//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
DESIGNING A BMW KEYFOB University of Twente – Course: Designing Interactive Products Group 18: Marko van der Burgh; Steven Oonk; Kasper Schriek; Joerie te Grotenhuis ABSTRACT The goal of this design project is to design a new key fob including a remote park feature. Other requirements were a remote start, climate control and remote signalling. BMW was chosen as the company for which this key fob is intended. Traditional key fobs have limited features. This, however, will have a lot of features. Usability problems will occur with such an extensive list of requirements. The goal is to design key fob which is quick and easy to use yet full of features. This is done via an iterative process and implementing the results of the usability tests with paper and more detailed models. This resulted in an interactive demo and a foam model. 1. INTRODUCTION This paper documents the design process of a key fob. The goal is to make a new and intuitive design including a remote parking feature. This resulted in a fully functional demo in html code and a model made in foam. The journey from briefing to final concept is done with an iterative process. With some research and exploration a first low fidelity paper prototype was made. After evaluating that a more detailed demo was made. This improved model was made in Axure and then tested again. Final improvement was made with the feedback. This final prototype will be shown at the presentation. 2. ANALASYS PHASE The first step was to define a target group. Next a schedule of requirements was made. Also, a scenario was made to describe the actions needed to park the car in and out 2.1 TARGET GROUP
2.2 TARGET GROUP SPECIFICS Below we summed up a few core specifics for our target group, more can be found in appendix 2. - The BMW driver is not fully environmentally conscious - The BWW driver loves sporty driving in a luxury environment - Is interest in new and high tech gadgets. - Is willing to pay more for extensive luxury and gadgets. 2.3 AN INTERESTING GADGET?
BMW was chosen to accommodate a key fob for, a car brand that is known for being one of the better premium car brands. This means BMW produces large, luxurious and high-tech
Group 18
cars for their customers. The remote parking function fits exactly to the high-tech image of BMW. In addition to the new technology that fits the brand very well, the styling of their cars is also interesting. By using luxurious materials and using clean lines and sporty shapes, the BMW brand is very dynamic. Just like the car, the people of their target group are also very sporty and dynamic. They have important jobs and are travelling 5 days a week to companies and customer appointments. While the target group is often on the road, on average this person is stuck in traffic almost every day, this has influence on his personal wellbeing causing stress for example. When they eventually arrive at their destination they have to park their car in one of those tight and difficult to reach city parking spots, this might happen 4 to 5 times a day. Very frustrating as you could imagine. The target group often drives E or Fsegment cars, which are large luxury sedans such as the 5-series. Because BMW’s are known to be larger than an average car the remote parking solution could be very suitable for this group. So you could imagine that a park assist is a warm welcome for this target group.
The question is: why is the remote parking function interesting for this target group? The innovative thought of BMW fits the remote parking solution, which is a high tech
Designing a key fob
page 1
and complex product, really well. Researching, implementing and improving this technique for the newer BMW models is necessary in the next design phase. While BMW does not offer an automatic remote parking function in-car and on their key fob. BMW’s are known to be larger than an average car. The target group can be found on the road a lot. The new, high tech solution makes the product even more appealing for this gadget loving target group. In short, the target group which often is found in a car, encounters lots of parking problems which they don’t want to encounter anymore. Developing a remote parking function on the key fob for this target group is necessary to fulfill their needs. 2.4 DESIRED FUNCTIONS Below is a list of the desired functions. These functions need to be implemented in the key fob according to the client and customer demands. The functions are a combination of already existing functions and totally new functions for the client. The functions form the basis of schedule of requirements which can be found in appendix 2. Physical key Unlock car (not physical) Lock car (not physical) Open trunk Remote start Remote parking Remotely activate air-conditioning/heating Remote activate light and/or claxon to find the car on a parking lot
Parking Out Scenario:
2.5 PARKING SCENARIOS To have an overview of how the user uses the automatic parking function, a parking in and out scenario has been written. This makes clear for which tasks in the remote parking function the user has to use the key fob. Parking In Scenario: 1. The driver drives into the parking lot with his smart car. 2. The driver activates an option to activate a sensor system. With these sensors the car is able to find a parking spot with enough space for the car to park in. 3.The driver now drives around the parking lot while the car is scanning the parking spots
Group 18
for enough space. With this scanning method parallel parking and regular parking spots can be found. 4. The car displays a signal on the multimedia screen in the car when the car has found a parking spot with enough space. It also displays what kind of parking method it wants to use (parallel parking, reverse parking or forward parking) 5. The driver chooses which way he wants his car to be parked on the multimedia screen. The remote parking function only works with reverse and forward parking, because in this case there is a possibility the driver cannot exit the car. With parallel parking there is always one side of the car that is free, so the driver performs this action inside the car. 6. If the car displays the reverse or forward parking option, the driver selects one of these options, puts his car in neutral, exits the car and takes his personal belongings. 7. If the doors are all closed and the car is in neutral, the car is ready for remote parking. 8. The driver activates the automatic parking function on his key fob by pressing a button (kill switch). If the driver keeps the automatic parking button pressed, the car is maneuvering, when the kill switch is released, the cars stops. It could be useful to control the car via this switch, to for example avoid collisions with upcoming traffic. 9. After the car is parked, the driver gets feedback from the car when the parking maneuver is finished. Thereafter, the car locks itself.
