Skip to content

Phase III

Jump to bottom
jbcarlock edited this page May 15, 2026 · 22 revisions

Phase III: Prototypes and User Testing

Introduction

The findings from Phase II highlighted usability issues with the wireframe design, including ambiguity in the alarm creation entry point and unclear error recovery options. The team refined the design into an interactive prototype in response to this feedback. In Phase III, the team's focus shifted to validating these design decisions through real user testing. Taking these findings with the user goal in mind helped assess task success, uncover remaining usability issues, and determine which design choices to carry forward into development

Methods

We conducted multiple user testing sessions with a think-aloud protocol to gauge how well the current design supports real users. Participants were asked to think aloud as they worked through each task, narrating their actions, reactions, and any points of confusion. Participants completed three task-based scenarios: creating a sequence of alarms for waking up, setting multiple alarms for cooking tasks with different time intervals, and managing multiple alarms by turning them on or off and deleting them in bulk. During each task, the researcher recorded task completion, noted any errors or confusion, and documented observations about usability. After each task, participants rated the difficulty and satisfaction of the task on a 1–5 scale and provided brief explanations for their responses. At the end of the session, participants answered open-ended questions comparing the prototype to their current alarm app, as well as providing feedback on what they liked, disliked, and what features could be improved. All data collected remained anonymous, and no identifying information was linked to participant responses

Task 1: Create an alarm set

Findings

Link to spreadsheet

  • path
  • comments
  • task success: measure with % passed
  • (time on task): measure with (M = _, sd = _)
  • ratings: measure with (M = _, sd = _)

Conclusions

Caveats

  • low participate count
  • limited by having a non random sample of usability class that is not representative of general population
  • (maybe) limitations in figma

Clone this wiki locally