“Do you have a good hotel recommendation in York?” asked one of my best friends this morning. “Nah, “ I replied, as my experience from our stay last year was pretty lackluster. During a one-day stopover, I booked a room late in the afternoon at a quaint hotel.  We checked-in, dropped our luggage in the room and went for a walk in the city. Upon our return later that night, we noticed a strange and unpleasant smell coming from the bathroom. But we were tired and had an early wake up call the next morning so we didn’t have the will to complain; instead we shut the bathroom door and went to bed. This is how we “resolved” the smell issue. We woke the next morning, checked out and went on driving towards Scotland. None of the checkout staff asked if we were happy with our stay and we did not bother mentioning the unpleasant smell.

Why am I telling you this? It’s because here lays one of the biggest challenges for many companies as they attempt to address usability issues with their products. Many managers believe analysing user support calls will yield the usability issues facing their users and then they’ll fix them.

Sounds reasonable? It is natural to think so. The data is available as most companies keep support call logs so all you need is smart analysis. With minimal effort, you can get a big list of usability issues to resolve. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The problem with such an approach is that many users do not provide accurate feedback or any at all (as in my example above). People often think complaining is inconvenient and are skeptical as to the service they’ll receive after doing so. But, as a company, the fact that a customer does not log a complaint does not necessarily equal satisfaction. Your customers might be resolving their problem the same way we did – hiding it or ignoring it. Slowly but steadily those dissatisfied customers may drift away until they are gone forever. It’s the users who do not renew contracts or upgrade to the latest version and when you find out it’s usually too late. Support analysis will give you valuable data insight and knowledge but will not paint the full picture of consumer sentiment around your product or service.

Your overall customer base can be placed into three buckets:

• Customers who absolutely adore your offering and care about providing feedback, good or bad. They write add-ons, blog about you and praise your brand publicly. You usually get a lot of information from them with little effort.
• Potential users who are not your customers. You attempt to grow your user pool by acquisition strategies but certain people are just out of your focus, which is fine. You might, however, be surprised to learn that some were a customer at one point.
• And then there are your silent customers. They simply use your product or service without giving away too much information. The majority of your customers will comprise this group and are the most likely to drift away without you even noticing until it is too late.

Coming from the world of support and user services, I know how important it is for users to provide input and even I did not file a complaint. Plumbing issues can occur in any hotel and it could have resided in my memory as a “great little hotel that upgraded us to a magnificent suite after we told them about the odor problem.” Instead it’s the hotel I did not recommend to my friend.

So, what should the hotel have done to keep me a happy customer? What should you do to prevent users from drifting away? First and foremost, acknowledge user support and services as one of the organisation’s most important activities. This is how customers see you and is a major way for them to establish a positive opinion about your brand.

When you put your mind to it, you can develop practical steps to ensure the following:

• Make it easy for customers to provide input, whether positive or negative. A good example is “Love Film” DVD rentals service (owned by Amazon). When “Love Film” sends a DVD, a customer will also receive a pre-paid return envelope and feedback form already populated with comments / problems commonly reported by other users. Instead of having to freehand, “This DVD is scratched”, a user simply has to check the box.
• When you do receive a user comment, show it’s important to you. Make the user feel you have taken their feedback to heart and provide fast, courteous and impeccable service. Apologise and compensate!
• Most importantly, be proactive. Do research. Perform user testing of your products not only before releasing them but also over time because circumstances can change the way your product is used (E.g. people, technology, social norms, context of use, etc.). You must invest in user research; test user journeys over and over again during the product life cycle. Do not rely on users to provide you with voluntary feedback.

The above steps serve as a way to start a conversation with customers and continue the dialogue, creating brand loyalty. Don’t let your customers drift away. Instead, create an experience that makes them recommend your nice little hotel in York to their friends.

You may, or may not, know that I live in a Welsh city famed for comedy chav hip-hop, British heritage and the Ryder Cup – an eclectic mix that I’m proud to be part of. If you’re not familiar with it (looking at you YANKS!), below is video to help put things in perspective.

Last year, Network Rail teamed up with Newport City Council and the Welsh Assembly Government to build a new £22 million railway station that would give visitors the impression of arriving at an exciting, up-and-coming metropolitan deserving of an international reputation.

