SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2019,
Visualizing project information from the perspective of a client
How do you present information in a user friendly manner?
VICTOR SJÖDIN
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE
The importance for businesses to adapt to the digital age should not be understated. The demand for businesses to provide its customers and clients with engaging, immersive, collaborative, and interactive products is increasing as well. User experience is a term that encapsulates these demands very well. This statement also holds true in less obvious aspects of business-customer relationships, namely in the field of project management and the relationship between the client and the provider. The question then becomes: How do you visualize and present information regarding the process and progress of a project to a client in a user friendly and interactive manner?
User-centered design was the approach used to create the design solution. Five clients were
interviewed, and the results of their interviews rendered in a prototype which they then tested and
had evaluated. The prototype incorporate three task visualizations, supports communication and
approval of design proposals, highlights when the user is required to make decisions, among other
things. This design solution was deemed to adequately fulfill the users’ needs and goals, but it also
had room for improvements.
Abstract
Vikten för företag att anpassa sig till den digitala tidsåldern ska inte underskattas. Kraven på företag att kunna bistå med immersiva, engagerande och interaktiva produkter ökar. User experience är ett begrepp som omfattar dessa krav väl. Även i mindre uppenbara delar i relationen mellan företag och kund återfinns dessa krav, bland annat inom projektledning och i relationen mellan leverantörer och dess kunder. Frågan blir då: Hur kan man visualisera och presentera information om processen och statusen i ett projekt till en kund på ett användarvänligt och interaktivt sätt? Användarcentrerad-design var tillvägagångsättet som användes för att besvara denna fråga.
Fem kunder intervjuades och resultaten från deras intervjuer ledde till en prototyp som de även
senare testade. Prototypen bestod bland annat av tre aktivitetsvisualiseringar, en sida som stödde
diskussion och godkännande av designförslag, samt att den belyste när användaren behövde fatta
beslut. Prototypen uppfyllde användarnas behov och krav, men lämnade även utrymme för
förbättringar.
Visualizing project information from the perspective of a client
How do you present information in a user friendly manner?
Victor Sjödin CSC
Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden
visj@kth.se
ABSTRACT
The importance for businesses to adapt to the digital age should not be understated. The demand for businesses to provide its customers and clients with engaging, immersive, collaborative, and interactive products is increasing as well. User experience is a term that encapsulates these demands very well. This statement also holds true in less obvious aspects of business- customer relationships, namely in the field of project management and the relationship between the client and the provider. The question then becomes: How do you visualize and present information regarding the process and progress of a project to a client in a user friendly and interactive manner? User-centered design was the approach used to create the design solution. Five clients were interviewed, and the results of their interviews rendered in a prototype which they then tested and evaluated. The prototype incorporate three task visualizations, supports communication and approval of design proposals, highlights when the user is required to make decisions, among other things. This design solution was deemed to adequately fulfill the users’ needs and goals, but it also had room for improvements.
CCS CONCEPTS
• Human-centered computing → Interaction design;
Interaction design process and methods, KEYWORDS
User experience; Project management; Information visualization; Human-computer interaction; Digital transformation;
INTRODUCTION
In the ever changing, and constantly developing digital age, it is important for companies and businesses to adapt to the current digital climate and develop alongside it. This goes for all aspects of businesses,
whether it be marketing, internal alignment of business processes, social media presence, project management, or client communications. This entire process tends to be referred to as digital transformation [25]. Different businesses tackle this challenge in different ways. In traditional businesses, the transformation tends to lead to a separation within the IT-department. The slow moving classical IT, centering around internal IT- infrastructure, and the new and faster IT, centering around adhering to customer needs and digital innovation [18]. This transformation should not be taken lightly, as it is a complex and difficult task. However, the risk of rushing the transformation is tempting, as businesses feel the pressure of performing the transformation, due to the potential loss in revenue and falling behind its competitors – many of which who already have begun theirs [17,18,25,34].
One major challenge for the new IT is to understand the customers and their goals and needs. The attention of the customers can be challenging to attain for those who do not fully understand them, they crave interactive ventures in their lives, and they expect brilliant digital experiences in all of their interactions [29,30,34]. For the companies who manages to adhere to these demands, the end-result is evident. But the new demands do not only affect businesses on an external basis, but also internally as well. In order to attract the high-level engineering talent, businesses must have a work-culture and work-procedure that adheres to the new demands of the work force as well [17]. Developing and increasing immersion in the way in which collaboration and communication is being done is one potential way to reach this way of working [8]. However, this also goes both ways. Businesses will ever-increasingly demand of workers to be able to not only possess the skills to produce product innovations, but to also to be able to have a fundamental understanding of the user and customer needs [22]. The workers should be skilled in
communication and collaboration, but administrators and project managers also need to facilitate a digital environment where those skills can flourish [22]. Such an environment could also allow for enhanced communications with stakeholders and clients, via interactive tools supporting information retrieval [32].
