2.744
Human-use Analysis Reviews
Home > Assignments > Human-use analysis results > Reviews for Drew Walker

Drew Walker
the great s cape
[review]

 Analysis RatingsPresentation Ratings
Average Rating
 
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Reviewer 4:
1-marginal     2-ok    3-good     4-very good    5-outstanding

Quality and thoroughness of human-use analysis and improvement suggestions

Reviewer 1:

The overall report is of very good quality and quite thorough with analysis on different aspects of the infotainment system. One thing that I think can be improved is to include a process of actually using the system, such as showing a series of images that each shows one step of the process and maybe, in the end, include a record of total time the user used to figure out the target task. In addition, a detailed user demography can give the report more credibility. At this stage, it seems that most of the users are familiar with the system already, so including a new user's experience with the system will make the information more comprehensive.

return to top of page


Reviewer 2:

I like how Andrew was inspired from a personal experience.

Andrew went into quite a lot of detail describing the menu hierarchy, the track pad, the 25 different rotations, 4 slides, and the thumb depression of the main control knob.

I found it responsible that Andrew concluded that physical buttons were safer than touch screens due to their tactile feedback, as opposed to touch screens which require taking your eyes off the road. Perhaps the physical buttons could be shaped like the control they signify. For example, have the volume button be in the shape of headphones or ears or musical notes.

Something that may have been interesting to add would have been: How have the physical controls changed over the years? Have car manufacturers upgraded the way physical controls look/act in any major way?

"For certain combinations, the success rate was as low as 10%." Where did this statistic come from?

return to top of page


Reviewer 3:

Andrew's analysis of the 2018 Audi Q5 Infotainment System was well-written and detailed. The framing of the problem as well as the quotes and personal story are a thoughtful introduction.

While the analysis of the physical and interface controls was very thorough, the redesign suggestions could be expanded on. I suggest adding more images to explain each new feature that Andrew is redesigning. In addition, after all the detailed analysis, the redesign suggestions could be more specific to address those problems.

return to top of page


Reviewer 4:

A note about buttons vs touchscreens: by law, the driver must be able to navigate to anywhere on the infotainment with no more than 6 touchscreen presses to minimize distraction. This is why there's weird button/touchscreen navigation routes (also the OEMS don't do their usability research).

I think that the analysis was very thorough and quantitative. The writing is clear and brings back the feelings of frustration on trying to navigate a "too smart for its own good" infotainment system.

I like that you examined the physical design of the interface, the usability relative to the driver, and the software design. It's very telling that you didn't realize some of the menus existed when you were trying to analyse menu design. The 50 year old average owner has no chance.

I'm surprised that such an expensive car is so unusable. An extension to this study would be to compare the Audi to other Volkswagen group vehicles. From personal experience, the 2017 VW GTI and 2016 Porsche Cayman have excellent infotainment systems with no extra buttons/gimmicks.

return to top of page



Clarity and presentation of human-use experience analysis

Reviewer 1:

The report is overall clear and has good presentation with the clear section divisions and pictures. One thing can be improved on is the redesigned solution, because the interface is relatively easy to sketch out digitally, using a digital medium to produce the redesigned solution will make the idea clearer and the presentation to appear more professional.

return to top of page


Reviewer 2:

I think the website should have looked more modern given that he was reviewing the 2018 model of the Audi Q5. As a reader, it was strange to read about the latest car yet feel like I'm looking at a website from 1999.

The image that has a chart showing the brand, age of driver, and income of driver was a bit small and hard to read.

I would position the Redesign Suggestions section before the Summary section, as I had finished reading the summary but then had to pull myself back to contemplate the redesign.

return to top of page


Reviewer 3:

The analysis was very well laid out and clear. The many pictures and diagrams illustrating the different problems facilitated my understanding of the human use experience. However, here as well, I would expect the suggested changes to be more illustrated with clearer drawings.

Navigation and headings as well as video evidence were excellent.

return to top of page


Reviewer 4:

I really like how salient points were bolded. The narrative was clear and easy to follow.

For the redesign, the pictures were very faint. I would suggest either outlining them in marker or editing them to increase contrast.

The one website improvement I would suggest would be to have a floating "scroll to top" button or a static menu with the sections on the side of the page.

return to top of page