Carpooling is one of the more well-known solutions for reducing individual carbon footprints and ensuring a better tomorrow. Yet, it is not very popular in current times. We decided to dive into this topic to find if we could do something substantial with carpooling in GT. When we found out that GT already had a carpool system in place, we endeavored to find out why it was not more visible. We identified the potential stakeholders with the carpool system and went out and conducted interviews with some of them such as PTS (Parking & Transportation Services), GT students, and faculty. This helped us envisage the problem space from multiple perspectives.
The goal of Buzzpool is to serve as an application that encourages and incentivizes GT students to carpool while commuting to campus in order to reduce their carbon footprint and contribute towards a more sustainable solution.
Duration
4 Months August - December 2021
Team Members
We worked in a team of 4: 1. Sejal Sarkar 2. Kshitij Gupta 3. Linda Lee 4. David Lacy
Role
UX Designer (Lead) UX Researcher (Phases 1 to 2)
Skills Learned
Literature Review User Interviews Design Space Critique Survey Interview Affinity Mapping Brainstorming strategies Prototyping Heuristic & Think Aloud Evaluation
Duration
4 Months August - December 2021
Team Members
We worked in a team of 4: 1. Sejal Sarkar 2. Kshitij Gupta 3. Linda Lee 4. David Lacy
Role
UX Designer (Lead) UX Researcher (Phases 1 to 2)
Skills Learned
Literature Review User Interviews Design Space Critique Survey Interview Affinity Mapping Brainstorming strategies Prototyping Heuristic & Think Aloud Evaluation
Duration
4 Months January - May 2022
Team Members
1. Kshitij Gupta (me) 2. Ankur Garg
Role
UX Designer (Lead) UX Researcher (Phases 1 to 2)
Skills Learned
Literature Review User Interviews Design Space Critique Survey Interview Affinity Mapping Brainstorming strategies Prototyping Heuristic & Think Aloud Evaluation
Goal: The CGHE website consisted large amounts of data on Hepatitis. 4 MS-HCI students were to work on making this useful information more accessible to a global audience in groups of 2. The primary aim of this phase was to study the website in depth, as well as its behavorial flow using google analytics and carve out research areas for each group. This required us to work closely with each other as well as the CGHE to understand their goals. Finally, we concluded this phase with a plan that the 2 groups would follow over the next 5 months.
Phase 1: Understanding the Problem
Phase 1: Understanding the Problem
Goal: The key goal of this first substantive part of the project was to deeply understand the problem space that we are addressing, the stakeholders, define the audience we are catering to, and the issues and constraints that are involved in the problem.
Goal: The key goal of this first substantive part of the project was to deeply understand the problem space that we are addressing, the stakeholders, define the audience we are catering to, and the issues and constraints that are involved in the problem.
Overview & Contribution
Conducted a literature survey
Highlighted 1 out of 4 design implications
Conducted a design space critique for 2 out of 4 applications
Researched context for Atlanta and Georgia Tech
Conducted a comprehensive literature survey
Highlighted 13 research questions
Reached out to 2 stakeholders
Visited Centre for Visually Impaired to build connections
Organized calls with CGHE to learn more about HEP elimination
Generated Google Analytics trend reports for the website
Identified data communication as a research area
Goal: The key goal of this first substantive part of the project was to deeply understand the problem space that we are addressing, the stakeholders, define the audience we are catering to, and the issues and constraints that are involved in the problem.
My contribution & Overview: As carpooling is not a new solution in itself, I conducted a literature survey to explore if it has been implemented in different places and how they have gone about it.
I used findings from the literature survey along with findings from other sources to highlight their design implications.
To understand how carpooling is currently achieved on a more general level, I conducted a design space critique by testing popular carpooling applications BlaBla Car and sRide.
I then established the socio-technical context in terms of Atlanta while David, being an employee of GT, took the lead on establishing the context in terms of Georgia Tech by interviewing a member of the transportations department.
I further researched Georgia Tech's strategic plans for the future and highlighted the central role of sustainability.
Finally, we connected our findings from literature surveys to their potential reasons and design implications. During my literature survey, I found that a group of researchers had identified that females carpooled more in their sample space and looked to address this finding in the final section.
This is some text inside of a div block.
Who are our users & stakeholders?
We started off our project by identifying who our audience and stakeholders would be. After concluding that our primary audience would involve GT students, we subdivided the user group into smaller groups. This helped us each narrow down focus on the specific people we want to recruit for interviews.
What are the characteristics of our user group?
image grid
What solutions currently exist in the market?
I conducted a design space critique for 2 of the more popular carpooling applications in the US app store.
1. sRide
2. BlaBla Car
Socio Technical context
Before we moved further with our project, it was important for us to define the larger social and technical context in which our design will intersect. For this, David looked to establish the context in Georgia Tech while I looked into the recent developments in the city of Atlanta.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Researching into the role of sustainability on campus, I found that it takes an increasingly central focus under the leadership of Georgia Tech's newest President Ángel Cabrera.
Soon after his investiture last fall, President Cabrera began a project in early Spring 2020 that laid out sustaiable goals. It has continued to gain momentum, through the events of the recent months as environmental sustainability has become ever more important in the life of a global pandemic and increasingly evident effects of the climate crisis.
City of Atlanta
fdfdfd
Design Implications
fdsfs
Challenges & Reflection
sfsdf
The Process: in images & words
We began this phase by identifying our target audience
Users and Stakeholders
We started off our project by identifying who our audience and stakeholders would be. After concluding that our primary audience would involve GT students, we subdivided the user group into smaller groups. This helped us each narrow down focus on the specific people we want to recruit for interviews.
User Characteristics
After studying and talking to various stakeholders involved with carpooling at Georgia Tech, we narrowed down our user population to graduate students of Georgia Tech who are eligible for carpooling, i.e. they stay at least a quarter of a mile away from the boundary of the main campus
Design Space Critique
I looked into 2 of the most popular carpooling solutions in the app store and aimed to define their strengths and weaknesses.
