skip to main content
10.5555/1531407.1531421guideproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesbcs-hciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free Access

Expert habits vs. UI improvements: re-design of a room booking system

Authors Info & Claims
Published:03 September 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents the results of a case study examining prototyping as a method in re-designing a user interface (UI). In the case presented, a web-based room booking was re-designed. Running on a university web site, the existing system has caused much critique amongst its users. Their expectations for a new UI were increased ease of use, less effort required, and less time consumed. We prototyped a new UI using Visio and tested it with a small number of experienced and novice users. Our results partly favor the existing system and partly the new one. To our surprise, experienced users performed relatively poorer with the new UI considering their critique of the existing one. We found paper prototyping to be an efficient method to gain user feedback on usability issues and that a low-fidelity prototype does not automatically mean low-effort testing. We observed that visible-state UI elements can be demanding to test through paper prototyping.

References

  1. Bryan-Kimms, N., and Hamilton, F. 2002. One for all and all for one? Case studies of using prototypes in commercial projects. In Proc. NordiCHI'02, ACM, pp. 91--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., Beale, R. Human-Computer Interaction. Pearson Education Ltd, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. ED Booking System, Chalmers, Gothenburg: www.ed.chalmers.se/bokningssystemGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jurca, A. 2000. Consumer-centered interfaces: customizing online travel planning. In Proc. CHI '00 Ext. Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, pp. 93--94. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Kiris, E. 2004. User-centered eService design and redesign. In Proc. CHI 2004, ACM, pp. 990--999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. McCurdy, M., Connors, C., Pyrzak, Guy, Kanefsky, B., and A. Vera. 2006. Breaking the fidelity barrier: An examination of our current characterization of prototypes and an example of a mixed-fidelity success. In Proc. CHI 2006, pp. 1233--1242. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Microsoft Office Visio 2003 Professional, Microsoft, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Nielsen, J. 2003. Paper prototyping: Getting user data before you code. www.useit.com/alertbox/20030414.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Rettig, M. 1994. Prototyping for Tiny Fingers. In Communications of the ACM, 27(4), pp. 21--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Teuber, C., Forbrig, P. 2004. Different types of patterns for online-booking systems. In Proc. 3rd Annual Conference on Task models and diagrams, pp 91--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Walker, M., Takayama, L., and Landay, J. High-fidelity or low-fidelity, paper or computer medium? In Proc. of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Meeting: HFES2002, pp. 661--665.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Expert habits vs. UI improvements: re-design of a room booking system

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image Guide Proceedings
      BCS-HCI '07: Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: HCI...but not as we know it - Volume 2
      September 2007
      270 pages
      ISBN:9781902505954

      Publisher

      BCS Learning & Development Ltd.

      Swindon, United Kingdom

      Publication History

      • Published: 3 September 2007

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate28of62submissions,45%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)15
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader