WildlifeGo
The Project
This project was for an interaction design class that took the span of 8 weeks to complete and was divided into two "sprints" using the Lean UX method. This an iterative process of coming up with hypotheses based on initial assumptions and refining them based on the evidence gained from analyzing data gathered from user interviews. This method was developed by John Gothelf and Josh Seiden in their 3rd edition book, 'LeanUX: Creating Great Products with Agile Teams'. We used figjam to fill out the lean canvas and figma to build our prototype. I will be going over the work we did during sprint 1 and 2.
Sprint 1
Sprint 1: Design Week 0
This section is all about discovering and understanding the user's needs, goals, and pain points. My team of four created a lean UX canvas, a collaborative board consisting of eight topics put into neat boxes to tackle questions about the goals and expectations of users, customers, and businesses based on assumptions about our product. The WildlifeGo lean canvas would discuss what problems a hypothetical business needs to solve by thinking about the following:
- Why users would benefit from our product
- How we can create a solution that satisfies business and user needs
- How to test out our hypothesis created from our collaborative discussion by a MVP or minimal viable product
Design week 0 insights
I was able to ask important questions about critical topics such as safety, adding a diversity of species in the search functions of the app, and prioritizing which domains to focus on. However, I realized that I had misjudged our target audience in terms of user assumptions. In lean UX, there are no right answers, but I initially misconceived that WildlifeGo would target a younger audience, and while kids can definitely use the app, there are probably more adults who are into exploring wildlife.
Consequently, my assumptions about our customer segment were too narrowly focused. Regardless, me and my other group members ended up creating a persona based on assumptions that serves as a basis for further testing. Filling out the initial lean canvas made our ideas more concrete, made us think about how WildlifeGo would be implemented in ways that would be meaningful to stakeholders and users alike, and served as an initial platform to start formulating the goals for the next steps ahead.
Sprint 1: Week 1
During this week, my team went into our first phase of research. In lean UX, groups typically have daily standups, but due to the scope of the class and the fact that we were students with other commitments, our stand ups were done every other day (Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday). We crafted a very rudimentary minimal viable product of our app idea for user testing based on what features felt more risky to implement in our designs.
During this week’s standup, I created interview questions based on the hypotheses created in week 0. I sent out a user survey using Google Forms and received around 10 responses. Here is what we wanted to gather:
- User's outdoor related hobbies
- How they currently find information about their species of interest
- Their opinions on incorporating gaming and community aspects into these hobbies
- How knowledgeable they are about wildlife and animal identification
- If they've had any difficulty finding and recording information related to identification
First round of interviews: Our first round of interviews included people, typically other college students that had various levels of knowledge in their interests, including a graduate research student and a frequent member of the ecology student organization. There was also two interviewees that were just getting into animal identification too.
During our interviews, we placed emphasis on testing the range map, the identification process, the community projects page, and some gamification aspects included in WildlifeGo. From these interviews, we observed that some users were more interested in the app’s social aspects while others were focused on expanding their knowledge of specific animals. At this point, we decided to refine our apps to cater towards those particular user groups.
Sprint 1: Week 2
At the end of week one, my group had a retrospective meeting, a specialized getharing meant to reflect on the skills and qualities of the team. Each team member got to share their critiques of the project so far. During this meeting, I acknowledged that the interviews were well done with well thought out questions. Our team also did a great job creating a visually accurate prototype that represented our ideas, and the team dynamic was perfect.
I also said that I got better at interviewing and put in a lot of work towards creating interview questions that allowed the user interviews to be comprehensive and full of insightful responses. I especially appreciated the usability questions I developed, which contributed to the overall question pool.
While our project was progressing well, I had some concerns.
- I occasionally talked over interviewees due to being excited about a topic.
- I didn’t explain the pages thoroughly during usability tests.
- I could have organized and expressed thoughts more concisely during affinity mapping after interviews.
I wanted to change some things moving forward such as:
- Asking fewer leading questions
- Writing down any thoughts I have during interviews
- Utilizing “power pauses”
I also wanted to improve my prototyping skills and learn more about Android’s material design UI kit. Overall, our group agreed to revisit our lean canvas, prioritize the homepage map, and place a greater emphasis on structured usability testing.
Sprint 2
Sprint 2 (design week 0)
Revalidating means that an output, a product is put into the world to measure outcomes. In the Lean context, revalidating includes taking a created prototype and reevaluating it by putting the prototype in front of users so a team can measure their interactions and change of behavior with the product.
Upon completing Sprint 1, our group was left with an affinity map brimming with observations and patterns from previous interviews. We needed to analyze this data to examine our hypotheses. Previously in Sprint 1, we agreed on having one proto-persona.A proto-persona is defined by Jeff Gothelf and Josh Seiden as “our best guess as to who is using (or will use) our product and why.” (Lean UX, pg.56).
That proto-persona was Noelle Jones, an extroverted person who wants to share their pictures of wildlife with everyone and gain acknowledgment for their observations. Following our interviews, we discovered another group of interviewees who preferred to keep their wildlife observations to themselves. Consequently, we decided to create a new proto-persona, Craig McKraken. He was more research-oriented and liked to prioritize gathering detailed information and identifying species for the purpose of collecting their observations.
