Alta Air PRODUCT Research

A Usability Test Plan

Role: UX Researcher

Team: Christine Lee, B. Peralta (Engineering), R. Verweij (UX Manager)

Timeline: 5 Weeks

Scope:

  • Usability Testing

  • Prototyping

  • Environment Design

  • Research Synthesis

This project’s details are constrained by NDA restrictions. Identifying information and client names have been redacted.

Our fictional client, Alta Air is a new airline driven by sustainability and global connectivity. Alta Air serves customer base outside of the United States.

Background

Alta Air has requested the introduction of a PRODUCT for business class lavatories .

This PRODUCT in the lavatory serves to help travelers stay clean as they accomplish a task in the lavatory. In conjunction with an additional THING travelers will be able accomplish their task while staying hygienic.

Alta travelers are very focused on cleanliness and social presentation. Fashion and self expression is prevalent. At the same time, they may also have a need to be comfortable during these long flights.

PART

PRODUCT

Thing

The Product

Purpose:

The amenity provides the passenger an way to stay clean in the lavatory

Description:

The product has a door that is mounted on a panel in the lavatory
The surface has a specific material finish
When deployed, it is near some less than hygienic surfaces
When in the closed position, the door moves vertically
To access this product, there is a latch that users pull open, a magnetic option is currently being developed.
The user had to close the door to the product after they are done.

LAVATORY

PRODUCT

The Problem

We’ve developed the product and sold it to 1 customer. In the construction, engineering implemented a PART. This has been cycle tested, and failed. The OEM client is requesting additional extensive cycle tests for this PART.

This PART is not only expensive, but fails often.

What we want to know:

We want to know if the PART performs differently over time in a real world use scenario. This would give us better insight about the cycle tests we previously performed. The PRODUCT has yet to be tested with users and more insight into real world use can help us save time and money on an extensive next round of tests.


We want to know if users will support the PRODUCT DOOR or let the PRODUCT DOOR fall - thus supporting the need for the PART. Previously the PRODUCT DOOR was tested to last 400,000 cycles.

What Are we TEsting?

Our objective is to test the usability of the PRODUCT. We had previously tested the PART, but we did not test for human factors/user experience.

We will include questions about the user’s understanding and opinions around the PRODUCT.

What we want to know.:

How do users feel about performing x action on a flight?
How do users feel about the product size and shape?
Is it easy to use/intuitive?
Where will they touch it? Will they do x action in order to use it?
How will they close it?

Assumptions

Prior to conducting the test, we have the following assumptions to validate:

The Passenger will access this PRODUCT while they are standing or sitting on the toilet.
Passengers will position themselves in a way that allows the PRODUCT DOOR to fully sweep open
Passengers will be comfortable while touching the PRODUCT
Passengers will take off their shoes

TIMELINE

Project Brief: October 5

Trial Test: October 17

Test Begins: October 19

Results delivered: October 27th

Participants

We will plan to test with 20 participants, equally split between men & women. We will set up and plan to ask people as they arrive to the Alta Air office. This will be randomized selection.

Constraints

Ideally our participant breakdown will be:
non engineers, preferably from administrative or other roles
95% majority under 6’

It was important that we avoided testing with engineers, as they have background knowledge about the mechanical functionality of the PRODUCT. We made sure to screen for this bias in our participants.

It’s also important to take into the consideration of the participants height due to the final clientele for the PRODUCT. We will aim to have 19 participants match the standard height of target population. The average height of a target male is 5’7” and the average height of a target female is 5’2”.

Recruitment

In order to screen for participants within the correct height range, we will make use of existing markers..

The Alta Air lobby has a security check in point where every person must enter through.

We will add a slight marker (pictured in green) which will indicate the height threshold. This will help the researcher see from afar and gauge whether a participant would be within range.

SETUP & Methods

Script

“Hello, we are doing a study today. Would you be open to participating? It should only take 5 minutes of your time”

“Yes”

“Before we begin, what is your job role at this company? “

If the participant meets the requirements then we asked them if they would be willing to participate and fill out a screener survey

Screener Survey

Participants were asked to fill out some information about themselves as well as sign a form for informed consent. This will keep the interaction between the participant and researcher to a minimum while gathering demographic data

We collected the following information:
Height
Gender
Job Role
Age Range


To further simulate a real life situation, we ask participants to accomplish x task with a PROP.

We let them choose a fun PROP and they take the PROP with them into the simulated lavatory. In the lavatory, they do x task and we observed their instinctive behaviors. Using this PROP, this would require additional actions which are adjacent to our PRODUCT. We would then be able to gain more insight into how they would use both the THING and the PRODUCT

We are conducting this test close to Halloween so to be festive and fun, we are sourcing Halloween PROPS! Our budget limits us to $3 per PROP.