1. The driver approaches and unlocks the car. The car is still in the parking function and the gear is in neutral, so the driver is able to use the remote parking function. 2. Now the driver is able to use the remote parking function (if he is in range). By pressing the kill switch the car starts his parking out maneuver. By releasing the kill switch the car stops (just like the park-in). 3. The driver controls the maneuver until a point when getting in the car is easy again. 4. The driver enters the car, deactivates the parking function and drives out of the parking lot.
Designing a key fob
page 2
3. IDEA GENERATION Several sketches were made and form studies were done to create the general outlines of the key fob. The inspirations for these sketches were several BMW models and key fobs. These sketches are shown in appendix 3a. The display is not a touch screen. There are physical buttons placed on the key fob as stated in the requirements. An ergonomic proportion between the display and the buttons has to be created. Also an important element for the key fob is the fingerprint scanner. This fingerprint scanner can be illustrated in the style of a BMW logo to create a recognizable aspect. The scanner is added to create a safety aspect in the key fob, this way not everyone can use your key fob. A scroll wheel is added to the key fob to navigate through the menus. The best ergonomic place to put the scroll wheel is on the right, it seems likely that the product will be used by the right hand of the user. Even when the user is left handed it is expected that the user is still able to control the key fob without problems. The scroll wheel is integrated with the shape of the product. In the end we opted for a symmetrical head shape of the key fob. The display is shaped in the form of a trapezium. The fingerprint scanner is placed at the bottom of the key fob, this is a recognizable place because the fingerprint scanner for the new generation iPhones and others is placed at the same spot. The three physical buttons are placed on the left side of the key fob. One thing that changed is that BMW normally uses the BMW to lock and unlock the car. With the fingerprint scan now placed at the BMW logo, the lock and unlock buttons are now placed on the side with separate buttons. In the concept sketches (appendix 3b) several materials were applied to the key fob to find the best look fitting the BMW style. 3.1 INTERACTION STYLES AND METAPHORS There are different interaction styles; instructing (typing commands, function keys), converse (entering questions, dialogue), manipulate (interacting with objects/ mouse) and researching (move in virtual spaces). The first interaction style chosen is instructing. The several options in the different menus can be chosen with a scroll wheel, this is the easiest and fastest way to select functions, therefore it is not needed to Group 18
have an option to type commands for the key fob. The different options can be chosen with the different buttons located at the side and in the menu interface itself. The different functions and navigation through the menu is kept constant so it should be easy to learn for the user. The interaction style converse will not be used in the key fob. The key fob has no option to recognize the voice of the user. The only dialog between the user and the system would be in the confirm questions. This are questions like: ‘Are you sure you want to go back’? These way unwanted errors are prevented. The interaction style manipulate will be frequently used in the key fob. With this interaction style it is possible to use a physical button to select a function. In the conceptual model, several types of physical buttons were used. A scroll button to scroll through the menu and push buttons to select the main functions of the key fob. It is also possible to use your finger to control a function on the key fob. The interaction style exploring will not be used in the key fob. It is unnecessary for the user to move through a virtual space or create a virtual experience to operate with the key fob. A simple representation of the reality could be shown, for example a picture of a car with an arrow indicating the car is moving into the direction of the arrow. A metaphor is an abbreviation replaced by an image, which is familiar. For the design of the interface several images were used. Most of the images are simple representations. The most important images used in the interface design are shown on the next page.
Fig. 1 This symbol has an active and a passive function, the active function represents the function to lock the car. When this symbol is shown on the display, this passive symbol represented that the car is locked.
Fig. 2 The active function of this symbol represents the function to unlock the car. When this symbol is shown, this symbol indicates the car is not locked.
Designing a key fob
page 3
Fig. 4 When the symbol above is shown on the display, the trunk is closed.
to make the key fob interface familiar to the user BMW. At the top of the key fob an extra display is placed, on this extra display additional information (time, signal) will be displayed. See fig. 5 for the main layout.
These symbols will be placed on a physical button, because these are the basic and most frequently functions on the key fob. 3.2 PAPER PROTOTYPING In the design process, paper prototyping is applied to provide a great deal of useful feedback which will result in a better design of the key fob. Two interfaces were created and tested. In the first paper prototype, the user has to press the orange button to make a next step in the interface. Parking the car with the key fob and locking the car are the tasks to be performed in this paper prototype. Because of this test with the first paper prototype (appendix 3b), different users said that the icons in the top screen are too close to the edge. The function of the right icon in the top was not very clear, without any instructions. The interface is easy to understand by the user. The second paper prototype (appendix 3c), unlock the key fob and set the temperature to 18 degrees are the tasks to be performed. In this paper prototype the user has to use the scroll button to navigate to the menu. In comparison with the first paper prototype, not only the display is shown. The 3 buttons of the key fob are illustrated in the paper models. Different users said that the text in the top screen was not obvious enough. The users observed that the menu structure is easy to understand. Placing the selected option at the centre of the screen could improve the interface even more. Lastly, a small heuristic evaluation was done. Of the latest interface to improve it even more. The results can be found in appendix 3e. These results were also used to create a final concept. The final interface design is based on the current interface of the BMW iDdrive (appendix 3d). At the right side of the interface a curved line is created. A circle is placed on this line in which the icons of the various options are displayed. The same colour combinations are used on the interface
Group 18
Fig 5. A general layout of the improved model
3.3 THE CONCEPT As said we have made different designs and possibilities with the interface. We described the feedback from the usability and heuristic evaluation of these different interfaces in the paragraph before. In the final concept, the results from the paper prototyping test were adapted to a new design. The final concept contains all the functions as desired by the user and client. The desired functions are implemented in an interface inspired by BMW’s multimedia system. The navigation through the menus is done by using a scroll wheel similar to the iDrive-system to control the multimedia screen inside a BMW. So the interface must be easy to use and recognizable for the BMW owners. All the basic functions are easy to access via the key fob which now becomes a high tech gadget for the users. With the interface adapted to the BMW style, the “exterior” also had to be adapted to BMW’s dynamic styling. This has been done by creating many ideas inspired by BMW’s styling. This created a dynamic key fob design shown in fig 5. The dynamic feeling is shown by the exterior. The luxurious side of BMW is implemented in the material use, by using high quality plastics with matte and gloss black look. The design of the key fob fits the philosophy of BMW, and thereby fits to personalities of the BMW owner described earlier.