For IT-companies, the core source of revenue usually stems from projects. Interestingly enough, one of the key factors identified as reasons for the failure or success of a project, is communication [9]. This reiterates the importance of supporting a mean of communication within a business and project that is in line with the interactive -and user experience-demands of its users.
And for an IT company with focus on user experience, like the one I am writing this thesis in collaboration with, this is a very relevant part of their business. One particular aspect that they are interested in is improving the way in which clients of the company gains and receives information relating to an ordered project, through the lens of digital transformation.
Thus, the research question that this paper will explore is as follows:
How do you visualize and present information regarding the process and progress of a project to a client in a user friendly and interactive manner?
BACKGROUND
In order to tackle the research question of this paper we must initially begin by asking the question of what it actually means for an object to be perceived in a user- friendly and interactive manner? Or, by extension; what is user experience (UX)?
The overarching field of human-computer interaction tends to center around the adaptation of technology to human nature [15]. Early pioneers like Donald Norman and Jakob Nielsen tended to place focus on the usability of artifacts, introducing terms and concepts such as heuristic evaluation, efficiency, and signifiers to name a few [26,27]. This in turn led to the highly cited ISO 9241- 11, which defines usability as:
The extent to which a system, product or service can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use [19].
The application of this definition to the testing of a (task- oriented) website or product can be very serviceable when the end-goal is to evaluate the productivity of a product [21,31].
However, as the field grew and as mobile, computer, and IoT-devices started to become integrated into people’s everyday life, the demands of the users on these devices grew as well. A device’s intrinsic property of being merely usable was not enough [20,21,28]. Instead, the value of a product shifted towards the subjective outcomes of using it – the enjoyment, fun, and fulfillment a user experienced while interacting with a digital product [35]. The testing, analysis, development, etc. of these aspects falls under the realm of UX.
Hassenzahl’s definition of UX centers around a products ability to fulfill its users be-goals, goals relating to who a user strive to be – such as being competent and being special [14,15]. The do-goals of a user, goals relating to what a user want to do, should not be confused with the users be-goals or desires. A products lack of supporting do-goals should rather be viewed as a hindrance to the fulfillment of be-goals [15]. However, an exception would be UX in the work domain, in which case do-goals can serve as be-goals [13]. Although UX can be difficult to measure, the satisfaction of achieving a goal can serve as an indicator [6]. In the work domain of software companies, a study showed that the most satisfactory aspect of a project management tool is its ease of use, while the least satisfying aspect is its lack of integration with other systems [3].
The application of information visualization in project management is common due to its temporal nature and need of tracking tasks and activities [24,33]. When designing and evaluating information visualization tools, Faisal et al. highlights the importance of implementing qualitative methods, such as interviews and think-aloud, as these methods facilitates the researcher to improve the UX of the visualization tools, rather than its mere usability [11]. Elmqvist et al. emphasizes the importance of flow for enhanced UX in information visualization, citing rewarding interaction and ensuring continuous interaction as guidelines to accomplishing flow[10]. In a similar vein, Shneiderman cites his visual information seeking mantra of “overview first, zoom and filter, then details-on-demand” as the fundamental guideline for information visualization [33]. Heer found that applying double-linked discussion and annotations to the
visualization enabled flow and supported the visualization as a platform for collaboration and communications between users [16]. Arnold and Javernick-Will found that using a collaborative and inclusive project management software system will increase the efficiency of communication and information within a project, via the reduction of data reentry [2]. Lehtonen et al. used project tasks as the foundation of a visualization tool that enabled stakeholders to identify problems in the project process.
Tasks were placed along a horizontal timeline, with task size indicated vertically, and color coded by status and activity. The visualization itself was able to serve as a base for communication in relation to process improvement. However, the visualization was not interactive [23]. When designing their own project management system, Bellah et al. discussed the problem of providing stakeholders with information of an ongoing project. What has been completed and what is planned is, among other things, relevant information to provide to stakeholders, but not every bit of information is. They solved this by having email-notifications be a selectable option whenever a new progress report was being created [5].
METHOD
This study utilized a user-centered design approach [1,4]. This includes a workshop in which users where identified, interviews with the users, prototyping, and user test.
Workshop
A workshop with stakeholders of the project was conducted. The aim of this workshop was to define, and map out, the purpose and effect of implementing a tool which would visualize the progress of a project. The workshop also sought to identify the potential users of the tool.
Interviews and interview-analysis
Interviews with 6 users between the ages of 33 to 55 were conducted. All of the users were either project managers or communicators, with several years of experience in the field. The users also had past experiences of being the client of a project. The interviews were recorded and transcribed at the approval of the interviewees. Interviews lasted for 45 minutes on average. The aim of the interviews was to
identify the do-goals and be-goals of the users, situated in the context of the users being the clients of a project.