Script

Hello! My name is Christine and I am a researcher who will be running these tests today. Thank you for participating in our study.

We are testing a new feature that will be implemented in aircraft lavatories. This is a tool to help you accomplish x task. We have built a prototype and would love for you to test it and give us feedback.

Please take this PROP and accomplish x task. You can use anything in the lavatory to help. You can do this in any way, but you need to complete the study by walking out of the lavatory with x constraint. This is a visual representation of the apparatus in our test area.

Testing Environment Setup & Equipment

  • 3 go pros

  • physical lavatory mockup built with Gatorboard with high walls to create a sense of claustrophobia

  • PRODUCT prototype

As we place Go Pros, we want to capture 3 views, the birds eye, the over the shoulder, and the side profile views.

  • The birds eye view will allow us to see target behaviors and use of the lavatory space.

  • The side profile view will allow us to see the angle of the PRODUCT DOOR and how that influences the interaction.

  • The over the shoulder view will capture participants small gestures

Research Methods:

  • Unmoderated Usability Test

  • User Interviews

We will conduct an unmoderated usability test. Participants will interact with the prototype while the researcher takes down their observations of interaction.

Afterwards we will ask a series of questions to gather qualitative data. This is important because we need to understand the users’ thoughts about the product. We previously only tested the parts and mechanisms but we are missing customer feedback.

Parameters & Testing Task Accomplishment

  1. Enter Lavatory
    Initial standing position
    Proximity to PRODUCT
    Where do they place their PROPS? - will they hold it in their hand or on the counter?

  2. A Action
    Engage with PRODUCT
    Open - At what point do they release handle? Finding angles
    Fully Open PRODUCT - Let fall, assist, or pull open?
    Body Posture - bend, squat, or stand tall?

  3. B Action using PROP
    B Action - Do they do this before or after C Action?
    B Action - bend, sit or squat? Where do they put their ——? Where do they place their —-?
    Body Posture -Do they stay standing? Where do they sit? What is their sitting posture? Do they cross their legs? Do they put feet on something?
    Where did they put the PROPS?

  4. C Action
    Body Posture - Do they bend down, squat or sit?
    How do they ———-? While sitting?

  5. D.a Action
    How do they finish the task?
    Step Pattern within Lavatory space

  6. D.b Action
    Step Pattern within Lavatory space
    Balance and posture - is there enough room for them to fit in the Lavatory with PRODUCT deployed?

  7. E.a Action (With E.b Action option available)
    Interaction - Pull close, Push close, Use feet?
    Body Posture - bend or squat to reach?
    Hand Interaction with PRODUCT- It is easy to grasp?
    Angle of PRODUCT DOOR when there is a change in hand interaction
    Do they know that it is latched?

The cameras will be stopped and started between tests. Once all cameras are running, the researcher will stand in the lavatory and clap to help sync footage later.

Interview Questions:

Think back to your last long haul flight, what outfit did you wear on the plane? Have you ever needed to perform x action on a plane?

Imagine you needed to perform x action, can you describe the process of how you would do that?

Please tell us what you thoughts about the experience of performing x action with the mechanism. What did you dislike/like? What was easy/difficult?

Did the PRODUCT feel comfortable to interact with? What would you change?
What are your thoughts about opening the mechanism? Easy/difficult? Like/Dislike?

What are your thoughts about closing the mechanism? Easy/difficult? Like/Dislike?
Please tell us what you thoughts about the experience of using the PROPS. What did you dislike/like? What was easy/difficult?

Results & Processing

We logged all observations in a spreadsheet and use video editing software to create clips for review.

The 3 camera footage was synced in order to gather observational data.

Using video artifacts for observational research gave participants a more relaxed and natural experience without having to see researchers taking notes.

Additional information was included for future reference.

In total, we collected results from 23 participants.

As we were conducting the research, there were instances where we found participants that were less than ideal. We pursued additional qualified participants to account for those who were questionable.

It’s important to gauge the status of the research study as it’s progressing to understand how to pivot or save the study. If there is a question that is producing poor results, its best to correct it before completing the full study.

With these visual assets, we were able to group instances easily and track targeted behaviors

Final Impact & OUtcomes

Due to the restrictions of the NDA, I am unable to share metrics and full research data.

We delivered our final report which detailed the findings and outcomes of this test. This report was sent to the OEM client for review.

Ultimately, this user research revealed that user behaviors skewed away from needing the functionality of the PART. Our findings led the client to propose a shorter and less extensive cycle test compared to the original requirements saving in costs, labor, and increasing project speed/efficiency.