Designing a key fob
page 4
4. USER DEMO AND IMPROVEMENTS The interactions and menu design are now complete. It is used to construct a working demo in html code. This interactive demo is tested by a group of subjects. They go through the process of completing several tasks during which they were observed. Afterwards, they were asked what they thought about the demo. The demo was done simultaneously with the demo of another group. The subjects were asked which group had made a better concept in terms of usability, interface and consistency. The results were then interpreted and the model was improved. 4.1 DEMO The demo was entirely made in Axure. This is converted into a user interface in html. Firstly, a flowchart was made with al interactions and menus. Each panel represented a pop-up, menu, submenu or information screen. These panels were linked with arrows. The colour of the arrow gave an indication which button needed to be pressed to get to the linked panel. The entire flowchart can be found in appendix 4a. Secondly, the demo was built using Axure’s dynamic panels, widgets and links. All features were implemented in the model. With a working model we made a list of tasks which had to be performed by the test subjects. 4.2 TESTING THE DEMO A special requirement was set for this usability test. We had to combine and compare our tests and results with another group. This group is group 19, they also designed a key fob. Their key fob is more compact and contains fewer functions than ours. They have four icons that represent tasks. They can be selected and new icon or functions appear. The major difference is the navigation through the menu’s which will be a considerable factor in analyzing the product which navigation is more clear and efficient. The goal of the test was to determine if the demo is quick to learn and comprehensible. A set of dependent and independent variables were formulated. The dependent variables are the things that were measured. Following is a list of these dependent variables.
Group 18
- Number and type of mistakes - Time needed to complete a task - Whether or not a subject requested a hint The independent variables were controlled and altered between the test subjects to see what impact it would have on the results. Following is a list of independent variables. - One group gets an explanation on how the buttons work, the other group does not - The difference between our key fob and the key fob of the other group - The group who tests a subject first (difference in experience) The test has eight participants which are divided in several groups with different independent variables for each group. Group 1: Explanation and no experience with the usability test from group 19. Group 2: No explanation and no experience with the usability test from group 19. Group 3: Explanation and experience with the usability test from group 19. Group 3: No explanation and experience with the usability test from group 19. A set of tasks for the subjects was composed to test if our demo satisfied our expectations. These tasks included: Task Task Task Task Task Task Task
1: Unlock the key fob 2: Remote start the car 3: Set the temperature to preference* 4: Find the car using the key fob 5: Park the car using the key fob 6: Set the temperature to 22 degrees 7: lock the key fob
*This task has not been performed by the group 19 To make the test more immersive and true to the real world list of tasks was put into a scenario. The scenario was read out loud to the subject. At certain points during the scenario the subject was asked to do a task. Upon completion of a task the scenario was continued. During the test the subject was presented with a foam model (appendix 4b) of the key fob. By holding it in the hand the subject could test if the button layout was pleasant to use. Lastly, a short evaluation was performed about both demos.
Designing a key fob
page 5
Some questions were specifically about our demo other were about the difference between them. The entire questionnaire and the time results can be found in appendix 4c. 4.3 HYPOTHESES Before the subjects tested the demo a couple hypotheses were established. Following is a list of these hypotheses. - The function of the BMW button won’t be clear to the subjects who didn’t get an explanation. - The subjects will not make more than one mistake by selecting the wrong option from the menu. - The explanation will not have an effect on how subjects navigate through the menu - The subjects who did not get an explanation will make a wider variation of mistakes. - The subjects who did not get an explanation, on average, will take longer to complete their first couple of tasks. - Subjects who already tested a key fob (the one from the other group) will be faster since their familiar with the general concept. - Subjects who did not get an explanation beforehand will be more likely to ask for a hint. - The concept of group 18 will be more comprehensible and easier to use in comparison with the concept of group 19. These hypotheses will be tested by using the variables stated before. Writing down how many and which mistakes they made to get to the desired option in the most efficient way. Lastly, by asking them questions a comparison between the two concepts can be made. 4.4 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The test resulted in a lot of good information. The evaluation afterwards in particular was helpful. Subjects gave detailed answers and sometimes even suggested solutions to issues they had encountered. Most issues were regarding the interface. Following is a list of the most common issues. - Visibility of the icons on the right is poor - The logo button can easily be confused with a home button - It is unclear if there is anything happening while waiting for the car to park - Some minor inconsistencies with the menu structure
Group 18
