11.1.3 THE IMPORTANCE AND OUTCOMES OF THE GUI EVALUATION TEST It is well acknowledged the relevance of prototyping in the process of designing games. Once the HYPRIONS project achieved a stage, where it had passed through the paper prototype tests but could not yet be play-tested in a computer basis, the group decided for a GUI evaluation test. The GUI main interactions was designed as a flash application. Such procedure was of great help for improving the “look and feel” of our project. In addition, aspects such as text style and iconography legibility was made in a paper based test and on a web based tool. The interface test was highly useful for the decision making in the final stage of its design. Such data helped mostly when considering parameters of legibility of elements [icons, text, color contrast] and visual communication [text and icons were clearly understood or not]. The web based test was useful to point the icons that were not so clearly understood by the public. The iconographic questionnaire was also analyzed for the first time and improved after feedback made by some of the group members. The questionnaires were then updated for the second test, that took place in the Hochschule Bremerhave. Although some icons were not well recognized in the web based test, it was concluded after the second test that such icons were understandable for the users with in the game context (when using the flash app). After figuring this point it was decided in a group meeting that the rejected icons were no longer supposed to be redesigned. The test was equally helpful to consider the experience of users that were not attached in any level to the designs presented. Differently of a previous methodology, where the decision making of the interface design was being affected by discussions in the group meetings. Once the project members had their opinions more closely attached to the process of designing it, some points could had been ignored or inaccurate. On the other hand, when users are experiencing the GUI for the first time, they could indicate new points and even reinforce previously discussed ones. As mentioned before the GUI test was relevant for the “look and feel” analysis. It temporarily substituted a finalized computer prototype of the game play proposal. As responsible for the interface design, I had closely observed during the test day if the main actions were satisfactory. If they were clear or confusing, if they were redundant or if they could be simplified somehow. After comparing my personal observations and the data obtained out of the questionnaires it was concluded there was no apparent complexity during the execution of the main actions tested: “Create a Leader” and “Create a leader+” and the Leader four menu actions (build, destroy, move and attract). As previously mentioned, it was noticed during the test day a lack of feedback in the flash application. The user should have some feedback when completing an action, indicating that he / she should move to the next question. The team members were then indicating to move forward to the next action during the test execution. It was concluded that it could have been a richer user experience if some sound feedback were already implemented and some extra pop ups were inserted in such cases. Unfortunately the flash application was delivered in the same date of the test execution. The inefficient time management, crossing the stipulated dead line, made it impossible for the team members to point the app problems - supposedly to be fixed in time for the test day. The questionnaires, according to Martha’s analysis, had some unclear points but unfortunately none of he group members pointed such unclear aspects in time for improvements. The questionnaires were available for revision a week before the test day and was shared with the project members for their analysis and feedback. Some changes were made after the web based test and had a few group feedback. After such changes it was understood by the test writer that there were no longer unclear points in the final questionnaires delivered.
58
author: Fernanda Dias