They unveiled their prize in October 2010 and it looks like this:

Wow! That’s £22 million very well spent – it looks like aliens have landed and brought the future with them! It’s got a ‘bubblewrap’ roof that uses the same technology as the Eden Project! Corr!

Let’s forget for a minute the fact that the roof has leaked constantly since opening, that it still leads to the same old dodgy platforms and that it’s a full 200 yards further away from my house. These things aren’t important.

What is important is the experience that you go through from arriving at this station until leaving it. Has this been designed for the people? Is catching your train a smooth action, in which you are led seamlessly on from point to point?

Let’s find out.

We’ll start with a simple mental model for a persona likely to frequent the station. I’m going to focus for now on those who are in Newport and want to leave (it’s going to take some imagination), in this case a commuter who works in nearby Cardiff:

To meet the requirements of our commuter, we will need to provide:

So it’s fairly simple now to design a station that contains all these things, allowing our commuter to move easily from one to the next without having to cross his own path or those of others.  So how does Newport’s new railway station stack up? Let’s take a look at its layout:

Okay, so how does it stack up?

Well, issue number one has to be the clock. There’s no clock anywhere in the terminal building. It isn’t above the ticket office, it isn’t hanging on a wall – it’s not even included in the train arrival display. There is no clock this side of the ticket barriers. So, straight away, our commuter is unable to make use of the train arrival times because, without knowing the current time, he can’t calculate how long he’s got until the train leaves. The next train to Cardiff might be at the platform right now, its doors slamming and the whistles blowing, and he has no way of knowing.

Incidentally, I happened to bump into a man in a suit who appeared to be involved with Network Rail and he asked the attendant why there was no clock.  The attendant answered, “Everyone has a watch, or at least a mobile phone”. True point, but how accurate is our commuter’s timekeeping device? Does he have faith in it being perfectly synchronised with Network Rail’s? And does he want to root around his pockets looking for it when he first arrives at the station? I suspect not.

Next comes the ticketing which is actually very well catered for. It is easy to find the ticket windows and machines, and our commuter can step straight from the doors into a queue. Very neat.

However, this is where we fall into trouble again because, now that our commuter has his ticket, he wants to keep moving through the barriers and off to the platform. But which platform is it? He still doesn’t know the time – will he make it to the next Cardiff train which is on Platform 1, or should he start climbing the stairs to Platform 2? He has no help at all – the ‘train information’ on Platform 1 is too far away to see, and the first available clock is all the way up the stairs. Our commuter has to take a gamble and dash over the bridge to Platform 2.

Our commuter arrives on Platform 2 and realises he has a few minutes to spare. Perfect! Perhaps, a nice cup of coffee and something to read on the way to work? Err – no. Not unless you’re willing to take a five minute march down one platform to the obscure coffee shop hidden at the end, followed by a good ten minute trek back up the platform, up the stairs, over the bridge and across to the opposite end of Platform 1. And let’s face it – nobody has that sort of time in the morning. So instead he crosses his arms, leans against a wall and waits grumpily for the train.

So there we have it… there’s a lot of good to say about Newport railway station. It is very modern-looking. It does have a large, wide bridge that’s never crowded and it does have two entry buildings right next to purpose-built car parks. But it will never give people the great experience that it should, and that’s a shame because it really doesn’t need to change very much.

Just shows you – a little bit of usability testing in your design project can make all the difference!

Why measure time?

When conducting user experience studies, it is useful to measure certain aspects of the products performance, such as number of errors and level of user satisfaction. Time is a metric which seems like a no brainer because it is absolute, easy to measure, and easy to interpret. Timing how long a user takes to complete a process or activity gives a concrete figure which is sometimes easier for clients to accept than qualitative findings. Often a client may wonder how they can decide if a product has ‘passed’ or ‘failed’ a user test, or how performance can be increased to upturn KPI’s. Time is also a metric which fits into the ‘efficiency’ category, which, along with ‘effectiveness’ and ‘satisfaction’ makes up the ISO9241-11  standard for measuring usability.