BlaBlaCar
I noted that the strongest point of this application is its smooth UX. Everything from the fonts to the illustrations is well planned, and the application is great to use. However, I felt that it fell short when it comes to discovering carpoolers and the carpooling experience itself. While it allows users the convenience to switch between publishing and seeking carpools with a single tap, it is heavily reliant on the time and route matching of both parties. Without filling in the destinations and departing times, there seems to be no way of checking the available routes published which leaves the user with no further information and room to be flexible with their routes unless they find one that matches perfectly. In conclusion, I felt that the application had great potential considering its strong UX but falls short owing to a restricted model.
sRide
I noted that the strongest feature of this application is sNeighbor -- which is geared towards helping users find and match with other carpool users around them. A user can work on their profile to include personal information about themselves that would be relevant while looking for like-minded people. By doing this, the application builds on creating meaningful connections and experiences instead of being just another carpooling application. However, this application falls short in terms of the user experience, its design, and reach. There are no users in Atlanta and while there were plenty of users in New York, a lot of the user profiles were empty and there was nothing to choose between apart from the names. When you think a user's profile matches your interest, you can choose to click the like button which sends an auto-generated message to the users which gets very repetitive and monotonous. The inbox feature of this application looks like a work in progress and does not feel user-friendly at all.
Socio-Technical Context
Before we moved further with our project, it was important for us to define the larger social and technical context in which our design will intersect. For this, David looked to establish the context in Georgia Tech while I looked into the recent developments in the city of Atlanta.
Georgia Institute of Technology
Researching into the role of sustainability on campus, I found that it takes an increasingly central focus under the leadership of Georgia Tech's newest President Ángel Cabrera.
Soon after his investiture last fall, President Cabrera began a project in early Spring 2020 that laid out 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It has continued to gain momentum, through the events of the recent months as environmental sustainability has become ever more important in the life of a global pandemic and increasingly evident effects of the climate crisis.
“Amplify Impact, as we strive to keep the campus and the community around us as free of vehicle congestion and air pollution as possible, and we support active modes for the health and well-being of our students, faculty, and staff.”
- GT President Cabrera when asked where carpooling falls into his focus areas
Georgia Tech’s Department of Parking and Transportation (PTS) oversees the institute’s carpooling program, its processes, and communication efforts. A virtual meeting was scheduled with the department’s Campus Transportation Planner who has been there since 2013 and is a proponent of alternative transportation to and from campus. David took the lead on the interview while I looked to take down important insights for our next team meeting.
“We want to encourage carpooling and other alternative modes of transport because we want to focus on sustainability and reducing congestion on campus”
- Campus Transportation Planner, PTS
I understood that the department has its preferences aligned with Georgia Tech’s new strategic plan. the department emphasized the importance of reducing individual car dependency due to the reduction of institute-owned parking spaces. For example, as part of Georgia Tech’s future space planning, the existing parking lot on 5th and Spring Street will give way to a new building scheduled for completion in 2025.
City of Atlanta
As populations grow, urban areas such as Atlanta often experience severe traffic congestion due to the increase of mobility demand that exceeds facility capacity, dampening the city’s economic competitiveness and quality of life. The city of Atlanta is trying to tackle this issue on a priority basis and is pushing citizens to explore alternate ways of commuting such as carpooling, cycling, and taking the bus.
This push towards alternative ways of commute can be seen on their website where the Department of City Planning highlights a number of changes and steps they intend to take towards the further development of the city.
Here, the most notable of these changes is their proposed policy that would remove Residential Parking Minimums. They believe that this step would lower house production costs and most importantly, car dependency.
As of now, the City of Atlanta requires a single-family home to have 2 parking spaces and smaller multifamily properties to have at least 0.5 parking spaces per unit.
They believe that these current requirements, labeled as “parking minimums”, indirectly lead to a pattern of car-dependency among citizens when they could be exploring alternate means of commuting.
By reducing parking spaces that citizens can avail, people will be pushed towards less hassle-free means of transport and this is where an effective carpooling service can serve as a design intervention. Considering the direction in which the city planning is headed in, a rush for parking spaces will be inevitable in the near future, and our solution aligns very well with the goals of the City of Atlanta as it would provide an alternate means of commuting to its citizens contributing to less congestion and a more sustainable environment.
Design Implications
We then looked at our findings from literature surveys, and interviews to account for any potential design implications.
Lessons Learnt & Reflections
Estabilishing directions
This phase required us to study the site deeply, and take up responsibility for reimagining the different parts of the website. Considering how comprehensive the CGHE website is, this was challenging at first and required us to be clear on each of our interests as well as how they can contribute to the website design. Considering the immense role hepatitis data on their website played in policymaking, me and Ankur took responsibility of making the data dashboards more efficient and streamlined.
Familiarizing ourselves with the context of data
Neither of us had any background in Epidemiology. In order to be able to design for those that worked in this space, it was crucial for us to have a good understanding about the context of the data that is presented in data dashboards. Our clients were more than willing to have long calls with us to explain all data on their website and how it plays a role in making decisions for hepatitis elimination. We made use of this opportunity to have long, insightful calls with the CGHE to better prepare ourselves for the next phase.
Summarizing years of research
I found a lot of relevant insights scattered across academic papers as old as 1999. Summarizing the work that has been done till this point was a challenge initially, but I was able to communicate it to my team members through a succinct literature survey that was organized chronologically and by the broad themes that were observed in the papers.
Choosing a problem space
While discussing our problem space, I had to be careful that the goal we were agreeing to was neither too specific, nor too broad -- allowing us to approach the upcoming stages with a direction as well as an open mind
Identifying the user group
Carpooling can be a widely applicable solution -- however, we had to keep in mind the situation created by the pandemic as well as the limited time we had in hand. In order to give ourselves the maximum opportunities to learn, we narrowed down our scope to a user group that was more accesible to us for interviews and other feedback sessions.
Communication is key
As with any new team, a challenge here was to get to know each other, everyone's work ethic, and most importantly their time schedules. Communication was key in this stage, and we made sure to meet in person as much as possible to maximize interaction. It was an unsaid rule between us that everyone had to show up on time and regularly, at least in the earlier stages when we were looking to establish an understanding between each other.
Goal: The key goal of this first substantive part of the project was to deeply understand the problem space that we are addressing, the stakeholders, define the audience we are catering to, and the issues and constraints that are involved in the problem.
