimalist design, and error prevention. The Font screen contains clearly labeled and visible buttons, each with its own function, eliminating potential confusion. As with the other screens, the menu buttons appear in the same place horizontally along the top of the screen. They are easy to read, and clearly identify their function. In addition, the font styles are clearly labeled and listed in a vertical column, as are the font sizes. There is a large “OK” button at the bottom of the screen that indicates to the user that it is used to save the changes. The Font screen’s text and buttons are clearly visible to their users and are not left ambiguous. However, this page also provides the options of altering the text size if the user would like smaller or larger text. FoodSmart’s interface relies on the use of touch-screen buttons for navigation. Each button provides the user with immediate feedback, either taking the user to a new screen, or allowing them to change their font style or size. Even before a user saves their font preferences, they are provided with feedback. When the user clicks on a font style, it immediately changes, allowing the user to preview it before having to use the “OK” button. The same applies to the text size (although not working in this prototype). This screen makes effective use of aesthetic and minimalist design. Only what is needed for the screen’s functions is provided on-screen; there are no irrelevant buttons or information. It is therefore not distracting for the user; all buttons are easily visible and appropriately labeled, and therefore ensures that there is an efficient and pleasant user experience. The use of a consistent and stationary menu bar across the top of all screens, helps to reduce potential errors by providing consistent mapping. However, if a wrong button is pressed, the user may easily use the menu bar to choose the appropriate function, rather than having to return to the home menu each time. Furthermore, the font style and text size previews keep errors at a minimum since the user may decide if they are satisfied with their selection prior to having to make a commitment to them. There is no potential for drastic error. Through the analysis of the information above, it is clear that the Font screen is effective in its functions and that usability guidelines were adhered to.

GENA
 * Heuristic Evaluation: Scanner**

The scanner was designed to have an //__aesthetic and minimalist design__//. Its sleek shape camouflages with the fridge handle. This then becomes an initial problem of //__recognition rather than recall__// in the //visibility// of the scanner. Users unfamiliar to the FoodSmart fridge will not distinguish the scanner from the fridge handle immediately. Even though it may be hard to notice at first due to its subtlety, users will eventually learn to appreciate its inconspicuousness that the scanner does not stand out but rather complement the fridge as a whole. The scanner’s //__flexibility and efficiency of use__// speeds up the scanning interaction by having its own buttons to scan in and scan out items, providing an intuitive //affordance//. When one button is pushed for its function, the other is not permissible. Thus, its //constraints// restrict users from accidentally doing a scan in and a scan out or vice versa. Despite its difference with the average scanner guns in the market, its //__consistency and standards__// follow suit in its function. By having in and out buttons directly on the scanner, it provides //__visibility of the system status__// when an error occurs. This will prevent false positives and false negatives as to what items are scanned in and out of the fridge. The interface will generate prompts in the case of a completion or an error so that users always receive //feedback//. Having alerts appear on the screen allow users to //__recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors__//. For new users, there is //__help and documentation__// to demonstrate step by step instructions to accomplish their task or correct a mistake such as how to properly scan an item with the scanner and what to do with items that cannot be scanned. While the scanner does most of the work by scanning items, there still exists //__user control and freedom__//. Users can manually input their own data such as typing in labels and expiration dates for food that cannot be scanned. This is important in modifying the inventory list in the fridge as well as buying groceries that the consumer may or may not want. Even though the product is introducing something new to the kitchen by giving users the ability to order groceries directly from their fridge that corresponds with their inventory, the FoodSmart fridge is a //__match between system and the real world__//. The concept of scanning barcodes is a familiar function when it comes to grocery products, albeit a new feature in the conventional fridge. **Stephanie****Results Testing**

The platform conventions of FoodSmart are persistent with very flexible choices to pick from, for example, there was a font and text colour selection, and this caters to different users according to their specific literal and visual needs when using FoodSmart. This makes FoodSmart an effective, versatile and flexible design due to the fact that it is suitable for multiple demographic groupings. The user control and freedom aspect is available as well as there is a master reset button located in the refrigerator, in case of any emergency incidents that could happen to the touch screen interface or barcode scanner gun. Due to its complex design interface, creating an emergency button was a fundamental aspect of FoodSmart so that in case of any errors occurring, there will be less chance of losing all the data and information stored on the FoodSmart software system. FoodSmart provides a consistent and standard performance, and leaves clear instructions on the touch screen options menu to redirect users to the desired action they wish to make. For example, on the shopping list option, users can clearly see the “edit”, “delete”, “add more” and “check out” buttons, and follows a simple process of helping users navigate around generating a desired grocery list.