Limitations of timing users

However, there are several considerations to make before time is to be used as a valid usability metric:

Methodology

If you are going to use ‘think aloud’ methodology, timing the participant is out of the question as the result will be skewed by moderator questions, time to think about and respond to these questions, and time to re-focus back to the original task at hand. Timing sessions requires using alternative methods

Context

Time taken has different meanings depending on the context. Some activities, like game playing, are used as a ‘time killer’, so although interesting, time spent is not a useful usability metric. Information seeking is equally hindered by times when the user is confused, interested, or distracted causing them to spend longer. Arguably the most useful context in which to time a user is when they are completing a registration process and moving through fields; here we can be fairly certain that the user does not want to be in this process, but have been forced to move through it to progress to a subsequent goal (banking, blogging etc). Therefore the time spent should be as low as possible.

Number of participants

Nielson recommends testing with 20 users when measuring time or other quantitative metrics to ensure that the confidence level is acceptable. In practice though, timing even a few users can provide a frame of reference when comparing multiple sites or versions of a site

Actionable data

If you know that it took users a mean time of 4 minutes to complete a process…is that good…bad…better than average? How much should you aim to reduce that by? What was the factor that caused them to take that amount of time? Having a comparison is necessary (either your site over time, or your site versus competitor sites.)

Practical advice

If the study is a benchmarking or performance assessment type, a time metric would be useful to indicate general efficiency. Whereas if the goal of the study is to uncover why the interface is performing badly, or to uncover usability problems and how to fix them, timing the session may prove less fruitful. In either case, the decision whether to time a usability session must be made very early in the process such as shortly after the kick off meeting; this way all involved parties are clear about how to prepare the test materials and what is expected of the reports.

If the session is to be timed, consider using retrospective think aloud which asks the user to explain their thought processes after the event (they remain silent whilst using the interface, either with or without a moderator present). Alternatively, ‘stimulated retrospective think aloud’, also uses a memory aid such as replaying a video of the actions they took on screen, to elicit the participants’ thoughts on what they did. This approach is more thorough but takes more time and resources.

Ultimately it should be understood that the usability session is a qualitative event and therefore the implicit and explicit actions of users can lead to more insight and actionable recommendations than a measure of how long users spent to complete a task.

The user interface

In simplistic terms a ‘user interface’ is the system by which people interact with a machine.

Although the concept for a graphical user interface (GUI) can be traced back to the 1930s, the ascendency of the personal computer in the 1980s brought about its realisation and also merged the boundaries between office and home systems bringing user interfaces to a wider audience.

It can be argued that the fundamental elements of a GUI have not changed greatly since the mid 80s, however more recently the prospect of a natural user interface (NUI) has gained momentum, most prominently through the success of multi-touch devices such as the iPhone. The principal aim of a NUI is to enable a person to interact with a computer through physical actions such as gestures, touch and voice so that it is a more intuitive experience.

The proposal of a more intuitive and natural interaction with computers has great appeal and it is interesting to look at examples that explore potential steps away from the traditional Window, Icon, Menu, Pointer (WIMP) interface.

Zoomable user interfaces

The Beercamp 2011 site uses a zoomable user interface (ZUI) as its method of interaction. In order to view further content the user is required to ‘zoom’ into the next level by scrolling. Although the result is a playful and engaging experience it highlights a number of issues that would prevent a ZUI from being implemented in other situations.

Firstly, as the text and images are extremely small at the lower levels, there is a risk that the user will inadvertently click on a link. This is also true of the scroll bar within the ‘Teams’ section, which is active but not visible from the outer levels.

The Beercamp 2011 advertisment site

Secondly, the primary method of zooming in and out is not clear i.e. the user has to pull the scroll wheel on the mouse away to move further in, which would appear to conflict with other examples of ZUIs.

Zoomism illustrates the converse zooming approach and also allows the user more freedom as they can pan horizontally and vertically. However, as the content is very small in some areas, again it is unclear what is actually accessible.

Although this form of navigation aims to be a more exploratory experience, and one which has the potential to exploit the zooming functionality of many touch screens, there is a risk that the user may become ‘lost’ in the depths of the navigation, particularly if their goal is to obtain information. Even though it is possible to zoom out entirely and revert to a whole overview, a technique which is utilised effectively by mapping tools such as Google Maps, the user may become frustrated or lose interest.

Zoomism.com: Navigate by zooming

Although ZUIs do not differ that greatly from typical GUIs, they present a different way of envisaging the desktop environment and add an element of depth which also reveals the potential for a three dimensional interface.