Phase 2: Requirements Gathering
Goal: The key goal of this phase was to use the information gathered in phase 1 to direct our survey and user interviews. And then gather requirements, define them, and look to understand the different user journeys.
Phase 2: Requirements Gathering
Goal: Once the two MS-HCI teams were able to take resposibilities of the different parts of the website that needed improvement, we worked together to plan out our research efforts. We started by working towards a common Qualtrix survey to gather quantitative data. By integrating logic in the survey, participants were asked a different set of questions based on how important certain features were to them. Me and Ankur conducted a brainstorming session that was combined with the competitive analysis over Miro. Finally, we interviewed a pool of 5 candidates to understand how they used the website, and their decision making process.
Overview & Contribution
Prepared a script and conducted semi-structured interviews
Transcribed interviews and prepared affinity map
Ideated 13 design interventions, 6 ideas voted into top 10
Sketched design solutions
Prepared 1 out of 2 storyboards
Took responsiblity for designing survey
Prepared a script and conducted 1 out of 3 interviews
Transcribed interviews and prepared affinity map
Designed 1 persona and 2 journey maps
Worked on 5 out of 10 survey questions
Prepared a script and conducted 4 out of 6 semi-structured interviews
Led the affinity mapping and brainstorming sessions
Communicated findings to a focus group and stakeholders
My contribution & Overview: For this phase of the project, I prepared a script for the interview in order to establish the qualitative information we wish to extract and how we would be doing so. I then conducted a semi-structured interview with a Georgia Tech alumni who had backed out of carpooling while Sejal, Linda, and David conducted interviews with other candidates. Throughout the process, we made sure to attend each other's calls, and if one person was leading the interview, the other person would take down notes.
Once we had information from the interview, I added my notes to an affinity map. After everyone added theirs, we sat together to organize our map into different sections and extracted common themes.
We then brainstormed using Slice & Dice and SCAMPER strategies. Here, I contributed 13 design ideas out of which 6 made it to the final prototype. We grouped together ideas that could be part of the same solution and narrowed our design ideas to 2 completely different solutions.
Linda then created storyboards for the two solutions.
Image
Survey
A rich text element can be used with static or dynamic content. For static content, just drop it into any page and begin editing. For dynamic content, add a rich text field to any collection and then connect a rich text element to that field in the settings panel. Voila!
Interview
Headings, paragraphs, blockquotes, figures, images, and figure captions can all be styled after a class is added to the rich text element using the "When inside of" nested selector system.
Brainstorming
images - scamper, task analysis,
Design Solutions
fsdfds
Storyboarding
kokok
Challenges & Reflection
jjj
The Process: in images & words
We used different brainstorming techniques to come up with design solutions
Survey
Our team obtained data from the annual Georgia Tech Commuter survey, an annually distributed survey by the Parking and Transportation Services (PTS) for all registered commuters. A registered commuter is anyone who has an account in the PTS database. This includes individuals who purchased any kind of parking permit, mass-transit pass, or any other transportation product offered by PTS.
The survey was pre-designed and distributed by PTS before the start of Fall 2021. The survey questions have remained fairly consistent over time with 40 questions, save for 2020, which included two COVID-19 variations. Fortunately, we were able to acquire raw data from the past 3 years: 2018, 2019, 2020. The questions ranged from general demographics, commute behaviors, and opinions regarding commuting to Georgia Tech. All inferences from the survey are our own and none were offered to our team by the PTS department.
Interview
The interview protocol consisted of 11 primary questions with varying probing questions. Each interview session lasted between 20 - 30 minutes.
I conducted my interview with an alumni who had once taken a carpooling permit with his friends but then dropped out of the carpooling program a week later. Due to the unique nature of this candidate, whenever necessary, I made sure to deviate from our interview protocol (which was primarily scripted for those with no experience carpooling at GT). I followed a semi-structured interview process, and since he had a lot to speak about his bad experience, resorted to the role of a listener for the most part of the interview. At times, I probed upon certain complaints, asking him to elaborate further, in order to gain clearer insights.
Findings
My notes of our Interview Findings
We applied the affinity mapping technique to analyze our notes for each session. Using Miro, we were able to collaborate virtually and organize our data into an affinity diagram. The findings in this exercise would ultimately influence our design requirements and inhibitions.
Given the large amount of data we had collected, the process of organizing the data was challenging. I took responsibility for a portion of the sticky notes and arranged them into suitable categories. I was also keeping track of the categories that my teammates were making, and would simultaneously check if any of my notes fit into an existing category. Once everyone was done, we would collectively decide the theme for each column (blue notes), the broader theme for a group of blue notes (pink notes), and finally an overarching problem space for a group of pink notes.
At many points when we would get stuck identifying how to group notes, I would create a copy of the section and shuffle the categories into a different view. I felt that, by visually observing a slightly different view, it would be easier for us to contemplate another train of thought.
Affinity Map
Brainstorming & Design Solutions
We started off by coming up with individual design ideas, each addressing different problems we noticed across interviews and the survey.
The design solutions I proposed were centered around using visualizations to create an engaging and user-friendly user experience.
Since a lot of our interviewees mentioned a matching schedule is of utmost importance to them, I felt that we could easily calculate the similarity between 2 schedules and display the score as a percentage. This would allow users to swipe based on how important it is to them.
Another feature that I strongly felt for was the parking lot optimization feature. As one of our participants mentioned in the interview, choosing the optimal parking lot can be an issue when more people are involved. Using geo visualizations our application could offer a design intervention here and calculate a parking zone that is at the most optimal distance from the class buildings of all carpool members.
Finally, given that sustainability is an important benefit of carpooling, I felt it was necessary to visualize how the users' choices are positively impacting the environment in order to give them a sense of achievement.
I then made sketches for 3 of these ideas for better visual understanding:
We further made use of S.C.A.M.P.E.R. brainstorming strategy. By restricting my thinking to specific functions such as modifying existing solutions, or eliminating features, I was able to think with more clarity and direction. As a result, I was able to contribute several suggestions aimed at improving the experience current carpooling options offer and improving the way information is conveyed through Georgia Tech's carpooling page:
S.C.A.M.P.E.R Brainstorming Technique
In order to help us break down each step of the user process and analyze possible design interventions, I and David used the Slice and Dice strategy to analyze Georgia Tech's carpooling service while Linda and Sejal analyzed the carpooling feature in Waze.