The interviews were analyzed through the process of creating an affinity diagram [7]. Over 300 quotes from the interviews were printed out and paired up in order to identify themes and categories relating to the user’s goals and needs.
Prototype and user tests
Exploration was done via the creation of small-scale prototypes and visualizations, that were created in parallel with the conduction of the interviews. These were later informally evaluated by either the designer himself, or by his friends and colleagues.
A final hi-fi prototype was developed based of the results of the affinity diagram and the outcome of the low-fi prototype evaluations. The prototype was tested on the same users that participated in the interviews. The user tests lasted for approximately 30 minutes on average.
The participants were introduced to the home page of the prototype and encouraged to explore the prototype freely and search for information and/or features they deemed to be interesting to them. In order to ensure that the participants would experience all features and subpages of the prototype, a small task would on occasion be asked of them to guide them towards a different part of the prototype. The participants were encouraged to think-aloud throughout the entire testing phase.
The tests were audio and screen-recorded in order to analyze the participants interactions with the prototypes. Based on the results of the user tests, changes and improvments to the prototype was proposed.
RESULTS
In this section, the results of the study will be presented.
It will begin with the interviews and the themes and goals that were identified in the analysis. A presentation of the prototype will follow. Finally, the results of the user test on the final prototype will be presented.
Interviews
The interviews were analyzed by creating an affinity diagram. Three overarching themes was found, with a total of 36 corresponding subgroups. The three themes
were labeled Expectation on the provider, Decision making and Conduction of clients work life.
Expectations on the provider concerned the client’s attitude and expectations of the provider. The clients assume a certain level of competence of the provider. In order to adhere to this, the provider should be active and available and provide the client with easily accessible information. However, it is important to note that the clients do not want every single bit of information available, but rather, they expect the provider to be able to identify which type information that is important, and then have it presented in a summarized fashion. Quote from participant 1:
“I like it when I receive just enough information. Not too much. But no… having them keeping it to bullet points.”
Decision making concerned when and why the clients need to make decisions, what affects their decision, as well as what is generally required for both client and provider in order to make informed decisions. From the perspective of the client, one of the most pressing matters is for it to be apparent to the client when their input is required – often regarding approval of design proposals. Quote from participant 4 and participant 1 on the current process of design approval:
“…I e-mailed with him a lot! He sent me screen shots almost constantly…”
“…but it was very unclear… had they started working? Was this something I should give feedback on? This design proposal, was it the final one? Had I approved of it or not? Could I propose a change to it once the ball was rolling?
Yeah, a lot of questions…”
Being able to identify when a problem in the project have occurred or is about to occur is a crucial aspect for the clients, since this often renders in a decision having to be made. Furthermore, parameters such as budget and cost will often play a factor in the decisions made by the client.
In order to avoid misunderstandings within a project, the clients emphasized the importance of having objectives, goals, and decisions in writing. Implying that informal decisions leads to misunderstandings, and that formal communication renders a good project-structure and process. Quote from participant 2:
“…I make sure to have things in writing to avoid misunderstandings”
However, it should also be noted that several interviewees highlighted how much they enjoy having a friendly and informal relationship with their providers.
The final theme; conduction of clients work life, centers around the overall work life of the clients, including, but not limited to, the ordered project. Some do-goals of the clients surfaced under this theme. A main one was to streamline time spent on work. This includes limiting the number of people they are in contact with, minimizing time spent on searching for information, minimizing clicks, and having an overview of information. The clients also expressed displeasure towards the amount e-mails they receive and different tools they use. In general, they strive to minimize time spent on organization and retrieval of information. These goals and feelings are well reflected in their sentiment towards their ordered projects as well. Above all, the clients simply want the project to go according to plan without them having to interfere and intervene, implying that the project is not always the center of their attention. In relation to this, some clients expressed that, for a small-scale project, having an additional tool to use would primarily just lead to additional work on their behalf. Quotes from participant 5 and 4:
[When the communication with the provider takes place] ”It is at an early stage. That’s the time when everything needs to be sorted out”
“I don’t really do that much […] we get our monthly updates […] and that works well.”
Aside from optimizing time spent on work, the clients also expressed goals relating to their own colleagues.
The clients want to be able to easily communicate their own work to their colleagues, either to support collaboration and discussion with them, or simply because they want their work and decisions to be validated by their colleagues. Quotes from participants 5 and 4:
“I was once told by a colleague that ‘you’re being fooled by the provider’. She yelled that to me”
“You’d like to have a tool to use for the internal communication…”
Prototype
In the early stages of development, a few different visualizations centering around project-tasks were created. These where inspired by the visualization done by Lehtonen and visualizations presented by Lengler and Martin [23,24]. After a few informal tests, it became evident that neither of these styles of visualizations would generate either adequate overview nor a positive user experience. The Sankey diagram was confusing and limited in regard to what information could be presented. It could only visualize the hours of each task in proportion to the other tasks, not the actual number, nor if it was according to plan (Figure 1A). The cumulated task diagram worked decently as a visualization, but its content was deemed to be of little use to the users (Figure 1B). The box diagram failed to visualize dates and individual task size. It was also deemed to be very confusing (Figure 1C).
