Case Studies - Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics - page 261

WORKFLOW 4 SCREEN 1
The fourth and final design took the idea of putting workflow into a single popup
further, making the popup a bit more like a “wizard” experience. Participants
needed to select “tasks” and select the correct task, after which a popup came up,
represented by Figure 10.14 .

WORKFLOW 4 SCREEN 2
In screen 2 (see Figure 10.15 ), participants started at the top of the screen with
a “start task” button. Then participants moved down the screen to approve the
item by clicking directly on a green check box associated with the item and added
a note. At the time the item was “approved,”
the “next” button at the bottom of the screen
was replaced with a “finish task” button.

Workflow task: Mean SEQ

7
6
5
4
3

10.3.4 Results
We were able to demonstrate an improve-
ment in the design of workflow, as indicated
by the SEQ and task completion rate (see
Figures 10.16 and 10.17 ).

2
1

3.0 3.9 4.5 5.9

The SEQ yielded our most interesting
results. The mean SEQ score for the workflow
task increased in each round of testing, indi-
cating that participants found the task easier
with each design iteration. In the ini-
tial round of testing, the mean SEQ
for workflow was a 3.0. In Round 2,
the mean SEQ increased to 3.9, and in
Round 3, to 4.5. By Round 4 of testing,
the mean SEQ had increased to 5.9.

1 2 3 4

Round

Figure 10.16 Mean SEQ ratings increased from Round 1 to Round 4.

Workflow : Task Completion %

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

The task completion rate for work-
flow also increased from Round 1 to
Round 4, but not in the same way
as the SEQ scores. The task comple-
tion rate went from 33% in Round
1 to 44% in Round 2, but decreased
to 25% in Round 3. Finally, the
task completion rate was highest in
Round 4, at 67%. The drop in the task completion rate in Round 3 was interest-
ing; although fewer participants completed the task successfully, the SEQ score
was higher than Rounds 1 and 2. Participants rated the design in Round 3 easier
to use than Round 1 or 2, even though it was actually more difficult for them
to use.

33.3% 44.4% 25.0% 66.7%

1 2 3 4

Round

Figure 10.17 Task completion rates were slightly higher in Round 4.