We then collectively conducted a task analysis for the PTS website, that further went into the user process while signing up for a carpooling permit.
Slice & Dice Analysis of existing carpooling options for GT students
Task Analsyis for the carpooling process
Storyboards
Based on the design ideas we voted for in the previous section, we narrowed and combined them into 2 completely different design directions. These offer solutions to different issues, and storyboards were created for each use case. This would help us make a better decision in the next phase about the direction we wish to go in.
While the first solution was centered around helping users discover other carpoolers and manage their carpool, the second solution focused on the issue of cognitive overload and looked to improve upon the current carpooling process at Georgia Tech.
1. Buzzpool
Our design of Buzzpool addresses our functional and non-functional requirements. It fulfills the first functional requirement, i.e., it helps the user match with a potential carpool mate. By asking users to login via their GT email IDs, the design lends itself to safety and accountability. Since the user group is only GT students, the user is assured about their individual safety and can feel comfortable carpooling with someone they met on the app. The app has a ludic design that is similar to that of dating applications as that is something that is familiar to users and therefore, would not require any additional learning. Thereby, the design offers a simplistic form of matching.
2. Carpool GO
With the concept of gamification, users can easily complete various tasks of submitting applications for carpooling permits. Including the simple and aesthetic design also allows users to enjoy the process and make the process smooth and easy.
One of the main advantages of Carpool GO is that it allows users to easily navigate themselves and complete tasks on the website. The purpose of Carpool GO is to provide a pleasant and simple process for those who decide to participate in carpooling. The solution meets our user’s goals and design requirements.
One weakness of Carpool GO is that users can feel rushed when completing the tasks of the application. Since users gain points after completing each different task, users’ wants and needs for completion can possibly lead to writing down incorrect information.
Challenges and Reflection
I found this stage particularly challenging. In comparison to the other stages of the design process, this was more exploratory where we had to dig for information through various research methods as well as extract various themes.
I was initially not sure about how best to extract information from an interview. Borrowing from what we learned in class, I concluded that working with another teammate to conduct the interview would give us the best chance. I asked Linda to initiate the interview and ask the more generic questions. On the other hand, I made notes and when my turn came, I focused on asking more exploratory questions based on the interviewee's replies. Splitting the interview in this manner allowed us to frame questions on the fly, allowing the interviewee to open up.
Transcribing and analyzing the large amounts of data generated through an affinity map took a lot more time than we expected and I felt that we should have given ourselves a larger time frame for this process.
Brainstorming with the team, I learned, required me to keep a more open mind. Many ideas that I felt strongly about, did not resonate greatly with my team. Eventually, I had to make sure I was not too attached to a particular idea and was prepared for it to be rejected. I learned that during brainstorming, it's important to patiently communicate your ideas and why you strongly feel about them.
Lessons Learnt & Reflections
Overcoming communication barriers
Our clients, CGHE, provided us with a comprehensive pool of participants to interview. This provided us with a unique opportunity to talk to users all across the world, at various important positions in the health departments of their countries. Going into the first interview, we did not anticipate the communication barrier that could arise during these interactions. Having previously conducted interviews only with people who were based out of the US, this was difficult to navigate through at first. However, we used it as a learning opportunity, and modified our interview script to have simpler sentences, and made sure to break up our questions to sound the least intimidating.
Directing participants' focus towards design
We realized that, as our interviewees hadn't been part of such design research before, their natural inclination was to comment on the quality of data that is being provided rather than the presentation itseslf. For the later half of our interviews, we were able to shift their focus towards the design of the website, by being more specific about our background, research interests and what we were looking to get out of the interview.
Phase 3: Concepts and Prototyping
Recruiting participants
We did not hear back from a lot of the places we reached out to online -- I eventually decided to visit a center closeby, where 3 people volunteered to be part of our project till the end. I realized, in the absence of a pandemic, we would be more successful approaching people in person, as it allows us to estabilish a rapport.
Survey Responses
The survey could not gather enough responses within the time period for sufficient quanitative analysis. In retrospect, we should have anticipated the difficulties with our user group and should’ve started reaching out in the first phase.
Unexpected set of issues
The survey could not gather enough responses within the time period for sufficient quanitative analysis. In retrospect, we should have anticipated the difficulties with our user group and should’ve started reaching out in the first phase.
Extracting information from Interviews
I was initially not sure about how best to extract information from an interview. Borrowing from what we learned in class, I concluded that working with another teammate to conduct the interview would give us the best chance. I asked Linda to initiate the interview and ask the more generic questions. On the other hand, I made notes and when my turn came, I focused on asking more exploratory questions based on the interviewee's replies. Splitting the interview in this manner allowed us to frame questions on the fly, allowing the interviewee to open up.
Transcribing interview data
Transcribing and analyzing the large amounts of data generated through an affinity map took a lot more time than we expected and I felt that we should have given ourselves a larger time frame for this process.
Brainstorming with an open mind
Brainstorming with the team, I learned, required me to keep a more open mind. Many ideas that I felt strongly about, did not resonate greatly with my team. Eventually, I had to make sure I was not too attached to a particular idea and was prepared for it to be rejected. I learned that during brainstorming, it's important to patiently communicate your ideas and why you strongly feel about them.
Phase 3: System Prototype and Evaluation Plan
Goal: Select one out of the two design concepts to move forward with, implement a detailed prototype of its interface and develop an evaluation plan.
Phase 3: Ideation and Feedback
Goal: The goal of this phase was to ideate 3 different concepts based on our findings from the previous sessions and settle on one low fidelity prototype based on user feedback.
Goal: Once we identified the broad themes that emerged out of our user interviews, we spent a week braistorming concepts. We translated our ideas into rapid, lo-fidelity figma prototypes and sketches with the aim of generating as many ideas as possible. We narrowed down our ideas to 2 concepts that looked to address the 2 different groups of users that we noticed across interviews. After getting feedback from our client on these concepts, we began protoyping these concepts in higher fidelity for user testing.
