Evaluation of Prototype
With the prototype done and working, we wanted to evaluate it. Normally, a prototype is evaluated with the list of requirements to see if all the requirements are met. However, for this project, we worked with our case owner. Therefore, an additional co-testing session in which we tested the prototype with the case owner was something we wanted to do.
Due to the conflicting schedules of us and the case owner, no co-testing session has taken place yet. So, we have explained the co-testing plan and conducted an alternative evaluation. Once the co-testing session has taken place, this page will be updated accordingly.
Co-Testing Plan
Before conducting the co-testing session, a plan had to be made. Similarly to the co-design session, we first set some goals:
-
Gather feedback on the prototype and final concept (good points/points of improvement).
-
Reflect back on the project.
For the gathering of the feedback, the plan was to let the case owner go through the scenario of using the laptop without explaining how it works. That way we can immediately test the ease of use and functionality. If something is not understood, we can immediately ask why and discuss how that can be resolved. The scenario of using the laptop does not only include sitting behind it, but also transporting, opening and closing, and putting it in their laptop bag.
Besides gathering the case owner’s generally feedback of use, we also wanted to look back at the requirements they had for the product, based on the black box method from the co-design session. So, we also wanted to:
-
Test whether the prototype actually relieves the issue (to a certain extent).
-
See whether the aesthetics of the final concept match their style.
-
Reflect on the sustainability aspects, also using future considerations we made.
Then, besides testing the prototype and looking at the final concept together, we wanted to look back at the process of the entire project. Specifically, we wanted to learn how the case owner experienced the interviews, co-design, co-testing, and overall communication we had together. Any feedback they have would be valuable for future projects.
Lastly, the plan was to quickly look at the website we made and share the link for that. As well as thank the case owner for their participation in this project and for working with us.
Co-Testing Results
Due to the conflicting schedules of us and the case owner, no co-testing session has taken place yet. So, we have explained the co-testing plan and conducted an alternative evaluation. Once the co-testing session has taken place, this page will be updated accordingly.
Alternative Testing
Besides the co-design, we conducted an alternative testing evolution with 3 strangers in the Horst. Because we did not have a lot of time to plan this, we did a general evaluation in which we asked the strangers to use the protype (walk, sit, open, adjust the angle, close). After this, we quickly explained a bit of the context behind the prototype. Then, we inquired after 4 points. We made no consent forms for this, so it was just very quick with some notetaking and no pictures.
-
Intuitively - Before we explained the context to you, how well did you understand the purpose of this prototype by looking at it and using it?
-
Easy of use - How easy was it to use the prototype?
-
Steps in use cycle - Do you think that it took to many steps to use this prototype?
-
Goal - Do you think, based on the explanation of the context, the prototype achieves the intended goal?
Overall, the prototype was received well. The people were quite easily able to use it, although they were a little uncertain about the hinge mechanism. We did warn them to be careful because the prototype is a bit fragile, so that might be why. The text below summarizes the evaluation.
-
Intuitively - Before explaining the context, people did not necessarily understand the purpose of the designed laptop. They saw the extra hinges and did assume that it had something to do with extra height or angles. However, because the screen was relatively shorter, this threw them off a little.
-
Ease of use - Most people found the prototype very easy to use. The only thing they were a bit uncertain about initially was which way certain parts of the hinge were supposed to rotate. However, as they continued to heighten the screen, this started making sense. One person also mentioned that the prototype hinges gave quite some resistance, so they were a little worried about how much force was too much, since they did not want to break anything.
-
Steps in use cycle - There were no complaints about the amount of steps it took to open and close the laptop. The people did mention that it took more effort than in a normal laptop, but it was not mentioned as a major problem considering the goal of the this special laptop.
-
Goal - Once we explained the context behind the prototype, all 3 of the testers said that the goal was not really reached. The prototype screen is ultimately not much higher than a normal screen, so their posture was still the same. They did understand that this could be optimized in further development. One person additionally had a comment that if the hinges were to be much higher, we should consider the balance. If the screen leans back, the whole laptop should not fall over. Furthermore, the hinges need to be stable and strong, in which the prototype hinges were a bit lacking.
There were a couple more comments/questions regarding the design, such as the touchpad location. They wondered why its location was under the number pad. As we explained that the case owner does not really use it that much, they did think it made sense. An additional comment to this was, however, that observing their own keyboard, the main part of the keyboard and the number pad are about the same height. So having the prototype keyboard being the same height as the number pad and touchpad above each other was maybe not realistic.
Another question was asked about the cavities at the bottom of the prototype. Why were they there? We explained our thoughts of heat dissipation and sustainability. Once again, they did find this logical. It was additionally advised to do research into how deep these cavities could go.
The last comment was by one person, who found the screws in the prototype to not look very nice. They wondered if the screws could maybe be on the bottom, or if there was another way to hide them due to aesthetics. We understood this comment, and said we would take this into consideration.
Evaluation with List of Requirements
The final part of the evaluation is testing whether the prototype/final concept meets the list of requirements that was set before. This can be seen in the table below.
R1.1 - The product shall fit inside a standard 16-inch laptop carrying case.
-
Met - The requirement is met. The prototype measures in width 340 mm, in length 240mm and 20mm in thickness which fits comfortably in the 16-inch laptop bag.
R1.2 - The product shall have external dimensions no larger than 380 mm × 280 mm × 40 mm (average 16-inch laptop dimensions).
-
Met - The requirement is met. The prototype measures in width 340 mm, in length 240mm and 20mm in thickness which fits comfortably in the 16-inch laptop bag.
Overall, the prototype meets most requirements. A couple of requirements are still undetermined, due to not being able to test with the case owner and not having created a final product but rather a final concept/prototype. Furthermore, 2 requirements regarding the posture of the user whilst using the prototype were not met. However, this could be remedied with some adjustments for the final product.
Although as of now, we were unable to do an evaluation with the case owner, we did learn some valuable things from our alternative evaluation. Most of these things were points to look at if this concept were to be even further developed into an actual product. We also evaluated the prototype against our own requirements, which turned out positive. The requirements that were not met or undetermined, could be designed for in the future in such a way that they are met. Because it is not in the scope of this course to design a real product, we did not go further into this. However, we did consider certain aspects such as material in terms of sustainability. This was done in the section "Future", meaning potential, future implementations.