Natural user interfaces

A three dimensional interface seems a rational aspiration. We live in a three dimensional world and it is logical to make the systems and technology we use match our expectations and natural behaviour. Multi-touch interfaces have become more commonplace through the rise in popularity of touch screen phones and tablet computers, and they lead towards a more natural user interface as they draw on direct gestures and actions.

The Microsoft Xbox Kinect console demonstrates a further step towards a system that is fully controlled by physical actions, and although there are a number of usability issues (as discussed in an article by Jakob Nielsen), the potential that it presents is intriguing. A number of developers have already created hacks that show how the Kinect sensor could be implemented within other devices and used to control a whole range of actions e.g. one video shows a television set being controlled by hand movements.

Xbox Kinect uses voice and gesture control

Ensuring that systems match users’ real world mental models is a key factor in usability and this can be applied to natural user interfaces. It can be argued that even natural user interfaces do not harness inherent actions as they employ actions that users are required to learn and discover through usage e.g. to delete a message/email on the iPhone it is possible to swipe to the right to reveal a red delete/archive button, which is a somewhat hidden function and not something that users are likely to do spontaneously.

The speed in which a user can become familiar with its functions will determine how likely they are to continue using it and this emphasizes how important the learnability of a system is.

Conclusions

The rise of NUIs together with the growth of mobile and pervasive technology could lead towards digital experiences that are both intuitive and highly engaging. However, as the near future is more likely to comprise of a combination of gestures and traditional GUI elements, the success of these interactions will depend on the incorporation and development of the usability standards and heuristic principles that are used to evaluate user interface design today.

User testing within the video gaming sector is fairly uncommon, however with the introduction of next generation consoles and gaming technology such as the Microsoft Kinect and Sony NGP (Next Generation Portable), it is essential that it becomes more and more widely adopted.

In the gaming world user testing is not focussed entirely on the conventional ‘usability of interfaces’ but also looks into other aspects of the games. The key reason that year on year people pay in the thousands for games is because they find them fun, engaging and compelling. Any user testing which is to be conducted on games should not just focus on user interface design but also the level of fun and engagement a game provides. The user experience or ‘Playability’ of a game can be identified by seven facets:

1. 1. Satisfaction –degree to which players are content with the overall game play of the video game.
2. 2. Learning – difficulty of learning to play and interact with the game. Games will not be ‘fun’ if they are too difficult to master. Capcom’s Street Fighter was a success due to the ease in which players could quickly pick up how to play the game. Novice players could tap random buttons and still manage to win games.
3. 3. Efficiency – time taken for players to feel satisfied with the game e.g. unlocking an achievement, reaching a checkpoint etc.
4. 4. Immersion – degree to which players get involved in the virtual gaming environment e.g. World of Warcraft has been a huge global success because it offers players a very immersive experience through challenges and the depth of story.
5. 5. Motivation – degree to which players are encouraged to continue playing the game. Xbox and PS3 have both added to the level of motivation by introducing the concept of ‘achievements’ – this is something which was lacking in handheld consoles but is also now being introduced into the upcoming Sony NGP.
6. 6. Emotion – levels of emotion evoked when playing games such as fear and happiness can further enhance the experience of the game e.g. Resident Evil was enjoyable because of the fear factor and the build up of tension involved when playing the game.
7. 7. Socialisation – degree to which the game allows for co-operative or competitive game play, be it an option within the game or an online mode e.g. death match modes in shoot-em up games. The majority of games currently in the market do allow for online game play against contacts or random players, however, it is essential that multiplayer games provide varied modes to still add depth and offer a variety of gaming options to enhance the experience e.g. conventional multiplayer shoot-em up games tended to only provide death match however this has now further evolved to modes such as ‘capture the flag’, ‘team death match’ etc.

Current consoles such as the Sony Playstation 3 and Microsoft Xbox, which have been around for 4 to 5 years, both provide relatively the same gaming experience because the controls, story lines and general game play within video games are established.

However with gaming manufacturers vying for greater recognition amongst gamers, both novice and more experienced, they are starting to create unique products such as the Kinect, NGP and N3DS, and are increasingly breaking outside of the norms and conventions that are expected. With these advancements, game developers are also trying to capitalise and are quickly releasing games into an unknown territory which will ultimately lead to issues in the overall playability of the game.