Overview & Contribution
Ideated 3 out of 6 design requirements
Created Hi-Fidelity prototypes for 60% of the application:
1. Designed Sustainability themed dashboard
2. Designed My Carpool Section for Carpool Management
3. Contracts to ensure accountability
4. My Parking to find an optimized parking lot
5. Route to view carpooling route
Ideated 1 out of 3 design concepts
Collected user feedback on design concept
Designed low-fidelity prototype
Ideated and sketched 2 key design concepts
Collected developers, focus group & stakeholder feedback on design concepts
Took mid-fi prototyping responsibility for user interaction with data viz, reducing cognitive overload in country reports, & presentation of policy environment.
Goal: Select one out of the two design concepts to move forward with, implement a detailed prototype of its interface and develop an evaluation plan.
My Contribution & Overview: We voted for one out of the two ideas that we had arrived at by the end of phase 2. We unanimously agreed that an application for carpooling would help address a wider set of issues that users faced within Georgia Tech. Building on the requirements we roughly identified from our findings, we agreed on a final set of requirements that were more specific to the solution we chose.
Now that we had more clarity about the features we would be having in our application, we conducted a second design space review of applications that match users with one another. I and David observed Hinge, while Sejal and Linda looked at Bumble.
I and Linda then took the lead on creating the prototype while Sejal and David took lead on the report. I worked on the user onboarding as well as the "My Carpool" section. This section was aimed at allowing users to manage their carpool once they had discovered and added their carpool mates. Within this section, I worked on adding a feature to create rules, find an optimized parking location, view the route of the carpool, and visualize the schedule for that particular day. Linda worked on the discovery and matching section of the application. I also worked on integrating the theme of sustainability with our application.
Sejal then prepared and proposed an evaluation plan which we agreed to.
Design Requirements
The rich text element allows you to create and format headings, paragraphs, blockquotes, images, and video all in one place instead of having to add and format them individually. Just double-click and easily create content.
Design Space Critique 2
The rich text element allows you to create and format headings, paragraphs, blockquotes, images, and video all in one place instead of having to add and format them individually. Just double-click and easily create content.
Design Theme
dsfdsfs
Prototype
kjnnkjj
Challenges & Reflections
sdfsdf
The Process: in images & words
Design Requirements
Each design requirement was backed with adequate research and was directly derived from our findings during the requirements gathering stage. Each design requirement addressed an existing pain point for our user population.
Furthermore, we realized that while there were a lot of pain points that needed to be addressed, due to limited time and resources we had to prioritize certain design requirements. This prioritization meant we created a system prototype design that addressed the most pressing concerns of our user population without doing them any disservice. Hence, our final set of design requirements was as follows:
1 . The system should help users discover and match with potential carpool mates based on their preferences
Our findings from D1 and D2 indicate that one of the biggest deterrents for our user group is that they need to form their own carpool groups. Currently, no matching services are offered in the existing system, and so users have to look for potential carpool members by themselves. Therefore, I felt that any system we design needs to provide users with the freedom of choosing their own carpool mates, based on different preferences, and without having to actively search for them.
2. The system needs to be an easy and smooth process for users.
At present, users need to parse through a lot of information about how to get a carpool permit and put in the effort to create a carpool group. An overload of cognitive information to process hampers their decision-making skills and deters them from choosing carpooling as an option. Thus, our system design should be straightforward, easy to use, and should hide the complexity of the system from the users, and render a simple interface on the front-end.
3. The system should ensure the safety of the user.
Our research findings indicate that our users want to be assured of safety when carpooling. To ensure the safety of the user, I believed that the proposed system should only cater to GT graduate students. Our findings indicate that users would be more comfortable riding with other GT students over GT faculty & Staff or non-GT students. The system should also allow users to interact with one another without having to disclose personal details like their residential address, phone number, etc. until they are sure about their carpool.
4. The system should employ a universal design, allowing more users to access it.
Our proposed system design should follow the principles of universal design, and be accessible to the largest possible user group, without any accommodations. This would entail adhering to WCAG, ADA, and Section 508 guidelines.
5. The system should inform users of how they are reducing their carbon footprint and improving the environment.
The overarching theme of sustainability means that our project should incentivise carpooling for our users. Thus, the system should calculate the user’s reduction in carbon footprint and render it in a compelling fashion. This would galvanise their proclivity for choosing carpooling as an option.
6. The system should offer a method of accountability to prevent disruptions, or if needed, an escalation plan.
Our users indicated that punctuality is very important for a good carpool. They would want a system that allows carpool members to be responsible and hold them accountable for their actions in the carpool. Therefore, the system should offer a method of accountability to report repeated violators and have a clearly defined escalation plan to address the situation.
Design Space Critique II
When designing our interactions and flows, we deferred to common design patterns used across popular applications used amongst our target audience. Since we’re matching people based on their transportation preferences, we referred to rideshare apps such as Uber, as well as dating apps Bumble and Hinge. We adopted such patterns as introduction videos, vertical scrolling through matches, categorization of preferences, inclusive phrasing, load screens, and menu placement.
Design Theme & Elements
The design theme drew inspiration primarily from the Georgia Tech branding guides. By incorporating official colors, textures, and icons, we were able to establish continuity within our product that would translate to an official association with the institute. Had we selected off-brand elements and styles, it would have resulted in brand disaggregation, perpetuating a lack of trust and safety, which is one of our design requirements.
Below are the official Georgia Tech branding colors, elements, and textures. Due to usage standards, we created our own mascot in lieu of the official “Buzz” mascot, which is typically associated with the athletics department and is typically prohibited from being used outside of those use cases without explicit consent.
Georgia Tech refreshed its branding in Fall 2021, doing away with many design elements that incorporated sharp corners and edges. Following suit, many of our original elements use rounded corners and softer lines. Our logo (see below) draws from the primary Georgia Tech color palette with the navy and legacy gold. We use a different typeface that exudes a playful tone and ludic approach to carpooling. Laid upon a cumulus cloud, our mascot is integrated with a vapor trail moving from left to right to convey speed and progress forward. The mascot employs large-radius corners and minimal detail to convey simplicity and softer tones.
