Repository navigation
phasel
High-demand items such as limited-release clothing, Pokémon cards, and concert tickets often sell out within seconds because scalper bots check out faster than any human can. QuickCop aims to level the playing field with an app that monitors product pages for restocks, sends instant alerts the moment an item goes live, and pre-fills checkout fields so a purchase can be completed in one click. This phase focused on understanding who needs such a product and how well existing alternatives work. This was done through a competitive analysis, creation of personas and user stories, along with a heuristic evaluation of the most relevant competitor.
Purpose: To identify the alternatives people already use to solve the problem, and to find gaps that QuickCop can fill.
Procedure:
- Made a table with the categories Product(s), Strengths, Weaknesses, Quality Level (low-high), Price/Cost, and Platform
- We selected three methods people could resolve the problem we are trying to fix which were the retailers own email notification system, HotStock.io, and TrackaLacker
- For each of these we reviewed the website. We navigated around them along with testing out different features that they had. Along with reading the terms and service of them.
- From the information gained during that we filled in the table we had made earlier.
Purpose: To find usability strengths and problems in what was deemed the biggest competitor to what we were making, so that we can avoid the problems it has and add features to our product that we deem missing from the competitor.
Procedure:
- As a team we reviewed what the first sprint MVP should deliver along with defined user goals.
- Alerts: when an item is restocked, as a reminder to buy an item, and when a sale reaches a certain threshold
- A browser extension version (this was the plan when the evaluation was done before the pivot to it being an app)
- An account
- The ability to see the price of items I can get alerts for
- The team decided on HotStock.io from our competitive analysis to be the competitor most likely to achieve those goals
- Independently the team (n = 3) revaluated this site using Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics.
- After everyone had evaluated the site there was team discussion to see what everyone gave the competitor to see if any differences needed to be resolved in the scores.
| Product | Key Findings |
|---|---|
| Retailer's own email notifications | Strengths: alerts come directly from the seller, so they should arrive promptly. Accessible to basically any user. Weaknesses: lack of customization (such as choosing the price that triggers a notification). Cost: free, though giving the retailer your email will probably mean more spam. Platform: web |
| HotStock.io | Strengths: users can track categories (e.g. all 5090s) instead of one version. Tracks multiple sellers. Has a history feature. The whole product catalog is searchable. Website and app are both rated highly. Weaknesses: only available for the UK, US, and Canada. Search is limited (searching "Legos" take you to a page with all Lego products it instead lists everything as a dropdown from the search bar). Some features are tied to a subscription. Cost: free tier. Though there are paid tiers for higher priority notifications. Highest tier has an auto-buy feature. Platform: web and app |
| TrackaLacker | Strengths: well organized and easy to find deals. Deals can be viewed by the store. Users can request that products be tracked. Higher paid tiers give priority alerts. Weaknesses: Paying more buys priority on who is first notified and in the terms and services it states that the priority can not be guaranteed. No autofill for payment information. Cost: free tier plus paid versions. Platform: web and app |
Needs Revealed: Users want alerts that are fast and customizable (by price and by product category), a record of past stock and price activity, tacking across multiple sellers, smoother path from alert to purchase.
Scores (1-10)
| Heuristic | Score |
|---|---|
| Visability of system status | 8 |
| Visability of system status | 8 |
| Visability of system status | 8 |
| Visability of system status | 8 |
| Visability of system status | 8 |
| Visability of system status | 8 |