A minority of issues were regarding the physical foam model. Following is a list of these issues. - The model is too large to be used efficient. - The three physical buttons on the left are hard to reach - The scroll wheel is positioned a little too low All the issues are resolved. These improvements are addressed in the next paragraph. The comparison between our model and that of the other group also yielded some useful results. The main conclusions that can be drawn from that evaluation are that our demo is easier and quicker in use. On the other hand, the subjects remarked that after some extensive use our demo would be slower in completing tasks than the other demo. This, however, is the result of a restriction in the software. If you scroll to the next panel it displays a scrolling animation which is set to a duration of 500 milliseconds. In a fully functional prototype the animation would be at the same speed of the rotation of the scroll wheel. Also clicking on arrow instead of scrolling is not the best representation for the navigation in the interface. It is assumed that using a real scroll wheel would be more efficient and user friendly. Next, the hypotheses will be reviewed. It was concluded that the first hypotheses regarding the logo button was indeed true. Both groups of subjects were confused at certain moments what the function of the logo button was. The second hypothesis was regarding entering the wrong submenu. This turned out to be clear enough. When searching for a specific function they never than once searched in the wrong submenu. The third hypothesis was also confirmed. The wheel was always used for navigation. Even though the user sometimes were in doubt which knob to use. The fourth hypothesis was confirmed as well. One mistake that subjects made who did not get an explanation is clicking on the screen. They thought it was a touch screen. This is a typical beginner’s mistake since you can’t know if it is a touch screen or not. This mistake was only made when they did their first task and thus had no experience with the demo so far. The fifth hypothesis, too, was confirmed. The difference does even out with
Designing a key fob
page 6
the last set of tasks. The sixth hypothesis was rejected since there was no notable difference between the two groups. The seventh hypothesis couldn’t be tested due to the fact that nobody requested a hint. When they couldn’t resolve the task with the first try they tried again until the resolved it. The last hypothesis is accepted. Especially when the user uses the concept for the first time. 4.5 IMPROVEMENTS Following is a list that resolved all of the issues mentioned in the previous paragraph. - Icons are brighter - The logo button is no longer the dead man’s switch. This button is now a home button as expected by the subjects. Also, when tapping the logo button when it already is in the main menu it will turn off the display considering that the “lock screen” option was counter intuitive. The “lock screen” option is removed. The dead man’s switch is now controlled by pressing and holding the scroll wheel. -The size of the key fob is scaled. The overall size was found to be too large to be ergonomic. - In the html interface a car is shown outside the display (representing the actual situation). When the key fob indicates it is parking in the car will move into the parking spot. This gives a subject conformation that something is actually happening. - The order of some menu options were changed to have a more consistent menu structure - Some minor spelling mistakes were corrected. Furthermore, some additional improvements were made. - An extra option was added in the main menu; Vehicle info. This displays relevant information about the car. - An “are you sure” message pops up when remote start is selected from the main menu. This wasn’t really an issue with any of the test subjects although with a more responsive demo you could start the engine accidently by hitting the confirm button (pressing the scroll wheel) twice in a row. - In a fully functional prototype the scroll wheel will be positioned slightly higher for a more pleasant use.
Group 18
- The excess width (bezel) will be reduced so that the three physical buttons on the left are easier to reach. The updated and improved demo will be shown at the presentation. 5. FINAL PRODUCT OVERVIEW In total this key fob has 5 primary functions. First of all there is the remote engine start function. This was a requirement for the assignment and as such it was included in the design. The function, however, cannot be legally used in Europe, so this function will only be available in other countries. Second there is the remote parking function. This function was also a requirement, but it is also the main function of the key fob. With this the user can park his or her car without any trouble. The user can remotely park the car. This means he or she can park the car in tight spots where it is normally impossible to get out of the car. This will also prevent any damage to the car while parking. For a full overview of the actions required to use this function see the previous sections 2.4 and 2.5. The third function is the climate control. With this the user can warm the car up or cool it down before getting in it. This can be done while not near the car so that the car has time to use this function to its full effect. Within the climate control option you can set the temperature to your preferred state, to a specific temperature or you can cancel the climate control altogether. The user has already set a preferred state inside of the car, this way the user can get the temperature to his or her liking in one button press. The second last function is the remote signaling. This is used for when the user has lost the car and needs some signal to be able to find it. This signal can either be only light, or it can be both light and sound. This choice is implemented just in case the user is somewhere where loud noise is not appreciated. Last but not least we have the vehicle info screen. With this function the user can get an update on the range of the car for example. This function can also be used while not in close proximity of the car. When the user wants to use this key fob, he first needs to scan his fingerprint. This is implemented to prevent theft and being uses by for example children. When the user wants
Designing a key fob
page 7
to lend his car he can pull a physical key from the bottom of the key fob. This is also just in case the key fob runs out of energy. The key fob is recharged by using a mini-USB cord much like the ones used for the current generation smart phones. The user has to charge his key fob in a normal power outlet, in his house or in the car for instance. The frequency of recharging will be minimal since it has a small screen and isn’t on standby like a smart phone. The dimensions of the key fob can be found in figure 7. Fig. 6 A render of the final product.
Fig. 7 Maximum dimensions.
