CONTEXT

Timeline: Oct - Nov 2021 (4 weeks) | Team: 4 members | Roles: UX Researcher, Test Proctor, Lead Presenter

 

OBJECTIVE

To conduct user testing for the city of Ann Arbor’s public apps through UM’s Civic User Testing Group.

 

PROBLEM

Residents who park downtown frequently (myself included) have likely received a parking ticket. Many residents have remarked that the online payment process is difficult to find and challenging to follow. The city is planning to redesign its website in the near future, so ease of use in this process is particularly paramount.

 

CHANGE OF COURSE

During our kickoff meeting with the city, we uncovered some political issues that impeded the city’s ability to amend the parking ticket payment process. With this in mind, we recommended a shift in focus from altering the payment process to improving residents’ understand of parking rules, ultimately reducing their usage of the payment process.

 

PROCESS

icons representing recruitment, usability test, analysis, and presentation
 

RECRUITMENT

Using the city’s social media pages, we recruited 13 residents for our test. No restrictions were placed on our participant pool other than being a current Ann Arbor resident. We gave everyone the opportunity to partake in the test in-person or virtually via Zoom. Participants were also asked to bring their favorite tech devices, to create a more realistic experience with the site for each individual.

Of the 13 participants:

  • 8 appeared virtually; 5 appeared in-person

  • 7 used smartphones; 4 used tablets; 2 used laptops

 
Facebook post containing test details and image of a downtown Ann Arbor street
 
 

USABILITY TEST

Based on popular tasks the city felt users should be able to complete on the site, we crafted a set of three tests. I proctored three tests and took notes for an additional two of our 13 tests. Our goal with our script was to learn the following:

  • Can residents use the site’s embedded map to identify parking options near a destination?

  • Can residents locate details/restrictions for parking options near a destination?

  • Can residents determine eligibility for residential parking permits for a given address?


PROCTORING SCRIPT

Pre-Test Questions

  1. Have you used the city of Ann Arbor’s website to find information about parking?

    a. [If yes] What type of information about parking have you looked for? (i.e. overnight parking, parking time limits, etc.)

    1. [If yes] Can you tell me about your most recent experience of looking for information about parking using the city of Ann Arbor’s website?

    2. [If no] What other resources or websites have you used to find information about parking in Ann Arbor?


Tasks

  1. You are trying to find parking near Jolly Pumpkin Café & Brewery. Use the city of Ann Arbor’s website to find a place to park nearby.

    a. At this location, determine the hourly rate to park there.

    b. At this location, determine how long you can park there.

  2. At the same place, [Jolly Pumpkin Café & Brewery], use the city of Ann Arbor’s website to determine if you can park there overnight.

    a. At this location, identify the limits for parking a car overnight.

  3. Based on your current address, use the city of Ann Arbor’s parking website to find out if you are eligible for a residential parking permit.

    a. You are trying to obtain a residential parking pass for North Central. Use the city of Ann Arbor’s website to find out how to obtain the permit.


Post-Test Questions

  1. Have you learned anything today about parking in Ann Arbor?

  2. What other information about parking would you like to see on Ann Arbor’s site?

  3. If you could change one thing about the Ann Arbor parking website, what would you change?

  4. Do you have any questions before we end this session?

 

FINDINGS

Our test uncovered key functional, structural, and usability shortcomings, creating a negative experience for users.

  • Users found digital parking map difficult to navigate

  • Users struggled to distinguish menu items on smartphones

  • Inconsistent link destinations led to confusion

  • Residential parking maps lacked key functionality

Key Quotes

 

PRESENTATION

I led the presentation of our findings in front of four stakeholders at City Hall. Based on these findings we made four recommendations for the improvement of the city’s parking site. I emphasized that we felt recommendations #2 and #3 were short-term quick fixes while #1 and #4 were long-term strategic considerations.

  • Embed a map with a search bar into the parking website

  • Distinguish background colors for menu headings on mobile version

  • Ensure links with the same text lead to the same location

  • Incorporate search bar capabilities for users to determine eligibility by address

 

LESSONS LEARNED

This was my first usability test, so there’s certainly room for improvement. Here are some key takeaways:

  • Be incredibly intentional with questions - While our interview questions and tasks led us to meaningful findings, I feel we could have asked a stronger 2nd question that exposed different sentiments about the parking experience as a whole.

  • Quantify whenever possible - Due to resource constraints, we were unable properly quantify aspects like task completion time and number of clicks. These numbers would have helped tell a more compelling story of our findings to the city.

  • Budget time for technical difficulties - Our virtual tests were conducted using Zoom’s screen-sharing feature. Many of our participants struggled using this feature while accessing the parking website. This led to delays that forced us to hurry our tests and ultimately cut interviews short.

Credits for Icons: Flaticon and Freepik