The car that we use throughout the introduction and onboarding, is an important part of Georgia Tech's identity. The Ramblin' Wreck, a 1930 Ford Model A Sport coupe also serves as the official mascot of the student body at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Save for our BuzzPool logo, all types within our solution employ the official Georgia Tech typefaces: Roboto and Roboto-Slab.
Prototype
Onboarding Screens: The onboarding screens were designed by me. The purpose of the various questions is to prompt users to input their preferences, which would be used to find their potential matches. The process consists of 8 steps ranging from driver/rider preferences, schedules, and music genres. In pursuit of Nielsen’s #1 usability heuristic, I created a progress bar to inform users of their stage within the process. I employed the use of a Ford Model T and traffic lights to resonate with the Georgia Tech spirit mark, the Ramblin Wreck.
Loading Screen: David created a load screen in between the onboarding screens and the match results. The screen provides a status of what’s happening in the background. In regard to principles within the Doherty Threshold, we embedded pseudo quotes from famous musicians to visually engage our users while the search queries were occurring in the background. We found these quotes offered a reprieve and comic relief during our users’ wait time.
Discover Screen: The discover screens followed the same design idea I had conceptualized in the previous phase. We decided rather than showing the similarity percentage only for the schedules, it would be more suitable to show for the user's top 3 preferences. Each card, therefore, provides details about the extent to which the potential match would be compatible with the user’s top 3 preferences. The parameter that has the highest matching is highlighted to make it easier for the user to examine.
An important deviation here is that cards are scrolled through rather than swiped. I felt this was important for us to do in order to set ourselves apart from the typical dating applications. Moreover, the user is not forced to swipe a card out of view to see the next card. This allows the user to better evaluate their options before making a choice.
Another important suggestion I made here to distinguish ourselves from a dating application was to use avatars instead of personal pictures. This gives our application a professional look, adds to user safety, and helps the user focus on important details rather than dwell on physical appearances.
Dashboard: After students select their preferred matches, they’re directed to a dashboard, which provides a holistic view of all features within BuzzPool. The layout was inspired by the Uber dashboard pattern. By design, the number of icons is limited to just 6. This approach abides by Miller’s Law, which states the average person can only keep 7 (+/- 2) items in their working memory.
We collectively agreed to a layout for the screen, while Linda implemented the design.
The dashboard illustration was designed and implemented by me. In an effort to make sustainability central to the UX, I believed it was important to illustrate a user's environmental impact. This metric relies on the user’s existing commute plan and roughly converts a technical metric such as carbon footprint into an understandable metric. As they become more environmentally friendly, their status will change to one that is saving trees. The number of trees in the illustration is dynamic.
Inbox Screen: The Inbox screen was designed by Linda and can be accessed from the dashboard. It allows the user to view all new matches and have conversations with other users. It shows two options - Messages and Matches. The Messages screen allows the user to view any unread messages. The Matches screen allows users to check who they have been matched with.
My Carpool Section: I designed and ideated the My Carpool section. The initial screen gives the user all the information pertinent to managing their carpool. It shows all the carpool members, the daily schedule of the user, as well as provides them with options for Parking, Route, and Contract. The Parking tab takes the user to a new screen wherein each member of the carpool enters the buildings of their first and last class, thereby allowing the app to estimate the best times for their arrival and departure, as well as the best parking lot for all the members. This is to streamline the process of pick-up and drop-off for each carpool member.
Contracts: The Contract option builds in an accountability feature. It allows every member to create a shared document of ground rules for the carpool. The contract needs to be signed by every member. This feature allows users to have a voice in their carpool and holds each member accountable for their actions, thereby reducing conflicts and making the carpool a much more pleasant experience.
Route: The Route option allows users to view the most optimized route for them to take to come to campus. It allows users to view the quickest route for them, thereby reducing anxieties caused by delays - one of the many deterrents we had observed in our research. In our prototype, the final user interaction is viewing the carpool’s route for arrival and departure.
Challenges and Reflection
With most of the research work completed, the challenges in this stage were less in comparison to the previous one. We entered the prototyping phase with a clear mind about what we wanted to achieve, and the issues we wanted to help resolve.
We learned from the previous stage, that ideating with 4 people can sometimes be chaotic. As a result, we had a more organized process for this stage. While all 4 of us agreed on the rough layout of each section and the features each of us thought were important, the workload was clearly divided among the 4 of us based on each person's strengths and interests. Linda and I took the lead on finalizing the prototype designs while David and Sejal took lead on writing the report along with a few screens within the application. This allowed each of us to focus on separate problem spaces. While this ensured smooth progress, we left little time to put the screens together. As a result, the design seemed disconnected at certain places with different design styles and ideologies intersecting. Looking back, we should have given ourselves a few more days to put together screens and minimize style differences to ensure a unified experience.
Lessons Learnt & Reflections
Estabilishing a design direction
Even though we had more clarity now about the major issues users were facing and their preferences, we were unsure about how we would be redesigning the current website to address these. My solution to this was to have many brainstorming sessions with the aim of generating as many ideas as possible. I took charge of these sessions and came up with 2 broad concepts that looked to target different types of user needs. Once we had these 2 concepts to guide our efforts, the remaining design phases were just a matter of translating our ideas through figma prototyping.
Estimating the feasibility of my ideas
Our client, CGHE, were collaborating with a development firm in the UK for management of their website. In order to make sure our designs were something that was feasible, throughout this phase we had multiple calls with the developers where we got feedback on our ideas.
Concept Feedback
I had to let go of a concept idea that I strongly felt could’ve worked. During the feedback session, users introduced us to some of their reservations and issues they could face. We then decided that addressing those issues would be beyond the scope of this project given the time constraints.
Time Management
Time management was a major issue in this phase. It was very difficult to come up with concepts, wireframes, recruiting participants, conducting feedback sessions, and analyzing our data. Due to the time constraints, we were unable to spend as much time as we would have liked to develop our wireframes.
Conducting feedback sessions with the visually impaired
Since our user group inolved the visually impaired, we did not know how to proceed with user feedback. We were unaware of how to conduct these sessions online since we could not share our sketches or wireframes with our users. We eventually learnt that we could explain our concepts and wireframes in great depth by verbalizing each aspect of the design and allowing users to provide feedback on each idea individually.