One to One Insight feel that it is becoming increasingly important for games developers to seek out user experience practitioners during development phases in order to discover any issues which may hinder the playability of the game. Even prior to the development it is paramount to understand gamer expectations so that the right foundations are laid to aid playability. If a game does not offer an enjoyable experience then it is guaranteed to end up in a bargain bin on sale for a fraction of the value within months of release.

Historically, usability has focused on the quantifiable aspects of the user experience. For example, how long does it take a user to locate some content or complete a process? Or which route do they use to complete an activity? But although these measures are useful, they do not capture the real experience of the user.

The System Usability Scale (SUS) is a useful means of looking at usability in a slightly more detailed way, and is now recognized as a reliable, low-cost usability scale that can be used for global assessments of systems usability. SUS attempts to address the context of the experience of the user of an interface by considering three factors:

Effectiveness (the ability of users to complete tasks using the system, and the quality of the output of those tasks)

Efficiency (the level of resource consumed in performing tasks)

Satisfaction (users’ subjective reactions to using the system)

One of the advantages of SUS is that it is very easy to administer. A questionnaire is provided to the user once they have had an opportunity to use the interface being evaluated, but before any discussion about the interface takes place.

The questionnaire includes 10 statements and participants are asked to identify how strongly they agree or disagree with each statement. Statements include: I think that I would like to use this system frequently; I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system, etc. Once all 10 statements have been completed a short calculation enables a score out of 100 to be calculated.

But whilst SUS is a useful tool to obtain a quantitative score for the usable aspects of an interface, we find that just looking at the usable aspects of the user experience misses other important aspects.

With this in mind, we now measure three different aspects of the user experience:

Is it usable? Is it useful? Is it engaging?

This tripartite approach raises many interesting challenges, for example how to measure engagement. Mark Ghunein directly addresses this in an interesting article entitled ‘Terms of Engagement: Measuring the Active Consumer’, and states “engagement can be defined as the level of attention and actionable experiences for each application once a user is engaged. These levels of engagement can be measured by the complexity and ultimate depth of user actions and the related amount of attention associated with each. This measurement also allows for the understanding of the time spent with the message or the causal action stemming from the attention.”

Ghunein’s definition is useful, but not easy to use when trying to measure how engaging an online experience can be. So we have opted for a simpler model, adapting Brian Haven and Suresh Vittals idea of the four I’s of engagement:

Involvement - the presence of the user with the interface and brand

Interaction - the actions of the user whilst using the interface and with the brand

Intimacy - the affection or aversion the user has with interface and brand

Influence - the likelihood a person is to advocate on behalf of interface and brand.

When considering the four I’s we correlate prior test knowledge and brand experience with user performance data during the study, with user observation data and user post test scoring. This approach has allowed us to develop a method which considers the usability of an interface in the context of other cognitive and emotional factors, providing a clearer picture on how users react to, use and reflect on the interfaces we are evaluating.

The blur between boundaries of interactive devices means that this year users will be using more and more devices, and will expect to be able to complete the same task on any of them. Need to book a train ticket? Do it from your PS3 whilst laying in bed, your iPhone on the tube, or tablet device in the conservatory.

I believe that although the same task should be seamlessly accessible from any device, the user interface needs to be considered separately for each interface. Otherwise one cannot take advantage of the benefits and limitations of the medium.

For the first time we are having to consider a user interface situation where the user is not 8-10 inches away (mobile), or 2-4 feet away (PC), but 10 feet away – Electronic Program guides, interactive TV, internet access via a TV and Microsoft Kinect apps.  What are the guiding principles for 10 foot design?

Distracted use

Internet TV users are likely multitasking and will soon want to flip back to the TVs main purpose – watching programming. This means that they are going to be doing a narrow sub set of tasks, doing them deeply, and finishing them quickly. An example might be sending a payment to a shopping channel retailer, checking the scores for a local football team, or submitting comments to a news provider. The interface should be centred around speed and economy – allowing the user to do just what they want without trying to up- sell or distract them. A fast (good) experience at this touch point creates positive sentiment which will carry over to other touch points where up- selling and more leisurely pace are more appropriate.

Potential for longer duration use

Interacting on a TV has more potential for long duration activity than a mobile phone, simply because the user is likely to be sitting in a comfortable location. However, as described above, they are also likely to want to get their screen estate back for regular programming pretty soon, unless your interface offers something significantly entertaining in its own right and/or there are multiple TVs in the household which other residents can watch whilst the main screen is not available.

Shared, not personal

Anyone nearby can see the same interface, so the user is unlikely to want to have personal information revealed – mask or hide this information. Conversely, open up information which might create a talking point between people.

Proportionately large elements

Each screen element should take up a large proportion of the screen, ironically, just like when designing for small mobile screens. On mobile interfaces the small screen means elements have to be clear and uncluttered to be easily distinguished, and occupy a large proportion of the screen. When the user is far away from the screen the same principles apply so that user interface elements can be easily seen. Give the user a limited subset of choices on any one page, and make the elements well spaced and large.

So there we have it, using a 40 inch screen has many of the same design principles as using a 5 inch screen. This type of design should become increasingly common as companies develop how they can add value using new interfaces like Microsoft Kinect.

Research in Motion’s Co-CEO Jim Balsillie stated at the recent Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco that the focus on apps on mobile devices is something of a fad.  As the debate over apps vs mobile sites continues,  Senior Customer Experience Consultant, Dr Rob Johnson reviews Barclays mobile- optimized site.

Company/ Brand

Barclays

Purpose?

Provides users with the ability to check account balances, view mini statements, transfer money between Barclays accounts and make payments.

Download?

Rather than make an app for the iPhone, Blackberry, Android and Symbian individually Barclays have built a mobile optimised site that can be accessed from any mobile device. The mobile site is accessed through the native browser of the mobile device.

Overview

The Barclays mobile site provides a comprehensive range of functions while on the move. The site was tested using an iPhone 4, iPad and Blackberry Bold. On all three devices the site was rendered clearly and was easy to operate. With the iPhone, iPad and Blackberry it is possible to add a shortcut icon to the home screen to replicate the appearance of an app.

So what does it do?

The mobile site provides typical web functionality such as finding nearest branches/ATMs and finding contact details for the bank or local branch. The most useful feature is the ability to manage personal banking. Here the user can check balances for all Barclays accounts, look at the most recent transactions, transfer money between Barclays accounts as well as make payments to external accounts (both individuals and organisations).

fig 1

The above screen shot (Fig. 1) is the home page for the Barclays mobile site. From here users can log straight into their account or use one of the other features available. Logging into the account using the ‘log in’ button requires the user to have one of Barclays PINsentry devices (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 below). There is an option to login using basic access where the user is required to provide a password in addition to some card details (see Fig. 4).

fig 2

fig 3

Using the basic access does reduce the number of functions available to the user; users are not able to make payments, and are limited to transferring up to £1000 a day between their Barclays accounts. Despite the limited functionality, the basic access version of the site provides the user with features most likely to be used “on the move”.

fig 5

fig 6

The process of making payments or transferring money is straight forward. Screen elements are of a sufficient size to make selection by touch (iPhone) or rollerball (Blackberry) easy.

The two processes are also clearly labeled to show the user how many steps there are and therefore how long each is likely to take.

fig 7

fig 8

Throughout the mobile site, there are quick links back to the homepage, as well as to the Balances and mini statements. However, the way in which these links are presented may cause some users to become disoriented within the site due to their similarity to a breadcrumb trail. If the account homepage (Fig. 5 or Fig. 6) is a menu of what is available, it is not entirely clear why not all options are included on every page. It is likely that screen space was the reason for only including 2 options, but this does mean that the presentation of this ‘mini menu’ has to be carefully considered to ensure it does not appear as a breadcrumb.

The Mini-statement is a standard mobile banking feature and one that the Barclays mobile site does fairly well (see Fig. 9). The site shows the last 5 transactions, or those transactions within the last 31 days, whichever results in fewer line items. A good level of detail is given for each transaction with a current balance provided at the bottom of the page.

While the 5 transaction limit will allow users to make the majority of checks on their account activity while on the move, it would have been useful to include an option to view more. Barclays have the right approach in providing a statement view that matches the situation a user is likely to be accessing the site in; that of needing to make a quick check on the status of a payment in or out. However it would be recommended that the user be given the option to view previous transactions if desired.

What doesn’t it do?

With regards to online banking features, the mobile site allows the user to perform almost all tasks that are available on the full site. The main feature not included in the mobile site is the ability to view full statements. However, due to the nature of access on a mobile device, this is a relatively small issue. Another feature not included on the mobile site is the ability to set-up and control text alerts. The user is able to read about how text alerts work, but when attempting to set them up they are directed to the full Barclays site.

What others have to say

Reaction to the mobile site is mixed. The features of the site itself are generally well received, however the delivery of the service through a mobile site rather than a platform specific app has caused some debate.

Users of iPhones have stated that they like everything to be offered in an app, and while the mobile site has all the features that they would want from mobile banking, they prefer the idea of Barclays developing something specifically for their device. A stronger view is held by owners of non-apple devices who believe that a mobile site is the better choice. Customers of rival banks who use Android, Windows or Blackberry phones have noted that having a mobile offering that is platform agnostic makes Barclays a very attractive prospect. These users often feel that their devices are overlooked when organisations, banks included, decide to focus their efforts on apps for apple devices.

Final thoughts

The Barclays mobile site provides a range of functions for banking on the move. The basic access can be seen as the only true version of the mobile experience since users are unlikely to carry the PINsentry device with them while on the move. Despite this, the basic access still provides the most useful features. The site itself works well, and while small usability issues exist, the site allows users to complete their tasks without any major issues.

One to One Insight’s, Senior Research Consultant Erdeniz Hassan reviews NatWest’s Mobile Banking App – one of the first banking apps to be made available to iPhone users.

What is it?

Developed by a company called Monitise Group Limited in association with National Westminster Bank Plc., this is an iPhone app for NatWest customers to check on their finances.

Purpose?

Provides users with the ability to check account balances, view mini statements, set-up text alerts and top up pay as you go mobiles.

Download?

The app is free to download from the app store.

Overview

The app has been generally quite well received as it was one of the first banking apps to be made available to iPhone users. The main issues identified by users generally focused around the performance of the app. Additionally, it requires wifi access during use for optimum connectivity as it takes a long time to load the application and can cause ‘hanging’ to occur when connected via 3G.

So what does it do?

The NatWest Mobile Money app is generally very useful and provides the functionality to perform activities effectively with very little effort required. The ability to access the content ‘on the go’ in comparison to at a branch or PC will be greatly welcomed by users.

However there were some high level usability issues that were identified. These include:

Fig. 1

The above screen shot (Fig. 1) is displayed once the app starts-up. The inclusion of the message ‘Secure connection’ should provide users with confidence. The inclusion of the loading symbol also provides users with reassuring feedback that something is happening.

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Whilst navigating through the app, however, very little feedback is given. The loading icon appears within the top area (Fig. 2) but is very subtle. In some cases while connected via 3G it seems as if the app is ‘hanging’. One to One Insight believes a larger loading icon should be displayed in the centre of the app similar to the first screen (Fig. 1).

Once logged in users are not provided with any welcome message or any acknowledgment of their identify (Fig. 3).

Fig. 4

From the main NatWest (Fig. 4) section there is no ‘Back’ button. In order to go back users are required to select ‘Close’. Users might be apprehensive as the ‘Close’ button gives the impression the app will be shut down. One to One Insight believes a ‘Back’ button should be included.

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

‘Back’ buttons are only included within Text services, top up phone, manage account and manage mobile banking (Fig. 6). Within the balance and mini-statement users are provided with ‘Close’ buttons, which is inconsistent. The inclusion of the ‘Close’ buttons within some sections (Fig. 5) are confusing as they currently takes users back to the main area rather than actually close the app.

The purpose of the of the ‘Return to main menu’ button is also confusing as it is not clear which main menu users will be taken to i.e. (Fig. 3) or (Fig. 4)

Fig. 7

The purpose of the ‘Message Centre’ (Fig. 7) is unclear as the ability to send messages is not provided.

What doesn’t it do?

Within the mini statement information about where the credit/debit transaction comes from is not included. Also users are only provided with the last 6 transactions.

One to One Insight advises to include information about the name of retailer and direct debit. Also provide users with the functionality to be able to specify for which dates they want to view the statements.

Also the ability to make money transfers has not been provided.

