The goal of conducting a usability test is to gain a better understanding of how users would interact with our designs. After developing our paper prototypes, we conducted a usability test on four real users.

 

For our basic evaluation, we came up with pre-test interview questions, defined three key tasks (starting trash compression, starting the vacuum, assigning a new task) for users to complete, and came up with post-interview questions. The pre-test were meant for gauging user experience with smartphone and task management applications, while the testing stage and post-test interview were meant for gaining a better understanding of how users interacted with the prototype.

 

During the simple evaluation, users were asked to read the scenarios that we provided and perform each of the key tasks listed while vocalizing their thought process. They were given no assistance until it became clear that they were stuck and did not know how to proceed.

 

The users found the wearable to be fairly straightforward and completed the task to start the trashcan compressor and the vacuum in less than a minute. In our post-interview, they stated that the system was simple and easy to use. This made us happy to hear, because we intended for our wearable to be as simple as possible. When we designed the wearable, we wanted custodians to be able to quickly start the trashcan compressor and the vacuum before they went to complete the rest of their tasks as well as quickly check off their tasks. Since the purpose of the wearable was to streamline the workflow for custodians and make their job easier, we wanted to make performing tasks on the wearable quick and easy. By making the interactions with the wearable quicker and simpler, we aimed to lower the cognitive load on the custodial staff so they could focus on the tasks at hand while also limiting the time they spent on the wearable.

 

On the other hand, we intended for our website to give supervisors more control over managing custodian tasks. For example, tasks were categorized as a “general” or a “workorder”, and there were multiple ways to assign a task to a custodian. However, these terms confused our users, and they struggled much more with assigning a work to a custodian than they did the operating the vacuum and trash. As such, we decided to make the following changes to our design for our wireframes:

​

• Make buttons, affordances, and labels clearer. For our website especially, users often expressed confusion as to what things meant or were supposed to do.

• Separate general and workorder custodians interfaces. This language was used within our team to communicate differences between the two groups of custodians; however, our users did not have this background information and did not understand what they meant until we explained it to them. We decided to eliminate use of this language entirely after we referred back to our user research and found that “general” supervisors only supervise “general” custodians and "work order" supervisors work only with "work order".