Timeslot

Tabletop-gaming Scheduler

Medium
Mobile App
Duration
2 weeks+
Team Size
Solo
Tools
Invision
Figma
Optimal Workshop
Methodologies
User Interviews
Competitive Analysis
Usability Testing
Tree Testing

OVERVIEW

Summary

• Performed mixed-methods user research to identify user needs: tabletop gamers in Singapore would like to game more frequently but are unable to synchronise their schedules

• Ideated, designed and prototyped a scheduling app specifically targeted at tabletop gamers

• After multiple rounds of testing and iteration, final design saw significant improvements in task success, completion time, usability, and satisfaction.

UnderSTAND

Project

Background

Timeslot is a design challenge I personally undertook in UX design

Objectives

The project brief was as follows:
1) Apply user research and rapid prototyping to identify and solve a problem for a target audience
2) Apply usability testing and interface design principles to evaluate and redesign an app

Round 1 - Research

Research Plan & Interview Guide

Objective

• To identify problems that tabletop gamers in Singapore face

Overarching questions

• Why are people motivated to engage in tabletop games?
• What does a typical tabletop gaming session entail?
• What are the factors that underlie gamers' enjoyment within a session?
• What challenges do gamers currently face?
• What tools do gamers use to facilitate their gaming?

User Interviews

Recruitment strategy

• Via General Assembly's Slack channels, personal Whatsapp, Telegram and Facebook channels
• Participants should be regular tabletop gamers (>4hrs/month)

Participant Demographics

• n = 5
• 3 male, 2 female
• 24 – 32 years old
• 4 remote (phone call), 1 in-person

Quantitative Results

Qualitative Results

Personas

Identifying the problem

Recap

While tabletop gamers in Singapore wish to game more, they face 2 problems:

• They are busy and are unable to find a common time to meet up
• Unlike typical meetups, tabletop gamers tend to arrive at a session at staggered timings. This means that sometimes they arrive while the group is already in the middle of a game, and they can only watch and wait. Other times, they may have to leave before a game is completed. This causes dissatisfaction and is not the most optimal use of their time.

Problem statement

Tabletop gamers need a way to coordinate and visualise their schedules so that they can
• find more openings to set up sessions
• optimize their time within each session

Competitive Analysis

Scheduling apps are fairly common, so I knew I would be remiss if I did not check out what was currently available in the market. I found that most of the current offerings are meeting-oriented, where all participants need to find a common date and time. There is a market gap for tabletop gamers who, as mentioned earlier, come and go from sessions at staggered timings, and wish to visualise this.
I also examined features from competitors to find out the main features Timeslot would have to offer so as to not fall behind.

Round 1 - DESIGN

User flow

Sketching: Visualising Schedules

Rapid Prototyping: InVision

Mid-fi Prototyping: Figma

Round 2 - RESEARCH

Research Plan & Testing Script

I decided to continue working on Timeslot for project 2 (we also had the option of picking any other existing app). Hence, I went back to add to my research plan.

Objective

• Evaluate the usability of the Timeslot app

Usability Test #1

Recruitment strategy

• Via General Assembly's Slack channels, personal Whatsapp, Telegram and Facebook channels
• Participants should be regular tabletop gamers (>4hrs/month)

Participant Demographics

• n = 3
• 23 – 29 years old
• All male
• All in-person

Key Tasks

• Create a group and indicate your availability
• Find out who will be attending, and at what time
• Edit and cancel event

Rainbow Spreadsheet

The usability test revealed over 50+ issues. I decided to focus on informational architecture-related problems as they were frequent and the most severe.

Round 2 - DESIGN

Before

Confusing nav bar

After

Simplified nav bar corresponding to the 3 core tasks
Secondary tasks moved to header instead

Additional Changes

Added search and calendar view screens as alternative pathways to task completion

Round 3 - RESEARCH

Usability Test #2

Participant Demographics

• n = 5
• 23 – 33 years old
• 3 male, 2 female
• All in-person

Time on Task (lower is better)

Comparison of Median Score
Task 1
164
->
138
(↓15.9%)
Task 2
61
->
44
(↓27.9%)
Task 3
51
->
22
(↓56.9%)

System Usability Score (higher is better)

Comparison of Median Score
70
->
82.5
(↑17.9%)

Satisfaction Score (higher is better)

Comparison of Median Score
8
->
8
(=)

Tree Testing

After graduating from the course, I went back to revisit the project with a wider knowledge of of user research methodologies. As I had made significant changes to the information architecture in my above iteration, I wanted to quickly validate the navigational and user flow changes I made, and to reach a much larger sample. Hence, I decided to do a simple tree test using OptimalWorkshop.
Results
• n = 18
94% ended up at the 'correct' answer
89% answers chosen without backtracking

Rainbow Spreadsheet

The 2nd round of testing revealed more issues. I continued to prioritise the issues based on value to user (severity & frequency) and effort required. For this round, I decided to focus on UI issues, as well as adding additional features.

Round 3 - DESIGN

• Added interface design elements such as drop shadows to indicate affordances
• Added labeling and helper text to guide users
• Added accessible navigational shortcuts for various features

Conclusion

Summary

Reflections & Lessons Learnt

I eliminated blind spots by asking for consults and inputs from my peers. I also sourced for additional resources to ensure I was reading widely and keeping up with best practices in the field. I used reflective deliberate practice to ensure I would build on and improve my skills.

It was fulfilling applying specific skills and tips I had learnt from my previous background in psychological research, counselling and behavioural interviewing.

Limitations - lengthy read but important to acknowledge!

• The choice to implement an inclusion criteria for recruitment of participants, where they had to play board games regularly (which I arbitrarily defined as >=4 hrs/mth) meant that my participants were all seasoned gamers and could elaborate on their experiences. However, it also limited my sample pool

• Consequently, sample sizes were small and lacked statistical power, especially for quantitative analyses. Thematic analysis was also difficult as I had disparate and contradictory data points which I could not reconcile.

• I also adopted convenience sampling and recruited from narrow channels, which means my research may not be representative of typical tabletop gamers

• I had to turn to interviewing personal friends, which introduced some challenges/biases. For instance, I went into the project thinking that a major problem gamers face would be social (e.g., how to form groups in a competitive game). However this did not come up at all during the interviews, perhaps because my own friends would be reluctant to reveal this information to me (social desirability bias)!

• My interactive prototype only had the bare functionality, and users were unable to truly explore and learn from the app like they would in a real-life scenario.

• The 2-week project covered more breadth than depth; I did not have the time to dig into and more importantly, validate my findings

Next Steps

If I wanted to bring Timeslot further, I would definitely wish to continue researching and iterating on the design of the app, and address the limitations outlined above. As my visual design and app development skills are also a work in progress, I would partner with people more experienced in these areas to bring Timeslot to fruition.

Citations

    Lewis J.R., Sauro J. (2009) The Factor Structure of the System Usability Scale. In: Kurosu M. (eds) Human Centered Design. HCD 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5619. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    Nielsen, J. (2012). Usability 101: Introduction to Usability. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/