Group 18
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The key fob is designed to assist the BMW driver with various tasks. The user can use the key fob as regular key, or as remote to lock and unlock the BMW. Furthermore, the key fob has some special features. With the key fob the BMW can park automatically while the BMW driver stands next to the car. The user can also control the climate in the car with the key fob. Personalization ensures that the user can choose his preferred temperature. Furthermore, the key fob serves as an extra gadget in the BMW because useful vehicle information can be shown on the display. Retrieval of the car in a crowded parking place will be easier with the option to send a light or sound signal to the car. The remote start function of the car belongs to the possibilities of the key fob. For the design the luxurious side of BMW is implemented in the material use, by using high quality plastics with matte and gloss black look. The scroll wheel on the key fob is similar to the iDrive-system to control to control the multimedia screen inside a BMW. So the interface must be easy to use and recognizable for the BMW owners. With styling and the high-tech gadget feeling adapted to the BMW’s philosophy the key fob is really interesting for the target group. Unfortunately, we could not test the improved model, this could provide a better result of the final key fob, mainly because it appears that the previous test provides us with good feedback. That according to customers would lead to a better product. The interface in Axure is not quite corresponding to the reality, because arrows are used to scroll through the menu instead of a scroll wheel. Testing the scroll function would be really desired. This makes it possible to really achieve valuable results. And show if the scroll wheel which in the mind should work really well, actually works.
Designing a key fob
page 8
Appendix 2 Requirements Max dimensions : 50mm x 100mm x 15mm Maximum weight: 200g Maximum number of buttons: 6 Include a display to inform the user Operable with one hand The car cannot be unlocked by children or unauthorized users Contain a physical key to open the car Lock and unlock the car with the key fob The trunk must be opened via the key fob Remotely start the car Use remote parking function via key fob Give feedback when a parking spot is available User must stay within 8 meters of the car during the manoeuvre At all times the user must be able to stop and revert the manoeuvre Give feedback when the manoeuvre is completed Set and regulate the in-car climate control Automatically turn on heater/AC when temperature is low/high Clear the condensed water from the windows Display information about the car Wishes
User characteristics Age Gender Car usage
Study Computer/IT usage Motivation
Attitude
Flashlight to assist opening the car with the physical key Open and close the garage door Theft prevention/tracking device Set different climate preferences with the help of climate control
Group 18
Designing a key fob
30 – 65 Man and women The car is an important piece of their life, without it they would not be able to do their work properly. The target group drives a lot in busy and narrow cities with few parking places available. Highly educated, HBO/ University The target group is known and has experience with smart phones/computers/controlling multimedia systems in cars. The target group wants to park her car automatically, so they won’t have parking problems. Examples for parking problems are; car damage, difficult parking-maneuvers and difficult situations with getting out of the car. The target group has lots of interest in the product, because the product will be used a lot by the user. They often encounter difficult parking situations in cities.
page 9
Appendix 3a
Group 18
Designing a key fob
page 10
Appendix 3b
Appendix 3c
Group 18
Designing a key fob
page 11
Appendix 3d
Appendix 4a
Appendix 3e Heuristic evaluation. Scale assessment: 0 - not relevant 1- cosmetic problem 2 - small problem 3 - big problem 4 - catastrophic problem
For a better overview of the flowchart please visit: http://9jnqna.axshare.com/flow_diagram.html
1. Visibility of system status + lights in the buttons - Blue color on black background Evaluation: 2 2. Match between system and the real world + Usage recognizible icons + Spot scroll wheel, ergonomic - Spot unlock button Evaluation:2 3. User control and freedom + little chance of errors in mainmenu - static menu Evaluation: 1 4. Consistency and standards - 2 function for one button Evaluation: 4 5. Error prevention + Confirm screen Evaluation: 2 6.Reconition rather than recall - Some information on the screen, (car locked or open?) Evaluation: 3 7. Flexibility and efficiency of use + Efficient because you can see all the options in the menu Evaluation: 1 8. Aesthetic and minimalist design - Large physical buttons - Non minimalistic design Evaluation: 2 9. Help users recognize, diagnose and recover from errors (Not in paper prototype) Evaluation: 0 10. Help and documentation + Easy interface, reading instructions before using product not needed Evaluation: 0
Appendix 4c
Appendix 4b
Gezamenlijke vragen Concept A: Concept groep 18 Concept B: Concept groep 19 Proefpersoon 1: What concept was the easiest in use (navigating)? Concept B makkelijker. Concept A is eerste keer gebruik makkelijker. What concept was the easiest to understand (icon/menu structure)? Laadbalkje was duidelijker in Concept B. in Concept A verwachtte ik wat anders. What concept applied its menu the most consistent? Motor zou ik ergens anders verwachten. Plekken van iconen op concept B zijn logischer/consitenter. What concept allowed you to find the asked tasks the best? Bij beide concepten ging dat makkelijk. Concept B duidelijker feedback over temperatuur. Bij Concept A geen feedback over temperatuur wisselingen/ en aan/uit.
Group 18
Designing a key fob
page 12
What interface did you find the most pleasant to use? Concept B. Minder op knoppen drukken om acties uit te voeren. Proefpersoon 2: What concept was the easiest in use (navigating)? Concept A het makkelijkst.
What concept applied its menu the most consistent? Menustructuur van B bolletjes misschien onduidelijk, maar bij Concept A waren er ook onduidelijke dingen.
