PARKEEE

Created as a project for a formative study on the HCI-based design thinking process in CSC318 at the University of Toronto.

The general problem that we attempted to address is a common issue for many drivers; being unable to recall where they parked their vehicle within a parking lot. In particular, users may have issues locating their cars in large parking lots where there may not be any markers or memory aids to assist with memory recall. Thus, we wanted to explore how we can help users locate their cars in large shopping mall parking lots when there are no markers around. Our focus was on helping users relocate their cars with ease, and our research study involved investigating the variables that make this memory recollection task more difficult for users.

This research was motivated primarily by shared experiences between the researchers of this study. The members of the research and design team have personally experienced the plight of being unable to remember where they (or an individual they were driving with as a passenger) parked after a long day at work or in school for some, and even just after a short time parked in a large parking lot for others. We figured that being direct stakeholders ourselves, we’d be more invested in finding a solution to this problem.

Additionally, background research describing this problem was accidentally discovered by one of the researchers of this study, which sparked a further investigation into the problem space. For example, research done by The New York Times suggests that forgetting can help us form better understanding, and thus forgetting where you parked may actually be beneficial to us (Boser, 2017). While this seems unintuitive, the suggested reasons and explanations for forgetting where you have parked from a multitude of sources indicate that a lot of research and resources have gone into finding a solution to this problem. It seemed reasonable that developing a solution to this common problem would be beneficial to a large audience of users.

Works Cited Boser, U. (2017, July 1). Forgot Where You Parked? Good. The New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/opinion/sunday/forgot-where-you-parked-good.html

A1 - Formative Studies and Analysis: Vehicle Parking Location Recollection

The first goal of this research study, as articulated in this report, was to discover the obstacles, pain points and difficulties that individual's have with parking, large parking lots, and remembering the location of their parked vehicles.

This document showcases the processes undertaken by the team to complete this primary goal, and consists of several sections containing an in-depth look at the problem, the target users, the field studies used to analyze the problem further, an experiment map and job stories.

Contents:

1. General Problem
2. Persona
3. Field Studies
4. Experience Map
5. Job Stories
6. Design Requirements
7. Appendices

A2 - Design Alternatives and Initial Evaluation Report

The goal of this formal report was to implement the results and discoveries found in the field studies and integrate them into the solution's design as efficiently as possible. Multiple design options were considered over the course of multiple design studio sessions. Using the feedback gathered from each initial design sketch, design alternatives were iterated over until settling to the current low-fidelity design, which is described in this report.

This design is believed to be able to address the needs of users, and this documents consists of two low-fidelity prototypes of this interface; a paper prototype and a collection of storyboards of the different tasks that can be supported by the system's design.

Contents:

1. Design Alternatives
2. Paper Prototype of the Current System Design
3. Storyboards of the Current Design
4. Evaluation of The Low-Fidelity Prototype
5. Lessons Learned and Implications for Design
6. Appendices

A3 - High Fidelity Prototype and Summative Evaluation

Implementation of feedback on solution received from usability tests and peer evaluations in design studio sessions. Iterations were made over previous paper prototype, and issues were identified. Most planning time went into finding ways to improve the design to eliminate the issues presented, while still maintaining a functional and practical solution that would satisfy the necessary job stories, functional requirements, and user experience necessities.

A high-fidelity prototype solution was developed, and was named PARKEEE.

A heuristic evaluation using Nielson's Ten Heuristics as criteria was conducted, and the results were analyzed to determine what other improvements could be made to the solution.

This formal report also includes a link to the interactive high-fidelity prototype and an explanation of how it satisfies the necessary requirements, as well as the evaluation protocol, the results of the heuristic evaluation study, and the subsequent discussion. This document also includes the implications of the study and a critique of the evaluation plan, as well as links to video clips of the study and the prototype application's screens to view in detail.

Contents:

1. High-Fidelity Prototype
2. Evaluation Protocol
3. Results of the Study
4. Discussion and Implications
5. Critique
6. Appendices

All other authors and contributors to this research study are credited within the formal reports as necessary.