130 likes | 133 Views
E ASY C HAIR R EVIEW , META - REVIEW AND COMMENTS. G ILBERTO B ARDALES A ARON D ONK A MMAR T AKI E L -D IN V ATSAL S HAH. R ECAP & P ROTOTYPE. Recap Problems with excessive wordage Presence of technical terminology Lengthy form-fills Availability and absence of functionality
E N D
EASYCHAIRREVIEW, META-REVIEWANDCOMMENTS GILBERTO BARDALESAARON DONK AMMAR TAKI EL-DIN VATSAL SHAH
RECAP & PROTOTYPE Recap • Problems with excessive wordage • Presence of technical terminology • Lengthy form-fills • Availability and absence of functionality Prototype • http://rdeezy.com/EasyChair/
SUBJECT FINDINGS - MAIN PAGE • Not consistent with display • Centered and left justified stuff doesn’t go well together • Confused between selection of radiobuttons or clicking links • Confused as to what the buttons refer to and where they apply • Lack of title wasn’t appreciated (for Revise and Edit Metareview section)
SUBJECT FINDINGS -ADD REVIEW/REVISE REVIEW • Enjoyed scrolling dialog • Those familiar with similar websites recommended sticking with "-3 to 3" ranking scheme • Too much white space • Center alignment disorienting in "add review" process • Another person reviewing statement is not unambiguous (physically or as a requested subreview?) • Scoring titles weren’t explanatory
SUBJECT FINDINGS - REQUEST REVIEW • Liked the auto-fill in the request review process • Didn't like the need to fill out more info in the textbox such as due date • Preferred to have a small template as to what to write in the text-box. • However, didn't like the text to be part of the text-box, but liked the idea of a template
SUBJECT FINDINGS - ADD COMMENT • Difficult to understand what commenting was for in the "add comment" process • Suggested having comment form-fill after the abstract • Would have liked the abstract to be shown in more places. • Wanted the author info to be with the other info about paper; less disconnect
SUBJECT FINDINGS - SHOW REVIEWS • The "Add Comment" section of this page is located on the very bottom of the page. • Users would often scroll half way down and not all the way to the bottom. • There is no indication on the top of the page that the "Add Comment" section exists. • Liked the grey out effect and color effect for sub-revisions • Preferred to have it ordered by name and not date=
SUBJECT FINDINGS - META REVIEWS • There is no easy way for a user to see the reviews that they are writing a meta review on • User's expected to be able to write a meta review from the show reviews page • Would have liked preview of review along with each review rather than entire reviews list or just links either • Wanted a scale for accept and reject • not so black and white • a Maybe option if possible
CHANGES SINCE OUR LAST PRESENTATION • All "submit" buttons point to the "myPapers" portion of the website • Addition of alerts when "submit" is clicked to show confirmation • Made formatting changes to "add review" page • Edited "revise review" page to reflect changes in "add review" page • Added summary of review table to "meta review" page • Links in summary of review table on "meta review" page open in a new tab
FINAL CHANGES • Changed layout on main page and "add review" page to be on the left • Set scale from 1-5, 5 being excellent • Overall Ranking scale set back to "-3 to 3" • "Revise review" now has a form-fill for why the review was revised • Added a button for add "meta review" on the "show reviews" page • Added a jump link on "show reviews" page to get to "add comment" • Added a jump link on bottom of "add review" to get to top because it is a long page
UPDATED TIMELINE • All Users Studies finished on time • Prototype updated according to user study results • Just need to polish up the documentation
RISK ANALYSIS • Rescheduling of subjects • Time conflicts between subjects and teammates due to class-time restrictions • Subjects leaving in between due to other commitments, boredom, etc. • Subjects refusing to do a post-study interview • User needs are higher than technological capabilities allowed for the modification of the website • Conflicting user opinions lead to stagnant progress as prototype cannot accommodate conflicting changes • End result may end up being similar to original website if users find no problems with it
THANK YOU! QUESTIONS?