Advertisement

User Experience Evaluation for User Interface Redesign: A Case Study on a Bike Sharing Application

  • Jonas ForteEmail author
  • Ticianne Darin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10290)

Abstract

Mobile application redesign requires the accurate use of design methods and guidelines, as well as detailed evaluation. In the context of alternative and environmentally friendly transportation supported by mobile applications, the redesign process can help enhancing the user experience resulting in a greater adherence of the citizen. To illustrate this scenario and inspire designers to further consider the user experience aspects, we present a case study of the redesign of Bicicletar, a Brazilian bike-sharing application. Our main goal is to analyze how the User Experience (UX) with this outdoor mobility application may affect the design choices in the User Interface. Overall, our iterative redesign process comprised: (1) UX evaluation of the application in the real usage context; (2) redesign of the application through a high-fidelity prototype; and (3) prototype validation. The results showed that the user experience problems regarding the identification and interaction with the main features of Bicicletar affected the perceived usability of the application. On the other hand, the redesigned prototype improvements on the user interface positively affected not only the user experience but also how the users trust the application. The present research is a starting point for the implementation of improvements in Bicicletar and in over 10 variations of this application in other Brazilian states, benefiting the local community, and serving as a reference for the redesign of other mobile applications.

Keywords

Evaluation User experience User interface Redesign process Design recommendations High-fidelity prototype Outdoor mobility 

References

  1. 1.
    Batty, M., Axhausen, K.W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz, M., Ouzounis, G., Portugali, Y.: Smart cities of the future. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 214(1), 481–518 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jensen, O.B., Lanng, D.B., Wind, S.: Mobilities design – towards a research agenda for applied mobilities research. Appl. Mobil. 1(1), 26–42 (2016). doi: 10.1080/23800127.2016.1147782 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hassenzahl, M.: User experience (UX): towards an experiential perspective on product quality. In: 20th International Conference of the Association Francophone d’Interaction Homme-Machine, pp. 11–15 (2008). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1512714.1512717
  4. 4.
    Mohamed, A., Ozkul, T.: User-interface usability evaluation. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Secur. (IJCSS) 10(2), 88–94 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sridevi, S.: User interface design. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. Res., vol. 2(2), pp. 415–426 (2014). www.researchpublish.com. ISSN 2348-120X
  6. 6.
    Weiss, S.: Handheld Usability. Wiley, West Sussex (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park, H., Song, H.D.: Make e-learning effortless! Impact of a redesigned user interface on usability through the application of an affordance design approach. Educ. Technol. Soc. 18(3), 185–196 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kjeldskov, J., Graham, C., Pedell, S., Vetere, F., Howard, S., Balbo, S., Davies, J.: Evaluating the usability of a mobile guide: the influence of location, participants and resources. Behav. Inf. Technol. 24(1), 51–65 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nielsen, J.: Heuristic evaluation. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L. (eds.) Usability Inspection Methods, pp. 25–62. Wiley, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kikuchi, H., Kimura, S., Ohkubo, S., Inamura, H., Takeshita, A.: User interface development from conceptualization to prototype evaluation through UCD processes. NTT DOCOMO Tech. J. 12(3), 33–41 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carneiro, N., Pinheiro, M., Mesquita, V., Coelho, B., Forte, J., Darin, T.: Transporte e Tecnologia: Avaliação da Experiência de Uso de Aplicativos de Apoio à Mobilidade Urbana. In: TISE - XXI Congreso Internacional de Informática Educativa, 2016, Santiago, vol. 12, pp. 253–264. Nuevas Ideas en Informática Educativa, Santiago (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lim, Y., Pangam, A., Periyasami, S., Aneja, S.: Comparative analysis of high- and low-fidelity proto-types for more valid usability evaluations of mobile devices. In: Mørch, A., Morgan, K., Bratteteig, T., Ghosh, G., Svanaes, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-computer Interaction: Changing Roles (NordiCHI 2006). ACM, New York, pp. 291–300 (2006). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1182475.1182506
  13. 13.
    Kantar Worldpanel ComTech. Smartphone OS sales market share (2016). http://www.kantarworldpanel.com/global/smartphone-os-market-share. Accessed 28 July 2016
  14. 14.
    das Cidades, M.: Caderno de Referência Para a Elaboração de Plano de Mobilidade Urbana (PlanMob) (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H.: Design de Interação: além da interação humano-computador. Bookman (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Norman, D.A.: Cognitive engineering. In: Norman, D.A., Draper, S.W. (eds.) User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, Hillsdale, USA, pp. 32–65 (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenfeld, L., Morville, P.: Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, 3rd edn. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yáñez Gómez, R., Cascado Caballero, D., Sevillano, J.L.: Heuristic evaluation on mobile interfaces: a new checklist. Sci. World J. 2014, 1–19 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garrett, J.J.: The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web and Beyond, 2nd edn. New Riders, San Francisco (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nielsen, J., Clemmensen, T., Yssing, C.: Getting access to what goes on in people’s heads?: reflections on the think-aloud technique. In: Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI 2002), pp. 101–110. ACM, New York (2002). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/572020.572033
  21. 21.
    Lewis, J.R.: Psychometric evaluation of the computer system usablity questionnaire: the CSUQ. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interac. 7(1), 57–78 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chin, J.P., Diehl, V.A., Norman, K.L.: Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. In: O’Hare, J.J. (ed.) Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 1988), pp. 213–218. ACM, New York (1988). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/57167.57203
  23. 23.
    Bradley, M.M., Lang, P.J.: Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry 25, 49–59 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lang, P.J. Bradley, M.M., Cuthbert, B.N.: International affective picture system (IAPS): instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical report A-4, The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida (1999)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moraes, R.: Análise de conteúdo. Rev. Educação 22(37), 7–32 (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nielsen, J., Landauer, T.K.: A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In: Proceedings of ACM INTERCHI 1993, pp. 206–213 (1993)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leitão, C., e Daniela Romão, D.: Pesquisas em IHC: um debate interdisciplinar sobre a ética. In: Atas do Workshop sobre Interdisciplinaridade em IHC, CLIHC, pp. 6–7 (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Buchenau, M., Suri, J.F.: Experience prototyping. In: Boyarski, D., Kellogg, W.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (DIS 2000), pp. 424–433. ACM, New York (2000). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/347642.347802
  30. 30.
    Gutierrez, O.: Prototyping techniques for different problem contexts. In: Bice, K., Lewis, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 1989), pp. 259–264. ACM, New York (1989). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/67449.67499
  31. 31.
    Schneider, K.: Prototypes as assets, not toys. why and how to extract knowledge from prototypes. In: 18th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-18), Berlin, Germany, pp. 522–531 (1996)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thompson, M. Wishbow, N.: Prototyping: tools and techniques: improving software and documentation quality through rapid prototyping. In: Proceedings of SIGDOC 1992, pp. 191–199. ACM Press (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Virtual University InstituteFederal University of CearáFortalezaBrazil

Personalised recommendations