What concept was the easiest to understand (icon/menu structure)? Concept A. What concept applied its menu the most consistent? Concept A. Concept B is niet conventioneel. What concept allowed you to find the asked tasks the best? Concept A. What interface did you find the most pleasant to use? Concept B. Dit is sneller. Proefpersoon 3: What concept was the easiest in use (navigating)? Concept A was iets duidelijker. Overzichtelijker door de verschillende menu’s te kunnen zien in één menu. What concept was the easiest to understand (icon/menu structure)? Concept A vanwege reden hierboven. Localiseren van de auto was bij Concept B duidelijker. What concept applied its menu the most consistent? Beide goed gegaan. What concept allowed you to find the asked tasks the best? Concept B was inparkeren duidelijker dan bij Concept A. De rest wel hetzelfde (prima). What interface did you find the most pleasant to use? Qua interface eerder voor Concept A, qua model voor Concept B. Proefpersoon 4: What concept was the easiest in use (navigating)? Concept A What concept was the easiest to understand (icon/menu structure)? Concept A omdat je het menu van concept B eerst moet leren. Bij langer gebruik wordt het anders: Drukken van Concept B is minder gevoelig voor fouten dan het scrollen van Concept A dus dat zou dan prettiger zijn.
What concept allowed you to find the asked tasks the best? Concept A want Concept B moest ik nog leren. Na langere tijd zou Concept B sneller gaan. Icoontje of tekst in plaats van bolletjes, dat het sneller gaat. What interface did you find the most pleasant to use? Efficiëntie vind ik belangrijk. Dan zou ik voor Concept B gaan, snel en eenvoudige manier van menu gebruiken.
Group 18
What concept allowed you to find the asked tasks the best? Concept B was duidelijker, bij Concept A had je ook nog heleboel andere dingen in beeld. Meer opties met knopjes, en bij Concept B is dat minder (minder keuze per scherm). What interface did you find the most pleasant to use? Concept B zou ik kopen, ziet er minder ingewikkeld uit. Concept A heeft zoveel tekst. Proefpersoon 6: What concept was the easiest in use (navigating)? Concept A, uitleg + tekst (beter) Concept B, navigeren onduidelijker (geen uitleg) Alles in 1 menu wellicht duidelijker (concept ons) Voorkeur frequent gebruik: Geen voorkeur What concept was the easiest to understand (icon/menu structure)? Concept A, vanwege tekst op schermConcept B, icoontjes duidelijk What concept applied its menu the most consistent? Geen voorkeur. What concept allowed you to find the asked tasks the best? Concept B, duidelijker vanwege structuur Concept A, wisselende stijl What interface did you find the most pleasant to use? Concept A duidelijker: Functies zijn directer What concept was the easiest in use (navigating)? Concept B: Touchscreen is fijn Concept A: scroll wieltje is fijn Proefpersoon 7: What concept was the easiest in use (navigating)? Concept A: 1 menu. Concept B; meerdere menu’s. Frequenter gebruik: Concept B werkt sneller (Concept A: scrollen is niet prettig) What concept was the easiest to understand (icon/menu structure)? Concept A: de basic menu structuur What concept applied its menu the most consistent? Geen voorkeur: duidelijke stijl. Geen verrassing, structuur van menu’s waren duidelijk.
What concept applied its menu the most consistent? Beide.
Proefpersoon 5: What concept was the easiest in use (navigating)? Concept B heeft meer functies, overzichtelijker.
What concept was the easiest to understand (icon/menu structure)? Concept B makkelijker, ik kijk meer naar iconen dan naar tekst.
What concept allowed you to find the asked tasks the best? Concept B vanwege de snelheid, fouten zijn makkelijk te herstellen. Concept A, zoeken was makkelijker maar het selecteren duurt langer. What interface did you find the most pleasant to use? Concept B, misschien komt dat door het grafische aspect (simplistisch). Concept B want de scroll knop werkt niet echt prettig, het duurt langer. Proefpersoon 8: What concept was the easiest in use (navigating)?
Designing a key fob
page 13
Concept B: handig dat het verdeeld is in groepjes, dat is overzichtelijk. Concept A was juist 1 menu met veel functies: functie hierachter is niet meteen duidelijk. What concept was the easiest to understand (icon/menu structure)? Concepten zijn beiden duidelijk. Concept A, goed punt: tekst is aanwezig, slecht: mistte echter wel icoontjes. (Overig puntje: minder functies gezien in het onderzoek) Concept B waren de icoontjes duidelijk.
What concept applied its menu the most consistent? Concept A: optie binnen is anders, menu is verder wel consistent. Concept B: menu is consistent in duidelijkheid (3 sub-menu’s) What concept allowed you to find the asked tasks the best? Concept A, makkelijkst. Concept B: stipjes eerst onduidelijk, bij frequent gebruik heft dit wel de voorkeur. What interface did you find the most pleasant to use? Concept A: interface was meer uitgwerkt (doorslaggevende factor). Concept A, goed punt: niet alle knoppen binnen het elektronische menu (digitaal) en belangrijke knoppen (open en dicht) ook als fysieke knoppen waarvoor de keyfob niet geactiveerd hoeft te worden. Evaluatie formulier (blank) Vragen over ons concept 1.Associeer je deze keyfob meer met een sportieve of een luxe sedan? 2. Moet je reiken/strekken om de knoppen te bedienen? 3. Waren de functies die je zocht te vinden in het menu waar jij ze had verwacht? 4. Waren de pop-ups te lang/ te kort/ precies lang genoeg in beeld? En was het duidelijk wat de feedback inhield (van de popup)? 5. Waren het aantal opties in de menulijst overzichtelijk? Bv. te lang door het menu scrollen om de juiste functies te vinden. 6. Werkten de illustraties en icoontjes in het menu ter verduidelijking of zorgde het voor verwarring? Zo ja, welke icoontjes/illustraties? 7. Is er een behoefte aan een fysieke “screen off” knop? Door bijvoorbeeld de logo knop twee keer kort achter elkaar in te drukken. 8. Is het scrollwiel een logische manier om door het menu te navigeren? 9. Waar verwacht je dat de fysieke sleutel zit? Antwoorden evaluatie Evaluatie Nadia, wel uitleg, keyfobgroep 1. Hij ziet er wel snel uit, maar model is wel groot. Meer sportieve sedan. 2. Key fob te groot, te grote afstand van de parkeerknoppen. 3. Ja, remote start was vaag. 4. Bij inparkeren, er moet gewacht worden terwijl je niet weet hoelang. 5. Overzichtelijk, niet te veel. 6. Icoontjes waren niet echt opgevallen. 7. Wel een fysieke unlock knop. Ook het ingedrukt houden van de bmw knop zou het apparaat ook moeten kunnen locken. 8. Ja, wil wel prima. 9. Aan de bovenkant, kan overal uitkomen, omdat hij zo groot is.