Dividing work
We learned from the previous stage, that ideating with 4 people can sometimes be chaotic. As a result, we had a more organized process for this stage. While all 4 of us agreed on the rough layout of each section and the features each of us thought were important, the workload was clearly divided among the 4 of us based on each person's strengths and interests. This allowed each of us to focus on separate problem spaces.
Consistency in design
While this division of work ensured smooth progress, we left little time to put the screens together. As a result, the design seemed disconnected at certain places with different design styles and ideologies intersecting. Looking back, we should have given ourselves a few more days to put together screens and minimize style differences to ensure a unified experience.
Phase 4: Testing & Feedback
Goal: Test the prototype using a modified version of the evaluation plan created in phase 3 to gain feedback.
Phase 4: Prototyping & Testing
Goal: To convert our designs into a high fidelity prototype, and make it accessible to our users for further testing.
Phase 4: Testing & Final Iteration
Goal: After having multiple rounds of discussions with our clients and developers at different phases of prototype design, we looked to test an interactive prototype with their users. The usability testing sessions were think-alound and task-based. They highlighted several small issues that we overlooked while designing. We wanted to make sure what we deliver to CGHE at the end of the semester was a complete design that incorporated all user feedback. To make sure we did that, once we completed testing, we worked on the design for a final time to address the different issues users had with the prototype. We then presented this final prototype to our client as well as our class.
Overview & Contribution
Voted for 2 Design Requirements for evaluation
Conducted a 30-minute expert evaluation
Designed Qualtrix form with SUS scale for further feedback
Transcribed interview and analyzed findings using affinity map
Reflected and summarized design process and future work
Designed hi-fidelity prototype
Integrated haptic and auditory feedback
Conducted 1 usability test and 1 expert evaluation
Designed hi-fidelity prototype
Conducted 3 out of 5 task-based usability tests
Collected feedback from users, stakeholders and focus group
Presented and handed over final designs to developers
Goal: Test the prototype using a modified version of the evaluation plan created in phase 3 to gain feedback.
My Contribution & Overview: We started this final phase by deciding the 2 requirements that we want users to evaluate our prototype against. I felt that it was important to include accountability and discoverability as they were central to our application. In my opinion, both of these were key to its functioning in two different stages of the application -- forming a carpool and then managing the carpool.
Once we agreed on what we were evaluating against, each of us decided to take the lead on individual interviews. I prepared the script I would follow for my interview along with a common persona we agreed upon.
We then conducted 30-minute sessions, where users were given a set of tasks to be accomplished for this persona. At the end of every task, I asked a set of questions to the user to extract feedback and insights. At the end of the interview, we sent a Qualtrix form consisting of a SUS scale to each participant.
Finally, I transcribed my interview and added my findings to an affinity map. We then used this map, to get an overview of all the interviews.
I took the lead on reflecting on our design process over the past 3 months and writing about how future work in this area can capitalize on our findings.
Evaluation methods
dfdsdfs
Findings
sdfdsfs
Future Work
fsdfsdfds
The Process: in images & words
Evaluation Methods
Our procedure for the discount evaluation revolved around the following design requirements:
Discoverability - The system should help users match with potential carpool mates.
Accountability - The system should offer a method of accountability to prevent disruptions, or if needed, an escalation plan.
We selected these two requirements since they address the parking department’s primary concern of matching carpool mates and the crux of maintaining a healthy carpool. The former requirement is the cornerstone feature of our solution (BuzzPool), while the latter reinforces the sociotechnical system of carpooling agreed upon by driver and passenger(s). By testing the usability of these two elements, we can gauge the general efficacy of our prototype’s main value proposition.
Our discount evaluation utilized an interview protocol based on a virtual usability test session. We met with participants individually and conducted 4 individual sessions. Some participants did not meet the exact specifications of our target population (graduate students who drive to campus); however, we can make some general inferences based on a general graduate student perspective. Our test sessions occurred simultaneously virtually over Teams. Each session took approximately 30 minutes. The general approach was to have each participant think aloud as they accomplished 3 assigned tasks. After each task, we asked them about ease or difficulty based on a 5-point Likert scale. We also asked post-task questions to elicit qualitative data about their experience with the system. Near the end, each participant completed a System Usability Scale (SUS), followed by closing remarks and feedback.
In order to facilitate participant interactions with the design prototype, we created a persona of Susie Burdell. The participants were then presented with tasks that they had to complete as Susie.
Findings
Using Figma, we organized our notes into primary categories generated from the design requirements, followed by sub-categories. The qualitative data was assembled from the Likert scale questions and the SUS. From the raw data, we generated the mean, median, and standard deviations for each metric. Finally, we collated our insights into a chart, juxtaposing them against the data/evidence and the corresponding design requirement.
Future Work
Considering how the environment around us continues to deteriorate with every passing day, there needs to be a lot of work done in terms of creating sustainable solutions. The youth today realizes this more than any generation, and our project looks to leverage that by exploring a sustainable solution for commuting to campus. Future work in this space must look to integrate the theme more closely with the application experience. This could be in the form of more sustainability-centred visualizations spread throughout the application, or an entire section itself that allows enthusiastic users to take additional steps for the benefit of the environment.
Through our research we were able to find that users consider accountability to be a key factor when carpooling with friends and strangers. We tried to enforce it through the use of carpool contracts, however, as we found out in our final set of interviews, there is a lot to be done in terms of making sure these contracts are followed. Further solutions in this space should look to create fail-proof models that penalize any violation of trust based on its severity.
Another area which would benefit from a more comprehensive and detailed model is the discovery section. During our discount evaluation, users told us they would prefer to add more in depth preferences during the onboarding process. This would allow them to be linked to people who are as close as possible to their liking. A challenge that we thought might come up with a higher level of personalization is that the users would be left with only a few people, if at all, to choose from. This trade-off could possibly be minimized by marketing the application in a way that it develops a large database of users as well as finding the right level of filtering such that it isn’t too restrictive.