Figure 1: (A) Sankey diagram (B) Cumulated tasks (C) Box diagram
The final prototype consists of one home page and five subpages; Tasks, Documents, Calendar, Planning and Users.
The home page consists of five centralized buttons, each corresponding to one of the different subpages (Figure 2). There are two additional sections on the right-hand side of the home page, one displaying recent updates and the other displaying upcoming event. When a particular update is deemed to be of significant importance by the project manager, such as a task being completed or a new document requiring attention, an e-mail is sent to the client and an exclamation mark is placed next to the update. This was done due to the fact that the users expect the provider to filter out the unimportant bits of information. The time of the update is also visible.
Upcoming events displays the type, time, setting and
participants of the three most upcoming events relevant to the client. This includes workshops and meetings, but also deadlines on feedback on design proposals – this was implemented to support the clients’ decision making. Pressing the text view all events directs the user to the calendar, in which the user can view all scheduled events in a traditional calendar-format.
Figure 2: Home page
The documents subpage displays the uploaded documents in a table-structure, sorted by upload date (Figure 3C). If the user is required to approve of a particular document, either a red cross, implying that the document have not been approved, or a green check mark, implying that the document have been approved, is placed next to the title of the document. A design document in need of the client approval consists of an image of the design proposal, a descriptive text written by the uploader, a comment section enabling discussion regarding the proposal, and a checkbox and button for approval of the document (Figure 3B). If a design proposal has gone through several iterations, each iteration can be found within the same document, with the most recent iteration being displayed first. This was done in an effort to avoid the document page being clogged with different versions of the same design proposal. For some design proposals, such as an UX oriented one, several images might be needed to adequately represent the design. In those instances, an image carousel was implemented. In order to be able to thoroughly describe the design, the uploader have an
option to annotate different aspects of the image. For instance, when describing a hamburger menu, the uploader can mark the hamburger menu on the image, appointing it a circle with a number, and then using that number in the description or comment section in order to highlight it to the user (Figure 3A). This was inspired by the double-linked annotations presented by Heer[16].
Other documents presented in the subpage include meeting summaries, and budget quotations.
The task subpage consists of three tabs, each containing a different way of presenting project progress and status of different tasks – a bar chart, a circle-based chart, and a list. The intent of the visualizations is to fulfill the users’
goals of streamlining time spent on work and minimizing time spent on searching for information – to provide an understandable overview of what is going on at the moment. The visualizations could also be used to ease the user’s internal communications regarding the project. The bar chart tab displays the individual tasks, as well as their collective parent field, in terms of cumulated registered hours on a day to day basis overlaid on its predetermined total hours (Figure 4B).
The predetermined total hours are represented by a dotted bar when the task is ongoing, and a filled green bar when the task is finished. The exact number of registered hours for a given task during a given date is also shown when hoovering over its corresponding bar.
When a bar/task is clicked on, a detailed description of the task is displayed on the right-hand side of the graph.
A timeline is displayed below the graph, and if a user clicks or drags to a particular date, the graph is updated and displays the registered hours and status of the tasks at that given date. The circle-based chart presents the same information as the bar chart, only in a visually different manner. Tasks are displayed as circles with their radii representing registered hours (Figure 4A).
The radii increase as more hours are registered. The circles are clustered to their corresponding parent fields.
The circle is filled with a yellow color if the task is
ongoing, a red color if it is delayed, and a green color if it is finished. A dotted outer circle represents the predetermined total hours of each task. If a user clicks on the general area of a cluster, that area becomes highlighted and information of the parent field is displayed. Once a cluster is highlighted, the individual circles of that cluster becomes clickable. The list displays the tasks as a list, sorted by the task’s initiation date (Figure 4C). Each task has a corresponding dot, colored to represent status of the task. The coloring of the dots follows the same principles as the coloring of the circles.
The tasks can be filtered by parent field using radio buttons placed above the list. In order for the users to gain a quick overview of the status of the tasks, a pie- chart displaying the status of the tasks in the list was placed at the top of the page.
The planning subpage consists of two tabs, both containing a different way to visualize planned hours for the tasks of the project – a bar chart and a circle-based chart. These two charts are very similar to their counterparts described in the aforementioned section, except for the fact that they do not display the status of the tasks, but instead focusing on what was planned between the client and provider prior to the start of the project. This subpage was added as a compliment to the task subpage.