What others have to say

Users are really positive about this app…when they can get it to work; many users have encountered performance and technical issues when attempting to register.

Final thoughts

On the whole the NatWest Mobile Money app provides the minimum functions that users will need and expect to be included. However there is a lot of room for improvement primarily focusing on the performance of the app and further key functions such as detailed mini statements and the ability to transfer money.

One to One Insight, Senior Research Consultant, Jenna Cosquieri has conducted usability testing with kids for The British Council and five – here she offers her top tips for usability testing with kids.

Millions of children today are web users and there are many websites which specifically target children with educational or entertainment content. Despite this however, there is little current insight on usability testing with children, and little knowledge on best practices in terms of web design specifically with children in mind. Usability testing with children provides us with insights into another generation of web users and can prove extremely rewarding in today’s modern world where more and more children are becoming internet users at an early age. This article outlines insights based on One to One Insight’s experience of interviewing children for usability.

The arrival of the child participant into the user testing lab is one of the key moments that can affect his/her experience (and behaviour) during the interview. Children are a lot more susceptible to stress than adults when in an unknown place and with people they are not familiar with. As a result, they are likely to be quiet or shy and therefore the interview will not be an accurate representation of the child’s behaviour in their own environment. It is vital that the child is as relaxed as possible. Communicating with the parent is a useful way of making the child feel at ease – if the parent is calm and comfortable with the situation the child is likely to feel more secure in the environment and engage freely with the website.

Allow the parent to stay in the room where the interview will take place, however ensure that they are aware that they should not attempt to assist the child unless they actively seek guidance.Allow the parent to stay in the room where the interview will take place, however ensure that they are aware that they should not attempt to assist the child unless they actively seek guidance. Explain that it would be valuable if they could help to encourage the child to attempt the tasks alone. It is important to also make this clear to the child and explain that you want to see how easy or difficult they find the test material without help. Clearly explain to the child that it is a not a test for them. Children may become frustrated and disappointed if they cannot complete a task, so it is important not to let a child attempt the same task too many times. Provide positive feedback throughout the interview and motivate the child. A useful way of doing this is by letting the child know that they are helping you to improve the website and make it easier for their friends and other children to use.

Children lose interest a lot faster than adults and get easily distracted in the environment around them, so it is important to remove as many distractions as possible from the studio. Also, ensure to take short breaks for the child as they are less able to focus for long periods of time. It is not advisable to conduct interviews lasting longer than 60 minutes if possible, as the child will lose interest by this point and feedback may not be accurate, however One to One Insight has conducted successful interviews with older children lasting up to 90 minutes. If possible, avoid giving the child long tasks which they would be unlikely to complete themselves at home. Ensure to prioritise tasks if there are key areas of the site the client wants feedback on, so that children are not attempting these at a stage where they may be losing interest. Also, allow for natural exploration, if a child begins to explore a later task, allow them to do so and bring them back to the other tasks later.

The use of images is highly recommended in order to capture the child’s feelings towards aspects of the site. Interestingly, children are likely to be less verbal than adults throughout an interview. This may be due to shyness, fear of saying the wrong thing, or the simple fact that children find it more difficult to communicate their thoughts. Therefore, it is important to observe the child carefully for reactions and facial expressions as they provide huge insight into the child’s perception of the site. The use of images is highly recommended in order to capture the child’s feelings towards aspects of the site. For example, in past studies One to One Insight has used ‘smiley face’ images indicating varying levels of happiness from ‘very happy’ with a large smile, to a face with a frown and tears, and asked the child which one suits their feelings best.

One to One Insight’s findings have shown that children are not as likely as audlts to scroll down pages of a website, so information below the fold of the page is likely to be overlooked. Children enjoy websites with bright colours, simple navigation, and appropriate content. If the child is not interested in the content they are unlikely to want to explore and return to the site. Ensure there are fun games and music on the website to keep a child’s interest, and reward children for completing puzzles and progressing on the site.

Bearing these factors in mind, structure a usability interview with a child with care, and ensure that a pilot study is completed with a child at least a day in advance; finding out that your test scenario is inappropriate on the first participant is already too late. If done correctly, interviews with children can unlock insights which can reveal how engaged your young audience is and therefore the extent to which they might become brand advocates to their friends and parents.