Finally, being an application where strangers are matched with each other, care must be taken to ensure that it does not facilitate negative practices among users and that it is distinguished from other social media applications. To address this and have a more professional discovery process, we decided against having personal pictures of users in the applications and instead replaced them with an avatar. However, some users responded in our final interview by mentioning that they would like to be able to see real pictures of other users. We understand that, while adding to the security, having everyone represented as avatars might dehumanize the experience for some users. Future solutions in this space could explore ways to make it slightly more personal, but at the same time not too personal where users are distracted from the goal of the application and look to use it for the wrong reasons.
Challenges and Reflection
The final stage of the design process had the least number of challenges involved. I felt that we had grown closer as a team, and knew each other's strengths and weaknesses.
A challenge here was the short amount of time we had for this stage considering it was the end of the semester with many different deadlines. Our professor recognized this and helped us conduct a "discount" evaluation instead. Instead of connecting with users from our actual user group, who might be busy with end-semester deadlines at this point, we were allowed to interview peers from our class considering them as experts. As a result, we had organized sessions where each of us gave insightful feedback on the different prototypes.
Another challenge that we could've easily minimized with better planning involved issues with the final prototype. Due to the large number of interactions and a short amount of time in hand, we could not design a prototype with different user preferences for the 8 onboarding questions. As a result, user interaction was limited to the persona at times, and users found it difficult to recall its details and the preferences they were able to select. In the future, to avoid such confusion, I believe it would be important to create a prototype for all the different states ensuring a smoother testing experience.
Lessons Learnt & Reflections
Helping the users be more patient
An interesting occurence I noticed in early interviews was that some users were nervous while testing the prototype. This caused them to overlook many parts of the design, and fluster when it did not work the way they expected it to. To investigate this further, in the later half of the interview, I made sure to prompt the user to simply explore the screen for 30 seconds. By not giving them a task to do immediately, I noticed that users got more oriented to the prototype and the testing environment. Once there was some silence as they were allowed to explore, I noticed users were more calm and patient in doing the tasks. This helped me minimize user errors that might have occured due to their inexperience with usability testing studies.
Choosing a problem space
While discussing our problem space, I had to be careful that the goal we were agreeing to was neither too specific, nor too broad -- allowing us to approach the upcoming stages with a direction as well as an open mind
Creating a remote and accessible prototype
News of the new Omicron variant made it impossible to use paper prototypes for testing. The visual impairments of our user group made it difficult to test the prototype remotely considering that none of the protoyping tools are compatible with screen readers. Utilizing the voice feedback beta feature in protopie, along with haptic feedback I was able to emulate an accessible application.
Cognitive load on users
However, our users were overwhelmed by the steps invovled in accessing this prototype on their mobile device. As a result, we had to improvise and change our method of testing.
Coding a screen-reader compatible prototype
Due to overlapping deadlines, we didn’t have the time to code an application that would be compatible with screen readers.
Increased understanding
The final stage of the design process had the least number of challenges involved. I felt that we had grown closer as a team, and knew each other's strengths and weaknesses.
Time constraints
A challenge here was the short amount of time we had for this stage considering it was the end of the semester with many different deadlines. Our professor recognized this and helped us conduct a "discount" evaluation instead. Instead of connecting with users from our actual user group, who might be busy with end-semester deadlines at this point, we were allowed to interview peers from our class considering them as experts. As a result, we had organized sessions where each of us gave insightful feedback on the different prototypes.
Prototype bugs
Another challenge that we could've easily minimized with better planning involved issues with the final prototype. Due to the large number of interactions and a short amount of time in hand, we could not design a prototype with different user preferences for the 8 onboarding questions. As a result, user interaction was limited to the persona at times, and users found it difficult to recall its details and the preferences they were able to select. In the future, to avoid such confusion, I believe it would be important to create a prototype for all the different states ensuring a smoother testing experience.
The Final Iteration
Goal: An issue with screens in the previous phase was that we did not spend enough time refining the design. The design style looked disconnected to me in certain areas and I looked to rectify those in this phase. I was in charge of all the work since this wasn't part of the final deliverable
Overview & Contribution
Integrated all feedback from evaluation sessions:
1. Updated Onboarding Screens for a cleaner look
2. Refreshed Discovery & Matches Screens
3. Added dialog boxes to reflect status
4. Restructured carpooling onboarding to reduce cognitive overloadsign process and future work
5. Updated Contracts, Routes, My Parking to look cleaner
Goal: An issue with screens in the previous phase was that we did not spend enough time refining the design. The design style looked disconnected to me in certain areas and I looked to rectify those in this phase. I also redesigned sections of the application in order to address the feedback we received in the evaluation sessions with our users.
My Contribution & Overview: I was in charge of all the work since this wasn't part of the final deliverable
The Process: in images & words
Onboarding Screens
Onboarding: I reduced the amount of sections our onboardingexperience was divided into. I felt that having so many sections shown to the user in the progress bar could potentially overwhelm them and place a significant amount of cognitive load. Instead of having one question take up one screen, I decided to group them into 3 based on their theme.
Discover Screens
Some users complained that they would like to see real pictures. In Phase 4, we intentionally did not put real pictures in order to safeguard the privacy of our users and distinguish ourselves from dating applications. As a result, in order to prevent user profiles from looking empty, I redesigned the avatars in order to give it a more lively look but at the same maintain a degree of professionalism.
Match screens
I changed the match screens to look more clean and minimal.
fdfd
Users complained that they would like to see some sort of a confirmation when they send someone a carpooling request and when someone accepts it. In order to address that I added these dialog boxes.
My Carpool Initial Screens
Some users said that the My Carpool screen can be a little overwhelming at first. As a result, I redesigned the intial state of these screens in order to better guide the users through the process of carpooling.
Redesigned contract screens.
Users were a little confused by the contracts process earlier on due to the lack of better design that reflected a finished contract. They also said they might want to make changes to the contract but we did not have an option to revise it. In the new design above, I give the contracts a more realistic touch, and at the same time allowing users to revise the version and resign it.
Parking Screens - before vs after
I changed the styling of the parking screen in order to make it more consistent with our application style.
Redesigned route screen
I redesigned the route path style to be more consistent with how it is in google maps since users would be more familiar with it.
%201.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
