...
Pilot test part 2 (individual tasks) was too similar to the first one, as the tasks ended up repeating the events that took place in the first part of the test. The part 2 steps were therfore omitted and incuded into the first part as a form of a guidance or help from the tester.
The actual testing took less than was estimated, briefing and post-questionnaire estimations were ok. So the estimation for the actual testing was reduced in half.
Test subject is a girlfriend who matches the imagined test subject in both of the previous tasks, except for gender. Test takes place at home.
...
- The total number of participants tested: 1
- Participant fits in the estimated user population and the imagined test user in previous tasks
- Chosen because of high availability
- Capabilities include above average it skills but understanding of housing market and pricing is somewhat insufficient for fully considering the price criteria.(this is good point, since most people when they start do not know enough of the pricing policy, thus it would mean that there is need for explaining that more)
Context of Product Use in the Test
...
Criteria: Price: 220 000 euros, location: Helsinki
Free mode task was selected to see the natural flow of apartment search. Completion when above criteria met.
Other tasks were added to see how the generally dismissed functions work. Completion when test subject decides so.
hm.....
Test Test Facility
The setting was at the test subject's home (but the partner was unable to participate in the search). No external problems were present.
...
- the user had 2 error messages when first using the search form. The problem
- user had to click the browser's back button zero times, as she did not reach any dead ends or wrong pages Do not understand what this means?
Qualitative positive :
- clarity, sorting and presentation of search results
- presentation of individual apartments
- green background looks nice
- most of the apartments have pictures
- frontpage is clearly presented
- map useful, even though hitting back button brings to previous map coordinates which after serious map browsing becomes frustrating
- the search results are consistent, the same apartment was found later with sane same criteria
Qualitative negative :
...
The realiability of these results seem quite high* in respect of comparing them with the ones from the pilot testing. A few differences were present (such as more troubles with the search form) but the general feedback was very similar. The final test was also very similar to the pilot test as not so many changes were made to it.
The validity is roughly ok* as the user did not have any previous experience of the site and does not have any experience on usability testing. One unrealistic feature is that the user doesn't have that good of an understanding on the current housing situation and pricing or other relevant information. I think this is good, mots people do not know the pricing policy etc. But the generalisation of the problems to broader user sections is not possible based on 1 actual test with one user and one pilot test.
* the rating scale for these two is based on gut feeling.
...
Notes taken before, during and after the test
Pilot test method 2 was too similar to the first one, so the steps were omitted and included into the first test as a form of a guidance or help from the tester.
The actual testing took less than was estimated, briefing and post-questionnaire estimations were ok.
Test subject is a girlfriend who matches the imagined test subject in both of the previous tasks, except for gender. Test takes place at home.
---
18:13 start
Chose myytäviä asuntoja from frintpage.
Uses search function.
Is first wondering how to choose duplex. Found it form the "huoneluku" field
porblems with the minimum to maximum price? (the fields are not told that they are min and max)
location entered properly
ignored 251€, but later wondered about it
chose an apartment in töölö
ended up in uudiskohteet section and is wondering about the price..
found a place that was MYYTY
18:21
found a place in käärtinpolku 12, 00390 hki, 2h kk kph paarveke 105 000 € konala
18:25-27, specific tasks:
look for help - found it after a while
doesn't define the criterai specifically (the min-max properties)
no help for the technical terms, only site help
18:27, browsing without search
chose duplex -> useless without any criteria.
18:28, re-search the previously found apartment
found easily with the same added criteria
18:29-30, use map to check the location
map was useful for checking the location
but going back not so cool
---
18:32-40, questions
1. search
relatively easy, only irritating part was unclarity of min - max price
sort by price, even though not so clear about the actual pricing
2. bad
pricing not so clear (partly because new to subject)
too many adverts (even though some are nice and colorful)
3. navigation
menus clear and coherent
4. good
green background
search resutl presentation (big picture, type/size of apt, area, price, etc..)
individual apt. view(big picture, map)
5. help
could've had more information abour
technical terms such as pricing
search usage too general; no detailed information
yleiskunto rating
many details on one apt is unclear
Mobiili ID ohje link leads to different help page (for mobile ID)
6. fronpage
clear
background too dull (not green)
DAta Data
search produced errors and the red indicators were somewhat unclear
didn't end up in a page that didn't want to