The user subpage is dedicated to information on the people who are partaking in the project. Contact information, name, profession and profile picture is displayed on the left-hand side of the page, and affinity to tasks and documents is displayed in the center (Figure 5). All users currently working on the project is displayed on the right-hand side. Clicking on a task will render in a Figure 3: (A) UX oriented design proposal. (B) Design proposal. (C) Documents subpage.
detailed description of the task being displayed as a lightbox. Clicking on a document will redirect the user to the subpage of that particular document. Clicking on the name of a user anywhere in the prototype will redirect the user to the subpage of that particular user.
Figure 5: User subpage
User tests
The home page was generally well received by the users.
Upcoming events with its highlighted deadline for feedback on Customer page was particularly appreciated.
The consensus among the users was that it was great to have upcoming events and activities presented straight away. The recent events section also received positive feedback from the users, but it was also apparent that some users had difficulties understanding the significance of the exclamation marks placed next to some of the updates. One user found them to be slightly intimidating. None of the users had difficulties understanding the centralized buttons, but several users did however view them as redundant since the same buttons could be found in the page’s header. The notification in the header’s right corner, implying unseen important updates, was barely seen or used by any users.
One user assumed that clicking on it would bring her to a profile page.
The document page generated some confusion among the users. It was not immediately apparent to everyone that document could include any type of document related to the project, such as design proposals for instance. Sorting each document under a category or type would perhaps reduce this confusion – as hinted by some users. Several users also expressed interest in being able to filter the documents by either user, associated task, or both. Such a feature would certainly be relevant in larger projects with a larger repository. The design documents were unanimously appreciated, with one user happily exclaiming “oh, this is great!” as soon as he entered the document. All users expressed that they enjoyed the feature of being able to switch between different iterations of a design proposal, citing that “it is nice to be able to see the progress” and that “you sometimes change your mind, and prefer a previous one”. Being able to approve of a design document were also very well received by the users. As were the comment section for each document, it was however difficult for the users to identify were they were able to add their own comments to the discussion. The UX-oriented design proposal page was also appreciated by the users, albeit a bit more confusing. It was not apparent to everyone that the image carousel was supposed to be viewed as one coherent iteration, as opposed to each image being a different iteration. The annotations were generally understood by the users. However, one user expressed a desire to be able to add annotations themselves, and another one was confused when he could not “@” an annotation while writing a comment in the comment section. Neither of these features were supported by the prototype.
The task subpage generated a somewhat varied response from the users. The bar chart was, in general, easy to Figure 4: (A) Circle-based chart with task Startsida UX selected. (B) Bar chart with tast Startsida UX selected. (C) List with
task Design av kundsida selected.
understand for most users. Some users initially had issues in identifying the visual indicator of when an individual task had been finished, but this problem was overcome after the users began exploring the chart. The colors of the different bars were also noted by one user to be a bit arbitrary. The circle-based chart was initially confusing for several users, with one saying “oh.. I’m not really used these type of diagrams..” in a nervous tone.
Many users also found it confusing that they were not able to directly click on one circle, but instead had to highlight a cluster of tasks before reaching the individual ones. They were also confused as to why the cluster was highlighted when they had clicked on a task within the cluster. One user said that he would have preferred, as well as expected, if only the name of the cluster was highlighted, and not the entire area. However, despite finding it initially confusing, several users expressed enjoyment when using this visualization, describing it as
“fun” and “entertaining”. The list of tasks was understandable for the users with the exception of the sorting dates. Some users perceived the dates to indicate a task’s most recent activity, not its initiation date.
Overall, the three visualizations served a different purpose – the circle-based chart was perceived as the most fun and enjoyable visualization, the bar chart generated the best visual overview, albeit slightly traditional and boring, and the list was used when the users wanted to find detailed information on a given task.
The content of the planning subpage was well understood by the users, however, the users paid little attention to it and it was perceived as very redundant.
This due to the fact that much of the information presented in this subpage were also available in the task subpage. Several users also noted that they had little interest in revisiting what had been planned once the project was ongoing. Worthy of note is also that several users expected a page titled planned to contain information on upcoming event, much like the calendar, and not information on the planned hours for different tasks.
The users had few issues understanding the content of the user page. It was generally viewed as self- explanatory. The one recurring problem was however that the user page lacked a profile page of the users themselves. Many users expected to find their own profile in the subpage and assumed that it would include
editorial interactions. These features were not supported by the prototype.
When the test was finished, the participants were asked if they had any interest in using the prototype in a real- life setting. All participants said that they would use this tool if available to them. “Oh, definitely! This would help- out a lot”. “I was a bit unsure about the idea at first. But after using [the prototype], I absolutely see why this would be useful”.