Group 18
Evaluatie Jeroen; wel uitleg; keyfobgroep 1. Sportief 2. Nee, ik kan overal bij 3. Ja, ze waren waar ik ze verwachtte 4. Ja, het was duidelijk 5. Ja, het gaat snel 6. De icoontjes zijn mij tijdens het gebruik niet opgevallen 7. Ja 8. De kans bestaat dat je per ongeluk klikt terwijl je wil scrollen, door te hard het scrollwiel in te drukken tijdens het scrollen 9. Aan de onderkant Verdere opmerkingen: Auto geeft niet aan dat hij zoekt naar een parkeerplaats. is al ingesteld bij iDrive Evaluatie Bas; geen uitleg; horlogegroep 1. Luxe 2. Ja, de linker knoppen zijn moeilijk te bereiken 3. Ja 4. Feedback niet duidelijke bij inparkeren in ons model kun je niet zien wat de auto in werkelijkheid doet (beperking van de testomgeving) 5. Ja 6. Zijn mij in eerste instantie niet opgevallen 7. Ja en een home-knop zou ook handig zijn 8. Ja 9. Bovenkant Verdere opmerkingen: Om meer accent op de icoontjes te leggen kun je ook de icoontjes van de niet-geselecteerde opties weergeven in de kantlijn. Evaluatie Robin; wel uitleg; keyfobgroep 1. Sportief 2. Evt het scrollwiel iets omhoog. Als ik de knoppen aan de linker kant wil bedienen zou ik hem wel anders vasthouden maar omdat de linkerkant de alleen de basicfuncties heeft is dat niet erg. 3. Uit ervaring weet dat BMW het logo gebruikt voor het uitzetten. Dit was tegenstrijdig voor mij. 4. Popup van “Button released” duurde iets te lang. 5. Ja 6. Zonder naar de icoontjes te kijken was het al duidelijk. Ze waren mij niet echt opgevallen. 7. Vanuit de ervaringen met een smartphone lijkt de BMW knop op een home-knop 8. Ja 9. Onderkant Evaluatie Dana; zonder uitleg; Keyfobgroep 1. Beide, iets meer sportief 2. Met 2 handen lukt het wel. Met één hand gaat het moeizaam 3. Ja, behalve de ‘terug naar hoofmenu’- functie lijkt telkens op een andere plek te zitten (soms boven, soms onder). Dit is verwarrend. 4. Prima 5. Prima 6. Het icoon van “laats hier je vinger om te ontgrendelen” suggereert dat je moet swipen over de display 7. Ja 8. Ja 9. Openklappen aan de achterkant. Evaluatie Rolf; wel uitleg; keyfobgroep 1. Luxe
Designing a key fob
page 14
2. Nee, Ik ben linkshandig. Ik kan het wel bedienen maar het werkt anders. Evt een linkshandige versie aanbieden 3. Ja 4. Ja, ik heb weinig popups gezien 5. Goed 6. De icoontjes zijn mij niet opgevallen. 7. Is wel makkelijker omdat je dat van de smartphone gewend bent. 8. Dat is afhankelijk van hoeveel het scrollwiel verdraaid moet worden per stap. Dit kun je verduidelijken door het scrollwiel feedback te laten geven in de vorm van clicks. 9. Hij schuift uit aan de bovenkant Verder opmerkingen: Het formaat is wat groot. Evaluatie Rens; geen uitleg; horlogegroep 1. Sportief 2. Ik kan me voorstellen dat sommigen er moeite mee zullen hebben. De linker knoppen zijn het moeilijkst bereikbaar. 3.ja 4.Inparkeren duurde langer dan verwacht gevolg van testomgeving 5. Ja was duidelijk en snel 6. Ja, ze werkten ter verduidelijking 7. Ja 8. Evt kun je scrollen door een scrollwiel om het BMW logo te positioneren, zoals een ipod. (Hij hield hem als een smartphone vast) 9. Bovenkant Evaluatie Lisette; wel uitleg; horlogegroep 1. De vorm oogt sportief. De materiaaltoekenning heeft een luxe uitstraling. 2. Als het scrollwiel iets hoger zou zijn zou ik hem beter kunnen bedienen. De knoppen aan de linkerkant zouden ook vanaf de zijkant indrukbaar moeten zijn want nu zijn ze moeilijk te bereiken. 3. Ja, door alle bewegende tekst tijdens het scrollen is het overzicht even weg. 4. Ja, als een pop-up te lang duurt zou je hem weg moeten kunnen klikken. 5. Ja, maar de hoeveelheid opties is in eerste instantie niet duidelijk. (omdat je oneindig door kunt scrollen) 6. Meer nadruk op icoontjes en dus minder tekst. 7. Kan wel zoals het nu is. 8. ja, afhankelijk van hoe snel je maximaal kan scrollen 9. Aan de onderkant.
