1 / 58

Tuomas Husu

The Usability of KONE DCS: How (and why) the characteristics of the group affect the use of the system. Tuomas Husu. Research problem. What we did?. 2 x 2 x 2 Factorial design. Group size 2 persons 4 persons Degree of acquaintance “Friends” “Strangers” Destination Same

yana
Download Presentation

Tuomas Husu

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Usability of KONE DCS: How (and why) the characteristics of the group affect the use of the system Tuomas Husu Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  2. Research problem Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  3. What we did? Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  4. 2 x 2 x 2 Factorial design • Group size • 2 persons • 4 persons • Degree of acquaintance • “Friends” • “Strangers” • Destination • Same • Different Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  5. 2 x 2 x 2 Factorial design:Variable combinations Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  6. Video 1 Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  7. Measures and covariates • Used left DOP • Problems: ID twice • T to DOP 3 s • T at DOP 4 s • Total time 20 s • Elevator B Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  8. Measures and covariates • Used left DOP • Problems: ID twice • T to DOP 3 s • T at DOP 4 s • Total time 20 s • Elevator B • Used right DOP • Problems: no • T to DOP 2 s • T at DOP 7 s • Total time 22 s • Elevator B Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  9. Measures and covariates • Used left DOP • Problems: ID twice • T to DOP 3 s • T at DOP 4 s • Total time 20 s • Elevator B • Used right DOP • Problems: no • T to DOP 2 s • T at DOP 7 s • Total time 22 s • Elevator B • Did not use DOP • Total time 16 s • Elevator B Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  10. Measures and covariates • Used left DOP • Problems: no • T to DOP 5 s • T at DOP 3 s • Total time 15 s • Elevator B • Used left DOP • Problems: ID twice • T to DOP 3 s • T at DOP 4 s • Total time 20 s • Elevator B • Used right DOP • Problems: no • T to DOP 2 s • T at DOP 7 s • Total time 22 s • Elevator B • Did not use DOP • Total time 16 s • Elevator B Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  11. Measures and covariates Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  12. System usability scale (SUS) • Before and after … … Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  13. Interview • Focus group interview afterwards • Impressions about the system • Objective of the system • DOP: functions and ease of use • Problems • Et cetera Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  14. Elevator Quiz! Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  15. Results: Total time • On average: 22,4 seconds Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  16. Results: Total time Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  17. Results: Total time Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  18. Results: Total time Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  19. Results: Total time • Interaction effect (total time) Friends Strangers Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  20. Results: Did they use the panel? • On average: 84% used panel Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  21. Results: Did they use the panel? Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  22. Results: Did they use the panel? Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  23. Results: Did they use the panel? Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  24. Results: Did they use the panel? • Interaction effect (share of people who used DOP) Friends Strangers Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  25. Results: Persons per elevator • On average: 2 persons per elevator Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  26. Results: Persons per elevator Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  27. Results: Persons per elevator Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  28. Results: Persons per elevator Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  29. Results: Persons per elevator • Interaction effect (persons per elevator car) Friends Strangers Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  30. Results: DOP success rate • On average: 74% succeeded by first attempt Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  31. Results: DOP success rate Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  32. Results: DOP success rate Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  33. Results: DOP success rate Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  34. Results: DOP success rate • Interaction effect (DOP call success rate) Friends Strangers Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  35. Results: DOP learnability • Changes in success rate during the test Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  36. Results Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  37. Results: SUS Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  38. Results: SUS Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  39. Results: Interviews • Premises, views and elevator interiors were awesome • Elevators moved fast and smoothly • The more people in the hall, the more difficult it was • Elevator hall was too narrow • DOP was difficult to use (buttons etc) • It was difficult to distinguish elevators • No clue what ★ and − buttons were (DOP) Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  40. Conclusion • Things become complicated if something goes wrong with DOP call • DOP time is ~4 seconds if everything is ok, but easily 10-30 seconds when problems occur • (Quite often something goes wrong) • Other people gets away with elevators while others are struggling with DOP’s Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  41. Conclusions: What else? • They used DOP more loyally than we expected (over 80%)… Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  42. Video 2 Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  43. Conclusions: What else? • They used DOP more loyally than we expected (over 80%) • DOPs were surprisingly difficult to use… • 77% succeeded at once • 62% succeeded at once without errors Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  44. Video 3 Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  45. Conclusions: What else? • They used DOP more loyally than we expected (over 80%) • DOPs were surprisingly difficult to use • 77% succeeded at once • 62% succeeded at once without errors • Elevators were not easily distinguishable… Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  46. Video 4 Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  47. Conclusions: What else? • They used DOP more loyally than we expected (over 80%) • DOPs were surprisingly difficult to use • 77% succeeded at once • 62% succeeded at once without errors • Elevators were not easily distinguishable • Because of narrow corridor and placement of DOP’s the movement was not smooth… Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  48. Video5 Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  49. Conclusions: What else? • They used DOP more loyally than we expected (over 80%) • DOPs were surprisingly difficult to use • 77% succeeded at once • 62% succeeded at once without errors • Elevators were not easily distinguishable • Because of narrow corridor and placement of DOP’s the movement was not smooth Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

  50. Design implications Tuomas Husu / Department of Computer Science

More Related