The recognition rather than recall is done effectively as well because the main function of FoodSmart is to help the user in minimizing their memory load when keeping track of groceries. FoodSmart’s reminder system for food expiry dates and ability to generate predictable grocery lists definitely assists the user in having a more organized, simple and consistent refrigerator that keeps track of the dates for the users. FoodSmart follows a minimalistic design and looks aesthetically pleasing because much time and effort was spent on attempting to make a complicated design look simple. By using simply materials, the refrigerator does not look visually overwhelming despite having a touch screen interface and detachable barcode scanner gun as a handle. Designing a touch screen definitely complements the sleekness of the design, and also allows all navigation to occur in the touch screen system, makign it easier for individuals to use. FoodSmart is definitely a match between system and the real world due to the fact that every aspect is designed to improve the rate of convenience for the user. For example, the touch screen interface offers very straightforward guidelines on how to use the refrigerator itself and how to keep track of food expiry dates. This design followed a logical order in terms of the guidelines menu as well because the screens clearly label the sections and options that were available, allowing me to adjust the options based on the specific purposes and needs. Overall, FoodSmart was a design that catered to every aspect of interface design, and offers simple usability guidelines for the user to coordinate with.

Jessica Heuristics

The usability guidelines I have followed for my heuristic evaluation included learnability, efficiency, and memorability to test the systems consistency and standards. To test the guidelines I have selected, I chose to focus on the “Manual Entry” portal. I selected these guidelines and this portion of the prototype, as the “Manual Entry” portal requires more steps than simply scanning an item, requiring the user to remember more steps. When testing the “Manual Entry” portal I have found that it is efficient as the names of the required information were given and there is a large space to write in a product name beside each requested requirement. The pop-up keyboard helps provide learnability as the keyboard is familiar in everyday life and the steps were clear even though they were not directly stated. The set-up of the screen to enter the product name and expiry date is similar to other layouts used in many computer programs. Also, how to get to the instructions to get to the “Manual Entry” portal is easy to remember as the default home screen has large icons that remain in static positions. By analyzing the above the information, it is clear that the heuristics of consistency and standards is used effectively. Instructions directed at the user are simple to understand and remain static. The “Manual Entry” platform also follows conventions from many common interfaces and keeps a similar look and feel to //SmartFood’s// other functions, which keep the user from getting confused. Also the distinct entry into the “Manual Entry” portal helps the user from understanding the different words and necessary actions from those of the other three portals.

DARYA

The two heuristics that were chosen for user testing were "match between system and the real world", and "consistency and standards". FoodSmart's LCD Screen follows these usability guidelines. Firstly, the software "speaks the user's language" by using concepts, words, and phrases that the user is familiar with. For example, the 'Inventory' screen uses such terms as 'product name', 'quantity', and 'expiry date', and the the user is familiar with these terms from the real world, such as when going grocery shopping. The design of the 'Inventory' screen also appears in a natural and logical order, with a product name listed first, then the quantity, and then the expiry date. There are also 'Delete' and 'Edit' buttons, which can be used to either delete a product from the fridge's inventory or to adjust its quantity and/or expiry date. The 'Inventory' screen could be improved by adding the columns such as 'Ingredients' and 'Nutritional Facts', to provide more information on the product to the user. As for the "consistency and standards" heuristic, FoodSmart's LCD Screen follows a consistent design, with the tabs at the top of every page being the same size, shape, and colour. Overall, every screen follows the same design, uses the same font and colour palette. As such, the user of FoodSmart will not have a problem of ambiguity where he or she would have to wonder whether "different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing" (Sharp et al., p.687).

Kevin

Two usability aspects in this heuristic evaluation are **Consistency and Standards**, and **Recognition Rather than Recall**. I chose to focus on the home screen, where a user can select from the four basic options that are shown on the display. In terms of **Consistency and Standards**, I found that I was able to tell apart which function was which and was able to determine that a decision was made based on the text that explains the beside each other on the screen. Each definition was distinct from each other in that they each have their own meaning attached. I do not think I would have been able to confuse any of the options for anything else. For **Recognition Rather than Recall**, I was easily able to locate the icons that are displayed on the button that could be presses, and determine that those options are indeed what their pictures may suggest. The size of the icons are appreciated, because I do not have to take the time to think about what the icon may mean, and ultimately quicken the process of the evaluation.