Conclusion

This blog was created for the requirements of Human Computer Interaction II at the University of Birmingham. Our aim was to create a totally new product by using a User-Centered Design process. At an initial state we had our brainstorming session where many ideas were discussed and documented on the blog. Following that we had to specify an age group for whom the product was designated for.

Our team selected the group of elderly people of an age of 60+ and we discussed the various problems that this age group faced in their everyday life. Although many of the ideas were considered to be very helpful and innovative we had to select through voting, an idea to implement. The product to be implemented had to be one that would most benefit the group of elderly people that we had selected. The choice was made and the product we decided to develop was the Automatic Secateurs. Conducting a market research for similar products available in the market, we found out that although many products resembled our idea in some way, still no product existed that will take into consideration all the issues we discussed about the needs of the elderly.

The process of creating the product was dependent on a user-centered design and for that reason, due to the fact that we could not get in contact with persons of that age group, we created four personas. Our personas are based on entirely different characters from each other, so as to cover the needs of the elderly in a much more detailed and accurate manner. Each persona has its own advantages and limitations, and thus the interaction with the product was different for each one and unveiled different aspects of the design.

Creative Design was required from us to create an initial prototype according to the needs of the elderly. At the start of this process we had to make another choice. The purpose of the secateurs was clear, but in the group three different design approaches were suggested. After we had reached a decision of what was the most suitable design was in our case, some of the initial requirements for the tool were pointed out, as well as a task analysis, giving us a general idea to start with.

Through discussion and evaluation of the requirements, in the process of creative design, we successfully created our first prototype named EasyTrim. After conducting a critical appraisal of the current design features through the use of interaction scenarios and questionnaires, we arrived at some refinements for the tool. These refinements were implemented and the prototype was evaluated again using cooperative and heuristic evaluation techniques. Further refinements were achieved and the release of the product was a fact. An important factor such as ethics was also discussed in our group although the issues were limited due to the nature of our product.

We have managed to create EasyTrim using a user-centered design and we feel that we have achieved that at a large degree. Despite the great effort we had put in the creation of this product though, there will always be space for improvements. The limited amount of time we had though, was a restraining factor in further investigation of the requirements and needs of our user group and to the creation of an ever more successful tool.

Ethics

Designing a product should take into consideration any possible ethical issues related to the product's use. After discussing together with the group any possible ethical issues we have arrived to only one ethical issue, mainly due to the nature of our product.

EasyTrim is a gardening tool designed to ease the act of gardening. The tool should not be used in any way to result in the injury or death of any person, animal or living being. Although different safety measurements were created taking into account this issue, it is up to the end user whether the use of this tools will actually result to violate this conditions.

EasyTrim Released!

The following picture represents the final and complete EasyTrim tool created by our group. By pressing on the corresponding link below you can view the justification relating to each of the features used in this tool.

Although the justification, for each of the features implemented in our tool, can be derived through the discussion for the creative design of the prototype, the following links provide specific references to where each feature was discussed explicitly.

(1) Aluminum Skeleton
(2) Safety Caps
(3) Non-Slipping Surface
(4) Easy Visible Charging Plug
(5) Durable Lightweight Plastic Handles
(6) Safety Catch
(7) Lightweight Rechargeable Battery
(8) Power Meter
(9) Easy Grasp Handle
(10)Non-Stick Blade

(11)Motor

Further Refinements

After analyzing the results of the evaluation methods we have reached to the following refinements for our tool EasyTrim:

EasyTrim should have a non-stick blade

Using a normal steel blade allows for non-clear and accurate cuts since the blade got easily stuck in the branch mainly due to dirt from the cuttings. This required more strength from the elderly to be used, as well as a greater amount of pressure on their wrist. Replacing the normal blade with a non-stick blade will reduce the pressure exerted on the wrist, as well as the strength needed to operate the tool.

Co-operative Evaluation: Mrs Fernandez

Day: Thursday, March 12th
Time: 11:45
Weather conditions: Mild and cloudy with occasional light rain.

