The usability test management

In this section we present the process underlying the conduct of the PChCT‘s usability experience, which includes the location selected to undergo the study and

the practical aspects of the study itself. Regarding the location, we have mentioned

that the parent‘s own home was preferred for the usability experience. However,

there was an exception: one of the parents suggested that the usability experience session should be done in a workplace setting rather than the parent‘s home.

The practical process, which is presented next, considers the engagement of participants and the administration of the usability session.

Practicalities of participation

a) Approaching the participants: parents who took part in the activity-monitoring

data collection, were again invited to participate. We discussed with them the planned context of the study, which included their agreement to two constraints. The first was to consent, if possible, to their child not being present. That is, parents were asked to arrange two hours of external care for their children. If that were possible, then we could reduce the distraction during the study because the parent would be less worried about attending to the child‘s activities and more

focused on testing the tool‘s usefulness. The second constraint was that the parent

agrees to be video-recorded all of the time. We must inform parents about the way they will be observed. For example, during the hands-on period parents are asked to walk around their home using the tool while the observer follows them recording their experiences with the tool.

b) Participants: two of the three parents that participated within the activity-

monitoring session were finally reached to complete the usability experience. It was not possible to agree a date with the third parent. We were able to find a replacement, but the context of her experience was slightly different, as discussed in the next paragraph.

c) The replacement participant: the first element that distinguishes this participant is

that the data to be used and replayed with the PDA user interface does not belong

to this parent‘s child. However, we could argue that this might not affect the

usability session unduly because this parent‘s child is only 6 months old (not yet mobile). On the contrary, it might help to give the parent a better understanding if they consider that in the forthcoming months the scenarios presented within the tool could be part of their parental experiences.

The second element that distinguishes this participant is that this was her first encounter with ubicomp research. It should be remembered that the other participants had been sensitized and introduced to the whole system‘s architecture in the data collection session, so the study for this parent was slightly modified; we included the PChCT video demonstration to sensitize this parent.

The third factor that makes this participant different is that she decided to undertake the study in her husband‘s workplace rather than in the privacy of her house, and both the parent and the child were present. Although the child was being cared for by her father, they were most of the time present in the study. This added some environmental noise to the study because the mother was from time to time keeping an eye on the child. This event indirectly affected the time planned for the study.

Parent Activity other than housework and childcare Child’s age _(years)

YM _{- the child attends the nursery half a day from Monday to Friday} - Works halftime four days of the week 3.10 RB _{- the child attends the nursery half a day three days a week} - works halftime the whole week 2.4 ML _{- childcare is done by parents or grandparents at their respective houses} - works fulltime two days a week 0.6

Table 5-11 The test users who were finally engaged

Table 5-11 lists information about activity and childcare management for the three parents who were finally engaged to the usability experience session.

Administering the usability test session

We have already pointed out how valuable time is for parents. So the management of time during the usability experience session is of high importance. We must bear in mind that parents made arrangements not only to allow time for the study but also arranged childcare in order to attend the study. We must remember, too, that the usability test session was adapted for the replacement participant. This section therefore presents the two approaches, home-session (for the original participants) and laboratory-session (for the replacement participant), used for the usability experience.

Home session: upon arriving at the parent‘s house we thanked the participant and chatted with them as an icebreaker while setting up the video camera. Once this was done and the parent was ready, we began with the introductory section: information

about how the child‘s activity was processed, the system-architecture and the

introduction of the PDA user-interface. We then moved to the hands-on section in

which parents make an initial exploration of the PChCT‘s resources; parents were

invited to play with some of the PChCT concepts reviewed in the introductory section. After this, they were asked to walk around the home using the tool – upstairs and in the kitchen, for example. There was no time limit: they used the tool, walked around the home, and stopped the session as they so decided. This was followed by the interview section. Finally, parents signed to mark the study‘s completion and received their economic incentive.

Laboratory-session: a laboratory space was arranged and the video camera for recording the study was positioned. When the parent participants arrived, they were welcomed and thanked. This was followed by a short briefing section about the research and the aims of the usability study. To complement information about the research we made use of the PChCT video demonstration. We believe that this additional material could help situate the parent within the research context. After the video section, we replicated the introductory, hands-on and interview sections as conducted with the other parents. However, some information from the introductory section was omitted, partly, because this parent had requested a reduced time study. We were therefore more interested in the hands-on and the interview coverage than with the introductory section. Some of the introductory information in any case appears in the video demonstration. The hands-on section was adapted: in the home- session parents walked around the home; this cannot be replaced in a laboratory study. However, the time assigned to this section was almost the same as that for the home-sessions. We were closely following this parent and supporting her use of the PChCT resources. Finally, after the interview section, the parent signed to mark the end of the study and received her economic incentive.

Table 5-12 is a summary to the usability test management to the three parents. We can see the differences in time allocated to each study. For instance, it can be seen that the time used by parent ML, the replacement participant, is approximately 25

minutes less compared with the study time of the other parents. However, despite these differences in the time, we believe the knowledge and experience gained from these social studies is rewarding.

Parent Child’s age

(years) Place to study

Usability experience time intervals (min)

Sessions Time (min)

YM 3.10 Parent‘s home Introduction 20.00 Hands-on 15.00 Interview 56.57 RB 2.4 Parent‘s home Introduction 33.00 Hands-on 17.40 Interview 40.29 ML 0.6 Laboratory Video 7.00 Introduction 8.00 Hands-on 14.00 Interview 36.34

Table 5-12 Usability experience management