DISCUSSION
This study aimed to investigate what could constitute as a positive user experience for a client seeking information on an ongoing project. The research question is the following: How do you visualize and present information regarding the process and progress of a project to a client in a user friendly and interactive manner?
The study’s user centered design approach rendered in a prototype which laid the foundation required to answer this question, while simultaneously lending itself to inspire further research and improvements.
Prototype and user tests
The analysis of the interviews greatly contributed in improving the user experience of the prototype. The initial task visualizations based on Lehtonen and Lengler and Martin [23,24] suffered from trying to emulate their proposals, rather than actually trying to improve the work life conditions of the user. Being able to identify user do-goals and be-goals relating to the themes Conduction of clients work life, Decision making and Expectation on the provider, allowed for the design to become centered around the user’s needs rather than an attempt to recycle the design solutions of others. The analysis also, to a certain extent, confirmed that do-goals often can serve as be-goals in the work environment – as mentioned by Hassenzahl and Harbich [13]. The visual information seeking mantra served as a helpful guideline when creating the design for the task subpage [33]. Each version had an initial overview of the tasks and a detailed view of the tasks when clicked on. However, due to the fact that the clients mentioned that they enjoy summarized information, as well as wanting to minimize time spent on information retrieval, a conscious decision was made to mostly neglect zoom and filer from the bar chart, circle-based chart and list. This decision seemed to
have been well received as none of the clients neither expressed nor acted as they missed such a feature. It should however be noted that this could very likely change if the project is of a large scale, and/or the client’s frequent involvement is required.
It was somewhat surprising that the consensus of clients was that all three versions of the task visualizations should be kept in the prototype. The initial idea of presenting all three versions to the clients during the user test were to evaluate them in relation to each other.
My assumption was that each client would strongly prefer one version over the other two. Instead, all but one found enjoyment and usefulness in all three. The circle-based generated the most interesting results as it was described as being “fun”, “entertaining”, and
”something I would like to use more”, while simultaneously being perceived as somewhat confusing.
This harkens back to the aforementioned notions of the benefits of incorporating immersive communication tools to attract customers [8,17]. The perks of the visualization being perceived as intriguing could likely outweigh the downsides of its confusing aspects, if that sensation could be sustained within the user. That sensation will be attractive to customers. It would be interesting to investigate how frequently the three visualizations would be used individually if the clients had the opportunity to use the prototype over a longer period of time. Would they gravitate towards only using one of them, or would they want to maintain using all three? This is something that could be explored in future research. As several users commented on the redundancy of the buttons on the home page, it would also be interesting to investigate the impacts of replacing them altogether with the task visualizations – as this idea also were mentioned by some of the users. Would it be possible to seamlessly integrate them with the recently updated, and upcoming events sections? This could also be explored in future research.
The document subpage would likely benefit from some minor redesigns. The name documents was not an obvious indicator to the users in regards to what it contained. Perhaps files or activities would have been a better fit. Another crucial change would be to have all documents sorted under different categories, such as design proposals, meeting summaries, economy/budget, etc. This change would also play a part in the much- needed addition of a filtering feature. A filtering feature would minimize time spent on searching for information,
thus assisting in fulfilling a do-goal of the clients, and likely make the page feel less overwhelming. The users also clearly stated that they wanted this feature. The structure of the documents relating to design proposals is probably the most successful aspect of the prototype.
It allowed the users to see the progress of a design, facilitated simple discussion and collaboration, enabled a formal way to approve of designs, and was appreciated by the users.
The lack of creating annotations as well as being able to
@ annotations, as mentioned by a user, is two features that should be added to the prototype. The inclusion of these would encourage interaction and heighten the collaborative tone of the prototype.
It became obvious during the user tests that the planning subpage was not needed at all. It was poorly titled, sparked little interest, and felt redundant. Interestingly enough, the planning subpage was also the last thing to be included in the prototype, and the main motivation behind its inclusion was to pad the content of the prototype. It was not grounded in any identified user- goals, but rather something that I thought could be interesting. It became obvious that I was wrong. Lesson learned: Design for the user, not for you.
The design process showed that the key element in creating a tool that visualize and present information in a user-friendly manner is to keep it simple. The users wanted overview, easily accessible information, and decision-making features. The prototype attempted to reflect those needs, and where it did, it succeeded, where it did not, it failed. Adding features and information when it is not needed is not only a waste of time, but may also deter the users from using the product. The users do not want to be overwhelmed with information and confused by a complex design structure, they want the shortcut to accomplish their top 3-4 primary goals. If you want to design a great user experience, sometimes less is more.
UX or usability?