User persona
Noelle Jones
27 yrs old | San Diego, California | Works in sales
Bio
Needs
- Cataloging her observations
- Spend more time with like minded individuals
- Show off interests and accomplishments
Obstacles
- Struggles to identify what species she saw
- Doesn't know where to find people like her
- Doesn't have a place to be acknowledged by others
Craig McKraken
28 yrs old | Portland, Oregon | Engineer
Bio
Needs
- Identify his observations
- Catalogue his observations
- Feeling accomplishes by cataloging observations
Obstacles
- Wants to ensure identification is accurate
- Finding ways to organize and navigate through his findings
- Doesn't care to be acknowledged by others
Sprint 2 (week 1)
At this point, we decided to prioritize refining the homepage map and the identification process for observations. In Sprint 1, the identification camera was considered low risk for this project. However, by Sprint 2, we realized that the accuracy of identifying animals posed the highest risk to our app. Many of the people we tested encountered issues in obtaining accurate observations solely through the camera. Inspired by an idea from an insightful interviewee, we opted for a dichotomous key functions, as the eyes are more reliable than the camera.
For the most part, I was in charge of creating and refining the dichotomous key and the entry pages, allowing users to take a picture and receive a species prediction, similar to the iNaturalist app.
Screens for the identification process
My interview with Stephen (a willing participant).
Sprint 2 (week 2)
During this week, we took our revised MVP with our new map filters, emoji reacts, project pages, and identification key and put in front of users. Interviewees were pleasantly surprised by the identification key, expressing a likelihood of using this helpful feature. Additionally, many people liked the entry pages, although some felt the fun facds card on the page was a little too dry.
- Overall, we had some more work to do on this prototype
- The dichotomous key needed a help button for clarification
- The project pages needed to have more purpose to them
- The app needed to have more challenges
- The entry pages needed more details on places where the species was observed.
- The search and filter functions needed to be expanded on.
Our interviewees had a lot to say in this sprint and we were determined to use their critiques to improve Wildlife Go. For the most part, I was in charge of creating and refining the dichotomous key and the entry pages, allowing users to take a picture and receive a species prediction, similar to the iNaturalist app.
REFINEMENT WEEK
Refinement Week
In the midst of making our refinements, we revised our two personas that we created earlier in Sprint 1 design week 0. Our proto-personas remained consistent despite the significant changes from Sprint 1 week 0 to Sprint 2 week 0. Noelle Joenes transitioned from wanting to meet like minded people to simply desiring a dedicated space to explore her interests in nature. It was good to know that our hypothesis on who Wildlife Go is targeted towards was accurate. We made a lot of progress in the remaining 1-2 weeks we had:
- Updated the identification key by changing the format to help the user get more accurate results by allowing them to select more choices and variations.
- Made the projects more focused towards ecology research funded by local universities and organizations.
- Added more challenges and updated the style of the badges.
- Included more geographical information for the observations on the entry pages.
- Updated the filter to include more specific categories.
- Made a simple and fun logo that fits our concept.
The final designs
At the end of the project, our group had the opportunity to put our hard work in front of our classmates in a special showcase and our app was met with positive reactions, especially with the map homepage. Even in later interviews in sprint 2, users were enthusiastic and stated that they wanted a real app! (It's only a prototype though.)
Last words
This project has made me significantly improve as a designer and as a person as well.
I not only gained technical skills like prototyping and moderating interviews but also developed interpersonal skills such as perseverance, dedication, and becoming a better listener. I realized that even in a group with great dynamics, conflicts can arise in the form of clashing ideas.
- I had an opportunity to defend my designs.: There was a moment where I decided to radically change (within the scope of the project) the dichotomous key in a time where team mates weren’t sure whether to keep it in our project not and changed it into a key with more than two options per question for the sake of accuracy. Eventually, my team agreed that it would be just as or more efficient than a dichotomous key. Justifying your designs is a crucial aspect of working as a UX designer. I was influenced by an older interviewee who tested our app, and I felt it was essential to include their insights.
- I learned to let go: Under tight timelines, I learned to let go of momentary, task-based perfectionism and focus on the gradual progress of a more accurate and useful product that surpassed all my expectations. I usually try to do my best in project, but my perfectionism ironically gets in the way of that goal. This project made me realize that it's okay to show off work even if it's not the best. In some environments, rough drafts are okay, as long as you improve them.
While a project that achieves perfection on the first attempt may seem impressive, there's greater value in an imperfect project that evolves and improves over time.
The methodology of Lean UX was drastically different from the other formats I have worked in, mainly Goal Directed Design (coined by Allen Cooper) and I actually have grown to prefer it simply due to the constant user feedback along the timeline of development. In my opinion, even if a project involves extensive research before usability testing, there is no substitute for testing the product directly with users, and Lean UX embodies that principle. Maybe it’s the fact that this and the projects I had before hand were class projects, so they might be limited in some capacity, but this app felt far more complete than my past project where we had only half of the number of interviews that happened before the prototype was even built.
Our idea of Wildlife go has transformed over time and it was eye opening hearing the thoughts and critiques from average people outside of my major and because of their input, this app became more well rounded as a result on account of constant reprioritizing of different aspects of the features.