Group 18
Designing a key fob
page 15
Testresultaten Geen uitleg + groep 18 eerst Persoon 1 Taak 1 Taak 2
Gemeten tijd (s) 10.08 39.15
# fouten 10x
Type fout
Hulp
4x
Nee
-
nee
- geen fouten - geen fouten - vragen gaat hij nu iets doen?
-
Nee Nee
Taak 4
11,79
-
Nee
Taak 5
29,78
- te vroeg losgelaten
1x
Nee
12.75
- geen fouten
-
Nee
3.15
- geen fouten - hoe krijg je hem geunlocked? Type fout
-
Nee
Taak 6 Taak 7
9,66 4,39
2x
Nee Nee
# fouten -
Hulp
2x
Nee
Taak 2
9,28
-
Nee
1x
Nee Nee Nee
Taak 3
5,73
- drukken op unlock knop links - geen fouten - wel af en toe twijfel om richting BMW knop te gaan - Geen fouten
# fouten 1x
Hulp
nee
Persoon 2 Taak 1
- geen fouten- klikken op vergrendel knop linksType fout
-
Nee
Taak 4
5,22
- Geen fouten
-
Nee
Taak 5
17,47
- Geen fouten
-
Nee
Taak 6
6,30
- Geen fouten
-
Nee
Taak 7
4,19
- Geen fouten
-
Nee
Taak 7
Gemeten tijd (s) 12,68
Taak 2
16,88
Taak 3 Taak 4 Taak 5
6,46 5,60 27,33 7,77 5,57
- in een keer goed - wel even zoeken - klikken op BMW - klikken op scherm bij Back to Menu - geen fouten - geen fouten - knop losgelaten, pop up werd wel begrepen - duurde te lang? - geen fouten - Klikken op BWM logo
1x
Nee Nee
Wel uitleg + groep 18 eerst
Taak 2
11,98
Gemeten tijd (s) 7,72
Persoon 1 Taak 1
Gemeten tijd (s) 10,74
Type fout
Nee
# fouten -
Hulp
-
Nee
-
Nee
- Geen fouten - Geen fouten - Geen fouten
-
Nee Nee Nee
3,00
- Geen fouten
-
Nee
Gemeten tijd (s) 5,75
Type fout
Aantal fouten -
Hulp
2x
Nee
-
Nee
Type fout
# fouten
Hulp
- klikken op scherm - geen fouten
1 -
nee nee
Taak 3
8,33
- geen fouten
-
nee
Taak 4
7,46
- geen fouten
-
nee
Taak 2
8,72
- geen fouten - wel lichte twijfel, over geen feedback tijden vingerscan - Geen fouten
Taak 3
5,43
- Geen fouten
Taak 4 Taak 5 Taak 6
7,53 16,19 5,95
Taak 5
26,68
- geen fouten
-
nee
Taak 6
12, 69
- Geen fouten
-
Nee
Taak 7
11,71
- Eerst naar BMW knop om te vergrendelen Type fout
1
Nee
# fouten
Hulp
Taak 7
Gemeten tijd (s) 6,78
Nee
Wel uitleg + groep 19 eerst
Gemeten tijd (s) 17,02 8,46
Persoon 2 Taak 1
# fouten 6x
5,80
Taak 6
Persoon 1 Taak 1 Taak 2
Gemeten tijd (s) 21,30
Taak 3
11.15 20.70
Nee Nee
Persoon 1 Taak 1
Nee
Taak 4 Taak 5
- geen fouten - drukken op scherm - meermaals scrollen - klikken op scherm - onduidelijk waar nu op gedrukt moet worden - geen fouten - geen feedback dat het gelukt is
Hulp
-
7.00
Taak 6 Taak 7
Type fout
- klikken op unlock knop links - slepen van de vinger op scherm - klikken op scherm - klikken op bmw - klikken op scherm - geen fouten - terug naar hoofdmenu was probleem - geen fouten
Taak 3
Persoon 2 Taak 1
Geen uitleg + groep 19 eerst
Nee
Taak 2
18,75
- geen fouten - lichte twijfel bij back knop?
-
Nee
Persoon 2 Taak 1
Taak 3
9,33
- geen fouten
-
Nee
Taak 2
19,17
Taak 4
14,98
4x
Nee
Taak 5
32,39
Taak 3
5,33
Taak 4
4,99
- Geen fouten
-
Nee
Taak 6
10,58
- meerdere keren scrollen (zoeken naar signal) - loslaten bij inparkeren - vraag: wat als ik loslaat? - drukken op de BMW knop - geen fouten
- Slepen van de vinger over BMW logo - Geen eigenlijke fouten - klikken op scherm - Klikken op BMW logo - Geen fouten
-
Nee
Taak 5
25,71
1x
Nee
Taak 7
11,14
- Drukken op vergrendel - Drukken op BMW knop
2x
Nee
Taak 6
18,07
1x
Nee
Taak 7
2,42
- Klikken op BMW logo ipv inhouden - Eerst fout op 21 graden gezet - Geen fouten
-
Nee
- geen fouten
-
Nee
Group 18
1x
Designing a key fob
page 16
Nee