The aim of the study was to design a prototype that provided a user experience, rather than merely being usable. The difference is subtle, especially when it is connected to the work-domain [13,28], but I believe that aim was succeeded. The prototype adhered to the identified goals of the users, such as filtering and summarizing information, enabling formal decision making, and enabling communication with colleagues,
among others. The adherence of these goals is what led the users to exclaim that a particular feature is “fun” or
“great” and them wanting to use the prototype as a whole in real-life. Had the aim instead been to design a prototype which allowed tasks to be solved efficiently and effective, I believe that those expressions of user satisfaction would have risked gone missing. However, it is very difficult to guarantee that a positive UX have been achieved after a 30-minute user test with a mock-up project. For that to be validated, the prototype must be tested by the user over a longer period of time in a real- life project. I do however believe, based off the results of the study, that the presented prototype could achieve this.
Future research
This paper is aimed towards researchers within the field of HCI, particularly those specialized in user experience, information visualization, or project management. Aside from the aforementioned suggestions on future research, I have two more additions. How to visualize and account for risks – an area that this paper largely discarded. How to visualize tasks on a larger scale – something this paper did not, as only eight tasks was presented.
Limitations and downsides
The user-centered design approach was a great fit for this study. It allowed for the design solution to be derived from the goals and needs of the actual end-users, i.e.
clients of projects. The downside to this was that it dramatically restricted the sample size of the study, ending up in five participants. This in turn rendered the number of participants partaking in the user tests to five as well. The downside to only using five users to test a prototype, is that a considerable amount of usability issues may be left undiscovered – potentially up to 45 % of all usability issues [12]. Adding an additional five users would lower that number to a maximum of 20 %. While identifying usability issues, in terms of effectiveness and efficiency, was not the main goal of the user tests, it still has an impact on the result. It should also be noted that the selection of the participants potentially could have been biased, and thus impacted the result. This is due to the fact that the clients were provided by the company this study is collaborating with. It is far more likely for a satisfied client to be willing participate in this study, rather than an unhappy one. This implies that the design solution was tailor made to fit the needs of one group of users – the satisfied ones – while potentially neglecting
needs and goals of another group of users – the unhappy ones.
One final important thing to note relating to the prototype, is that it is designed under the guise of several assumptions. For instance, that hours being spent on one particular task are reported on a day-to-day basis. That reported hours will automatically be registered in the prototype. That, no matter the project size, the project manager will take the time to set everything up in the prototype. That there is a well-designed version relating to the administrative aspects of the prototype. Basically, it takes a lot of things that does not exist for granted, and assume simplicity when complexity is the reality. These were, however, limitations and assumptions that this study had to do in order to narrow its scope.
CONCLUSION
This study aimed to answer the research question How do you visualize and present information regarding the process and progress of a project to a client in a user friendly and interactive manner? This resulted in a design solution in the form of a web-based prototype. The prototype contained three variations on task visualizations, a document repository, a solution to presentation, communication, and approval relating to design proposals, upcoming events, notifications on important activities, and a user page. The clients reported an overall positive experience when testing the prototype but highlighted some possible improvements.
The answer to the research question and the conclusion of this study is that the design solution should be simple and easy, exclude filler-information, and focus around adhering to the primary goals of the user – making decisions and information overview. The design solution was deemed to adequately fulfill the users’ needs and goals, but it also had room for improvements. However, the design solution should not be viewed as a general solution to the research question, but rather as solution to one particular set of users. Different users have different goals and needs, and the main takeaway from this study should be to design a solution with the goals and needs of your particular set of users as the primary guide.
REFERENCES
1. Chadia Abras, Diane Maloney-krichmar, and Jenny Preece. 2004. “User-centered design.” Bainbridge, W.
Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2010-1109
2. Paul Arnold and Amy Javernick-Will. 2012.
Projectwide Access: Key to Effective Implementation of Construction Project Management Software Systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943- 7862.0000596
3. Gayane Azizyan, Miganoush Katrin Magarian, and Mira Kajko-Mattson. 2011. Survey of agile tool usage and needs. In Proceedings - 2011 Agile Conference, Agile 2011. https://doi.org/10.1109/AGILE.2011.30 4. Elizabeth B.-N.Sanders. 2002. From user-centered to
participatory design approaches.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203301302.ch1 5. Jeremy Bellah, Liang Chen, and Chris Zimmer. 2018.