The session began with Mrs Fernandez’ in high spirits and very keen to participate. The garden, 4m x 8m, appeared well kept but evidently had not been tended for several weeks as requested. Most of the flora that needed attention consisted of rose bushes, holly, geraniums and apple blossom however there was also a ornamental tree, approximately 1m high that needed attention. Mrs Fernandez speculated that it would take her up to 1 hour to complete the work with her normal tools. She also insisted that I used her first name, May.

Before beginning the work, May and I enjoyed some refreshments while she answered a few questions regarding the design of the product. Her initial thoughts were that the tool seemed "well made" and "balanced" but she needed some assurance that the tool was very safe to use.

We entered at the garden at 12:15 and May began work on the small tree. She noted that usually this gives her the most trouble as the branches are “very hard and dry”. She was very pleased at how easily the EasyTrim was able to tackle through them. She noted that her hearing is not so good and the tool is very quiet which made it hard to tell if the blade was spinning up. May was able to perform 10 cuts per minute. The average diameter of each was approximately 5mm.

Following the small tree, May moved on to a rose bush. This presented more of a challenge because the branches were thicker, thorned and significantly more fibrous causing the blade to stick regularly. May had a tendency to squeeze the handles too forcefully, shearing the branches rather than allowing the teeth to cut the fibres. I explained that somewhat unintuitvely, applying less pressure to the handles will make the task easier and prevent damage to the EasyTrim. On this task, May became frustrated and we decided to move on without completing it. On the rose bushes, May was able to perform 2 cuts per minute. The average diameter of the branch was 10mm

At this point it began to drizzle so we went inside while we a waited for the rain to subside. During this time we discussed the robustness of the tool. May was very concerned about water resistance because she occasionally she leaves things out in the rain, she also wanted to know if there was any possibility of getting “electrocuted” if she used it with hands. She also mentioned that she has a tendency to drop things accidentally or knock them off a work surface.

The rain cleared after 5 minutes and May resumed gardening. The remainder of the task consisted of small bushes and shrubs up to 0.5m high. The average branch diameter was 3-7mm. May tackled these with ease using the EasyTrim. By this time May was using the tool with great proficiency and was performing up to 13 cuts per minute. At no point during the exercise did she appear fatigued and she commented that she would normally be "out of breath" by this time. Indeed she was enjoying the activity greatly, a sentiment that she expressed three times during the course of the session. The entire task was completed in 45 minutes, 15 minutes less than anticipated.

May was thanked for her time and participation.

Conclusions:

The results and observations from the co-operative evaluation were largely positive. A number of issues have been raised.

- EasyTrim should incorporate a blade with smaller teeth so that it does not stick.
- EasyTrim should be resilient and robust enough to survive a 1m fall onto a hard surface.
- EasyTrim should be able to resist water damage from rain.
- The aesthetics are pleasing to the user.
- Battery life is more than sufficient for the user’s needs.
- Emphasise that less pressure makes the tool work more efficiently.

Co-operative Evaluation

Motivation: The co-operative evaluation is a collaborative effort between the designers and users to identify difficulties with the operation of the EasyTrim. From this we can identify issues which did not present themselves in the questionnaire and also measure qualitative data regarding the usage of the product.

Planning the Session: The session is carried out in a structured way although every effort is taken to ensure the interaction is comfortable and natural.

1. Recruit user.
2. Prepare a realistic task on the user’s own premises. The user was asked not to do any pruning in their garden for at least two weeks before the session. This allows time for adequate over-growth to occur. Performing the task in familiar surroundings is pivotal to gauging how the product will perform in real life situations.
3. The user is asked a series of pre-set questions about the product before starting their task and is invited to raise any questions that they may have with the designer.
4. The gardening session is conducted and all comments are recorded for later reference. Unexpected events are also noted as well as general observations which may be useful to the design team. A break is offered if the user appears fatigued.
5. A post session interview is carried out with preset questions.
6. User discusses their likes and dislikes with the product and raises any other issues.
7. User is thanked for their co-operation.

Cooperative Evaluation - Definition

"Cooperative evaluation" is a variant of think aloud, in which the user is encouraged to see himself as a collaborator in the evaluation rather than just a subject. As well as getting the user to think aloud, the evaluator can ask such questions as "Why?" and "What if.....?"; likewise, the user can ask the evaluator for clarification if problems arise.