Meeting Scheduling Sites Doodle.com & WhenIsGood.net Erica - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Meeting Scheduling Sites Doodle.com & WhenIsGood.net Erica Klein, Eric Oliver, Heather Ruderian, Matt Soave, Mikhail Stal

What are Meeting Scheduling Sites? • They allow an event organizer to propose sets of times and dates to event participants in order to determine the best time for the most people. • Participants can input their preferred times. • The site aggregates the results so that the event organizer can see what times overlap. • Most scheduling sites have similar capabilities but with different ways of presenting their functionality.

Doodle.com Getting Started

Doodle.com Step 1: Entering Event Information

Doodle.com Step 2: Choosing Dates

Doodle.com Step 3: Choosing Times

Doodle.com Step 4: Invitation Options

Doodle.com Options

Doodle.com Finishing up

Doodle.com Voting and Viewing Results

WhenIsGood.net Getting Started

WhenIsGood.net Choosing Dates and Times

WhenIsGood.net Options

WhenIsGood.net Access Code

WhenIsGood.net Finishing Up

WhenIsGood.net Selecting Times

WhenIsGood.net Viewing Results

Methods for Evaluation of Usability • Contextual interviews • Usability heuristic evaluation • Benefit of using both methods

Methods: Contextual Interviews • Actual users are valuable for everyday usability evaluation • Four tasks for a scenario o Create an event o Invite other users o Enter times o View results • Think out loud • Ask what the user is trying to do and their reasons

Methods: Usability Heuristic Evaluation • Jakob Nielsen's ten usability heuristics • Walkthroughs with heuristics in mind

Analysis of Interview Results (Doodle) • Quick to get started (Schedule Event button) • No information about what the service actually does

Analysis of Interview Results (Doodle) • Simple and not an overwhelming number of options • Still no information about what the service actually does -- what's the point of these? • Option to enter email address (but not forced) -- some users didn't want to enter their email

Analysis of Interview Results (Doodle) • Calendar format is familiar (spatial mapping of time) • Clicking on a date gives visual feedback about which dates are selected • Unclear what these dates are for -- is the user saying the event will happen on all of these days? Or proposing times?

Analysis of Interview Results (Doodle) • Typing in numbers by hand is annoying and difficult to visualize • Nice that they support multiple formats of time (9am, 09:00, etc.) • Will "9am" result in 9:00 to 10:00? User doesn't know duration • Users missed "Copy and paste first row" -- similar to "frequency of use" principle

Analysis of Interview Results (Doodle) • Can see others' responses • Can see total number of people that can make it at given time (bold is salient); doesn't say if it's 4 of 4 or 4 of 104 • Not obvious that you can edit your entry -- "ignore first entry" • Colors map well with typical mental model (green is good, red is bad) • Violation of Gestalt grouping principle (day columns)

Analysis of Interview Results (WIG) • No instructions or context • Very cluttered and overwhelming • Options are hidden at first, but at least this is a little less overwhelming • Slider doesn't map to function: changing size of boxes; useless • Intervals are a nice idea

Analysis of Interview Results (WIG) • "I have to write this down?!" • This step is actually unnecessary as the user gets the link on the next page • Humans prone to errors, and it's dangerous to rely on user for such an unrecoverable error

Analysis of Interview Results (WIG) • Users wanted automated way to email the links, such as a form • User has ability to get all the links emailed to them, but the option is hidden and disguised as "send me alerts" • "Edit your event" link is redundant because you can edit from the admin page

Analysis of Interview Results (WIG) • Results unavailable to user o When entering their times (no potential to fit schedules to others') o After submitting • "Painting" times was either intuitive to users or very discoverable -- rapid entering of times • Much easier to visualize time relationships than with Doodle

Analysis of Interview Results (WIG) • Bright green has high salience and is unmistakable for "times that work well" • Meaning of dots isn't obvious • No gradation to show when most users can make it o If there's no time that 100% of users can make it, then no squares are green o "Next best" cells are on same visual level as worst cells

Heuristic Evaluation (WhenIsGood) Recognizing and Diagnosing Errors • WhenIsGood does a poor job of this, an example is when the user enters a time that has already passed. Site was accessed on February 13th at 2:05pm.

Heuristic Evaluation (WhenIsGood) Recovering from Errors

Heuristic Evaluation (WhenIsGood) Aesthetic and Minimalist Design • Clicking and dragging when selecting is easy • Grid format makes recognizing times perceptually faster Match Between System Status and Real World • Uses 'Green is Good' analogy o Green also provides good conspicuity • Uses a familiar mapping in time across days similar to how daily planners work.

Heuristic Evaluation (Doodle) Visibility of System Status • Persistent navigation titles let you know where you are and what you have left. • Custom navigation buttons presented at the end of every step.

Match Between System and the Real World • Choosing times not as straight forward as selecting dates. • Not positive how to set time intervals in the Time1,Time2... boxes.

Design Improvement Ideas Problem : Difficult to see when majority (but not all) people can make it Solution : Gradation of Colors

Design Improvement Ideas Problem : Inefficient selection of dates and times Solution : Combine calendar from Doodle, time grid from WIG

Design Improvement Ideas Problem : Copying event access code is not user-friendly Solution : Use an email form so that user doesn't need to worry about the code

Design Improvement Ideas Problem : Non-Intelligent Scheduling Solution : Integrate scheduling website with Google Calendar or Facebook Events. • Eliminate registration by integrating with existing Google/Facebook accounts • Allow potential meeting times to be highlighted in real time in the user's Google Calendar based on submitted results. Once all users fill out their availability set times appear as well. • Keep all event information on one page/system o Eliminates the need for duplicate screens

Conclusion • Neither system significantly more or less usable than the other • Users tended to create events faster with WhenIsGood o Although high variability in creation time between users o Faster time does not equal better experience (errors?) • Having event scheduling online is easily accessible, only prerequisite is an internet connection • Previous design improvements intended to meet usability heuristics