Design and Implementation of a Web-based Project Management Information System. International Journal of Designs for Learning.
https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v9i1.23344
6. Nigel Bevan. 2008. Classifying and selecting UX and usability measures. International Workshop on Meaningful Measures: Valid Useful User Experience Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1086/663775 7. Hugh Beyer and Karen Holtzblatt. 1997. Contextual
Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems.
https://doi.org/10.1145/291224.291229
8. Amy Colbert, Nick Yee, and Gerard George. 2016. The digital workforce and the workplace of the future.
Academy of Management Journal.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.4003
9. Andreas Drechsler, Peter Kalvelage, and Tobias Trepper. 2010. Systemic IT project management: A rational way to manage irrationalities in IT projects? In Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16770-6_6 10. Niklas Elmqvist, Andrew Vande Moere, Hans Christian
Jetter, Daniel Cernea, Harald Reiterer, and T. J. Jankun- Kelly. 2011. Fluid interaction for information visualization. Information Visualization.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473871611413180 11. Sarah Faisal, Brock Craft, Paul Cairns, and Ann
Blandford. 2008. Internalization, qualitative methods,
and evaluation.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1377966.1377973
12. Laura Faulkner. 2003. Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. In Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, and Computers.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195514
13. Stefanie Harbich and Marc Hassenzahl. 2017. User Experience in the Work Domain: A Longitudinal Field Study. Interacting with Computers.
https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iww022
14. Marc Hassenzahl. 2007. The Hedonic/Pragmatic Model of User Experience. In Towards a UX Manifesto.
COST294-MAUSE affiliated workshop.
https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00022308 15. Marc Hassenzahl. 2008. User experience (UX): towards
an experiential perspective on product quality. In Proceedings of the 20th Conference on L’Interaction
Homme-Machine - IHM ’08.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1512714.1512717
16. Jeffrey Heer. 2009. Voyagers and voyeurs: supporting asynchronous collaborative information visualization.
Proceedings of the 35th SIGMOD international conference on Management of data - SIGMOD ’09.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1559845.1559958
17. Martin Hirt and Paul Willmott. Strategic principles for competing in the digital age. Retrieved February 25, 2019 from https://digitalstrategy.nl/wp- content/uploads/McK-Strategic-principles-for- competing-in-the-digital-age-by-McKinsey-2014.pdf 18. Bettina Horlach, Paul Drews, and Ingrid Schirmer.
2016. Bimodal IT: Business-IT alignment in the age of digital transformation. Retrieved February 21, 2019 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2876426 79
19. International Organization For Standardization. 1998.
ISO 9241-11. International Organization.
20. Jonheidur Isleifsdottir and Marta Larusdóttir. 2008.
Measuring the User Experience of a Task Oriented Software. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Meaningful Measures: Valid Useful User Experience
Measurement VUUM.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2 014.05.019
21. Eija Kaasinen, Virpi Roto, Jaakko Hakulinen, Tomi Heimonen, Jussi P.P. Jokinen, Hannu Karvonen, Tuuli Keskinen, Hanna Koskinen, Yichen Lu, Pertti Saariluoma, Helena Tokkonen, and Markku Turunen.
2015. Defining user experience goals to guide the design of industrial systems. Behaviour and
Information Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2015.1035335 22. Gaye Karacay. 2017. Talent Development for Industry
4.0. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57870-5_7 23. Timo Lehtonen, Veli Pekka Eloranta, Marko Leppänen,
and Essi Isohanni. 2013. Visualizations as a basis for agile software process improvement. In Proceedings - Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, APSEC.
https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2013.71
24. Ralph Lengler and Martin J Eppler. 2007. Towards A Periodic Table of Visualization Methods for Management. In Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Graphics and Visualization in Engineering.
25. Christian Matt, Thomas Hess, and Alexander Benlian.
2015. Digital Transformation Strategies. Business and
Information Systems Engineering.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0401-5 26. Jakob Nielsen, Louis A Blatt, Janice Bradford, and
Patricia Brooks. 1994. Usability Inspection. In
Conference Companion.
https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260531
27. Donald Norman. 2013. The design of everyday things:Revised and expanded edition.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20127
28. Helen Petrie and Nigel Bevan. 2010. The Evaluation of Accessibility, Usability, and User Experience.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420064995-c20 29. Marc Prensky. 2001. Digital Natives, Digital
Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816 30. Marc Prensky. 2001. Digital Natives, Digital
Immigrants Part 2: Do They Really Think Differently?
On the Horizon.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843 31. Jeffrey Rubin and Dana Chisnell. 2008. Handbook of
Usability Testing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398- 014-0173-7.2
32. Kristen Shepherd, Mark Abkowitz, and Mark A. Cohen.
2001. Online Corporate Environmental Reporting:
Improvements and Innovation to Enhance Stakeholder Value. Corporate Environmental Strategy.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1066-7938(01)00136-1 33. Ben Shneiderman. 2007. The Eyes Have It: A Task by
Data Type Taxonomy for Information Visualizations. In The Craft of Information Visualization.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-155860915-0/50046- 9
34. Peter Weill and Stephanie Woerner. 2015. Optimizing your digital business model. IEEE Engineering
Management Review.
https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2015.7059380
35. Peter Wright, John McCarthy, and Lisa Meekison. 2018.
Making sense of experience. In Funology 2, Mark Blythe, Kees Overbeeke, Andrew Monk and Peter Wright (eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, 43–55.
Retrieved March 4, 2019 from
http://www.springeronline.com
www.kth.se
